Uh, yes, and your point? Do you find it surprising that the current warming trend is most and earliest visible in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, exactly as predicted by those attributing it to CO2 boosting?
No. not funny as you fail to note that not only is Iceaura's post valid but also at high latitudes the temperature volutity is greatly increased. Recently one Alaskan city set new temperature record more than 30 degrees F higher than the old one.
Not sure if I heard it (probably on CNN) or read it some where. I'm not good at searching but will Google a little to see if I can find it. A city called Bettles broke the old high by 8 degrees of 1977 of 25F to 33F in February 2015- from: http://www.adn.com/article/20150223/february-heat-wave-sets-more-alaska-temperature-records That is much less than 30, but still impressive. I will not spend more time. It is possible my memory is wrong.
The equable climate models predict that in a warming world, most warming will be at higher latitudes and altitudes. Based on the limited evidence of previous warmer earth interglacials, the model holds true.
Yep. We've been warming since 1910 or so, when our CO2 contributions became significant enough to increase the amount of heat the planet retains.
Cultists of CO2 keep making it up... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Looks to me like a cooling trend until around 1978. But then again glaciers dont melt in 10 years and the article was from 1922 so... my guess is the melting of the glaciers pre 1922 had NOTHING to do with co2. Cuz it sure wasnt getting warmer 1940 - 1978 while co2 was climbing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Could it possibly be... Just Maybe.. maybe its a natural cycle... Like all these other ones.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your guess would be wrong, since the warming we saw starting in 1910 or so matched the increase in CO2. That's right. It is neither monotonic nor constant. Few complex physical systems are.
That's an error. And your guess is probably a bad one - don't bet any serious money. Odds are a thousand to one against. At best. But it's your money and reputation - step right up. Or if you want to avoid getting suckered yet again, recognize this: You don't know enough to do this kind of guessing. You have no idea what would be a possible "natural cycle" to match this data, for example - it's just a term you use that you think must refer to something relevant. Tip? Find a different collection of sources, some that do not have a track record of lies and deceptions, and pay attention to what they say.
"National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record." http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/ "HARVARD, SYRACUSE RESEARCHERS CAUGHT LYING TO BOOST OBAMA CLIMATE RULES" http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...rs-caught-lying-to-boost-obama-climate-rules/ Whatever.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! More data by factor of two reduces the random error by sq root or 2. Thus "more than two" mean the random variation is reduced by factor of about 1.5 and: The true trend becomes more evident. No "fudging the data" - just a fact of statics. Same reason why the result of 100 coin flips will be much closer to 50% heads than only 10 coin flips will be.. You can test this "square root of n" where n is then number of trials. On average the error from 50% heads with 40 coin flips will be on half as great as with only 10 coin flips. The more data, the closer you get to the truth.
Now you're quoting one of Photizo's spam posts, which is in its entirety the first line from one of deceiver Michael Bastach's contributions to the literature of The Daily Caller, and the headline from a Breitbart article. Those are your chosen sources for information, on which you are basing your opinion or take on a matter of factual reality. Here's a noticeably better informed (i.e. liberal) , take on the a previous article by Bastach in The Daily Caller: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/ Note the key step of talking to the actual scientist who did the actual research. Here's a more or less typical science-related article from the deep thinking Bastach: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/o...al-warming-buys-beachfront-mansion-in-hawaii/ And you haven't completely forgotten what Breitbart's record has been in the area of factual reality, like: what actually happened and what somebody actually said - right? Photizo never even looked at an actual press release from anybody, let alone the study itself. Whether he read past the first line on the blog raving is impossible to tell. Here's the study report, from Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full Sampling: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
