Why is it So Cold Right Now? (Polar Vortex)

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... As to my question what has the global temperature done since 2015 ? Up or down?

The global temperature has risen and fallen since 2015.

Global temperatures in 2018 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.83 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Globally, 2018's temperatures rank behind those of 2016 (highest), 2015 (second highest), and 2017 (third highest). The past five years are, collectively, the warmest years in the modern record.

Which means that 2017 and 2018 were cooler than the previous 2 years, but still warmer than 2014 and earlier.

2018 Fourth Warmest Year in Continued Warming Trend, According to NASA, NOAA
➥ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/

➥ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201812

➥ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...final_feb6.pdf

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The global temperature has risen and fallen since 2015.

Global temperatures in 2018 were 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.83 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Globally, 2018's temperatures rank behind those of 2016 (highest), 2015 (second highest), and 2017 (third highest). The past five years are, collectively, the warmest years in the modern record.

Which means that 2017 and 2018 were cooler than the previous 2 years, but still warmer than 2014 and earlier.

2018 Fourth Warmest Year in Continued Warming Trend, According to NASA, NOAA
➥ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/

➥ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201812

➥ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...final_feb6.pdf

here goes
The first link goes to a NASA site that just says it with no data to back it up ( links don't work)
2) the NOAA site I find suspect due to false data points.
( see graphic on Africa )https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...a/africa.shtml

How can they get surface temperatures when there are no stations ?

The third is a Pdf file with the same issues as the second one.

Here is the graphic from the UAH and a link to the actual monthly data from 1979 to present.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I disagree. You brought up his associations due to the fact you can not validly contradict the science . So you attempted to discredit the scientist.

I brought up his associations because it does confirm that Dr Spencer has a relationship with at least one organization which itself gets funding from oil companies. Something you insist hasn't happened.


But mostly because it bugs you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I brought up his associations because it does confirm that Dr Spencer has a relationship with at least one organization which itself gets funding from oil companies. Something you insist hasn't happened.


But mostly because it bugs you.

so you do it for personal reasons ok

Just an fyi it doesn't bother me . After all this time I thought you would have at least learned that point .

[GordMay]

OK, I think I get it. Unlike yours, NASA's statements are not trustworthy, and NOAA just outright lies.

... How can they get surface temperatures when there are no stations ?...

What are you talking about? I see 257 Stations.
☞ https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...nal/itf/Td.png

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I brought up his associations because it does confirm that Dr Spencer has a relationship with at least one organization which itself gets funding from oil companies.

True. And I have a (volunteer) relationship with my local animal shelter which also gets funding from oil cos. (big part of the state economy). What's your point? (as if we didn't already know ).

Something you insist hasn't happened.

Not true. A relationship? Yes. Funding for research? No. Renumeration for consultant services or honorariums for speeches? No evidence presented.

Aren't you the same L-E who's been bemoaning the smear tactics and lack of honesty from certain media outlets? Does "higher standard" really just mean "double standard?"

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

OK, I think I get it. Unlike yours, NASA's statements are not trustworthy, and NOAA just outright lies.

What are you talking about? I see 257 Stations.
☞ https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...nal/itf/Td.png

yes and look at the large areas with no sensors but they post heating on the graphic that they post in those areas.
From your links . Explain the temperatures that are in areas with no sensors .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Aren't you the same L-E who's been bemoaning the smear tactics and lack of honesty from certain media outlets? Does "higher standard" really just mean "double standard?"

Sorry, I was just playing a newhaul wordgame, where those rules get relaxed. Sauce for the goose...

When I encounter honesty, I usually respond with same.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, I was just playing a newhaul wordgame, where those rules get relaxed. Sauce for the goose...

When I encounter honesty, I usually respond with same.

Unless, apparently, it involves a well known skeptic of climate science. That's the "double" part when it comes to your professed "high standard." Your unfounded smear that Spencer was taking oil money from Heartland had nothing to do with Newhaul. As you yourself often preach, there are more honest and thus convincing ways to get a point across. Other advocates of the validity of MMCC do it here all the time.

Why does it always seem to be the ones who cast the first stones?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unless, apparently, it involves a well known skeptic of climate science. That's the "double" part when it comes to your professed "high standard." Your unfounded smear that Spencer was taking oil money from Heartland had nothing to do with Newhaul. As you yourself often preach, there are more honest and thus convincing ways to get a point across. Other advocates of the validity of MMCC do it here all the time.

Why does it always seem to be the ones who cast the first stones?

It was a stupid word game, like our mutual friend likes to play. Oil funds Heartland, Heartland pays Spencer. No lies. But of course it's not telling the real story either.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It was a stupid word game, like our mutual friend likes to play. Oil funds Heartland, Heartland pays Spencer. No lies. But of course it's not telling the real story either.

More indictment by insinuation? What "real story?" Do tell please, or refrain from continuing to libel the guy. No matter though, it's all about the integrity and reliability of his data anyway, and that's not something that has been scientifically discredited. So because his data is a thorn in the side of the "consensus," and you don't have the expertise or wherewithal to challenge it, you attack the person instead? The UAH data and its methodology have been around for 40 years. It resides at a public university, presumably for all to see. It uses NASA satellites. It's results seem consistent with the only other, independently managed sat-based dataset out there, and one which relies on the same satellites. It's a legitimate target, to be sure, of the entire mainstream climate science community who seems to rely mostly on the terrestrial data. But all we have is the Cornwall Declaration and the guy's affiliation with the Heartland Institute? It doesn't prove the dataset is any more or less reliable or credible. It just seems lame.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It was a stupid word game, like our mutual friend likes to play. Oil funds Heartland, Heartland pays Spencer. No lies. But of course it's not telling the real story either.

here is an interview that answered several questions
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...rnment-funding

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here is an interview that answered several questions
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...rnment-funding

Right on point:

"No skeptical scientist I’m aware of is funded by Big Oil. No skeptical scientist I know of denies either climate change or that humans probably have some influence on climate."

Nevertheless, here's how the "debate" is framed by the media, and of course parroted amongst laymen. Sound familiar?

"The debate is typically described with two extremes: “real” scientists warning us of an inevitable climate catastrophe, versus “deniers” who won’t accept scientific truth and [who] spread disinformation as part of a heavily funded campaign by Big Oil."

The problem with such simplistic extremes is that it misses a lot of other, more nuanced scientific opinions, especially when the focus is on 30-year avg. temperature baselines from recent times.

"We must keep in mind there is good evidence the climate system was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago, so it is not even obvious how much of the modest warming we are seeing now is actually due to human greenhouse gas emissions versus part of some natural cycle in the climate system."

And for those still unable to understand the distinction between the more conventional bias resulting from corruption, and institutional bias created from large amounts of govt funded research.

"As a former government employee, I can say this isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s just the way government works. Virtually all climate research now simply assumes climate change is almost entirely human-caused, and if a scientist has a theory about it being even partly naturally caused, he or she can forget about getting that research funded."

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

More indictment by insinuation? What "real story?" Do tell please, or refrain from continuing to libel the guy. No matter though, it's all about the integrity and reliability of his data anyway, and that's not something that has been scientifically discredited...

As Robert & I've previously pointed out, Spencer/UAH doesn't have any unique data - they all use the same input data.
What Spencer/UAH has, is his own unique interpretation of that data, which has been extensively critiqued, by others.
It seems to come down to a matter of opinion, with Spencer/UAH being the outlier.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

yes and look at the large areas with no sensors but they post heating on the graphic that they post in those areas.
From your links . Explain the temperatures that are in areas with no sensors .

“At 11 a.m. MT Saturday, the coldest spot in Canada was –41.2 C at Teepee Creek, Alta. ( just east of Grande Prairie) while the warmest spot in the country was Vancouver Harbour at 1.8 C.” Teepee Creek is about 1,190 km (740 Mi.) NE Of Vancover.
☞ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ings-1.5012883

This would seem to support Newhaul’s implied assertion (if I understand him correctly) that 257 weather stations is not sufficient to accurately gauge Africa’s average temperature.

Meanwhile Wind batters B.C.'s South Coast ☞ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...vice-1.5012922