"Headline of the day" Topic

"Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists"

From here:
link

Consider the source…

Is that website run by people who don't understand how numbers work?

Month by month we will see temperature variations up and down, because that's how weather works.

The AVERAGE is getting hotter however.

There is absolutely no reason why 2017 could not indeed be colder (if that is the case), while still maintaining a trend of overall heating.

In Danish schools, we covered how averaging numbers worked in 4th or 5th grade.
Is that not covered in the United States until university?

Tamino does deals with the issue here link

But it's with regards to the "brain" droppings from David Ross.

Summing up

That extreme high was due, in part, to something called el Niño. It doesn't create heat out of nothing, but it does increase heat transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere. That makes the atmosphere hotter, at the expense of the oceans, and that's why an el Niño event raises surface temperature, especially atmospheric temperature, without adding more heat to the earth, just by moving it around. So yes, this year's record-breaking heat is due, in part, to el Niño.

But not entirely. We've had el Niño events before, many times — they're regular occurences — and they cause a peak in global surface temperature (especially in the atmosphere). But during this particular el Niño, temperature reached a higher peak than any other el Niño. David Rose wants you to think that it's because this el Niño was stronger than the others, but that's simply not true. It's because this el Niño-induced peak was added on top of a hotter starting point, a hotter baseline than the others. That hotter baseline came about because of the warming trend — the one that's due to global warming.

[…]

David Rose cherry-picked the one data set (out of dozens of global temperature data sets) with the biggest post-el Niño decline. He didn't even show you all of that data set, just cherry-picked the part that didn't make the warming trend obvious. He turned his focus, not on the trend even for that limited data, but on a pair of recent fluctuations. He suggested that an extreme up being followed by an extreme down was somehow evidence that the recent peak is only due to el Niño, that mankind's emissions aren't involved.

Seriously — how stupid does he think you are?

At this point, I'm waiting for people to start watering their crops with sports drinks because it has electrolytes and plants crave it…

link

Again, having global warming return to its past trend line after getting JATO bottle up the rear (read, el nino) is a) Not even surprising, since it's happened after previous el nino, and b) the trend line in warming is quite clear and after a decade, a record year is merely a warm or average year.

Case in point, here's the warming that we see from the El Nino:

And here's the warming attributable to thew warming trend over the past 40 years:

Which box is bigger???? Its the trend.

I suppose this raises the question of what exactly it is that Deniers believe?

Is it that it is impossible for humans to affect the climate?

If so, what do you base that on?

Is it that it is possible we could but we haven't yet?

If so, at what point of human activity would trigger it? Where do you get this number from?

Is it that the effects of climate change are not enough to be worried about?

If so, what degree WOULD be enough to worry about?

All of the above! They come in many flavours.

Including: global warming is happening, it's man made, we can negate it. But we won't because I don't want to make 1% less profits.

Breitbart…. That scion of journalistic integrity… NOT!

Spot on, Gunfreak!

Seriously — how stupid does he think you are?

In the case of David Rose (and his fellow hacks), pretty damned stupid… (Unfortunately, in the case of the vast unwashed (you know, the ones who think reality TV is actually real and that pro-wrestling isn't staged and watch the Kardasians religiously), he may be actually OVER estimating their intellect)…..

Martin,

If I plot those inputs from your chart and use a 10% instead of a 0.5 degree chart…

I would line up with a straight line.

So your charts are basically made to induce shock in the Climate Changers.

I suppose this raises the question of what exactly it is that Deniers believe?

Basically that Global Warming/Climate Change is not happening.

As I've said repeatedly, with climate change, you're only interested in a very narrow band of temperatures. Subtract 4.5 degrees C from the current global average temperature, and there was a Km of ice over Boston, and said ice was helping form Long Island…

Would you use a thermometer that goes from 1 to 100 and graduated every fifth degree? Of course not, since healthy body temperature varies in a very narrow band. If you're consistently measuring 20 degrees C on a patient, either you're misapplying the thermometer, or your patient is about to see a coroner rather than a doctor or a surgeon

Martin, don't feed the troll.

If I plot those inputs from your chart and use a 10% instead of a 0.5 degree chart…

I would line up with a straight line.

Mithmee-

What you are suggesting would be deliberately misleading. You would manipulate the scale of the chart's axis in order to hide the facts from the reader.

So your charts are basically made to induce shock in the Climate Changers.

The purpose of a chart is to illustrate a data set. In this particular case it is temperature change over time. The red line is the trend.

While charts can be made to misrepresent the facts, Martin's charts accurately represent the data.

Here's a link that discusses and illustrates how a chart can be misinterpreted.

link

LOL! Since when did the "Science" board become a refuge for secular religious discussion??