 RealClimate: Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by HalfEnvironmental | 207853 hits | Nov 15 8:17 am | Posted by: DrCaleb  RealClimate: A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill theCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Judith Curry is having fun with the paper,
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncer ... data-sets/
noting that the methods they use to estimate the missing data are not exactly suited in the particular circumstances of polar temperatures:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11 ... magic.html
Who knew?
Sometimes I post stuff like this just to recall that denial isn't just a river in Egypt anymore.
The Royal Meteorological Society is a "Warmist Blog"?
Um, no, what you linked to is a blog.
http://www.rmets.org/news
That link is the Royal Meteorological Society's website.
The Royal Meteorological Society is a "Warmist Blog"?
Um, no, what you linked to is a blog.
http://www.rmets.org/news
That link is the Royal Meteorological Society's website.
The story, and similar ones posted in places like 'The Guardian' are all based on a new study by the RMS. It's actually the first sentence in the article... "A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows " which links to the study at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract
"Warmist" is now going to be added to the list of made-up words that I believe should get a person viciously laughed out of the room for, up there with "Prog", "-tard", and "Feminazi".
You inadvertently created a new word: .
Congratulations!
Well, seeing as you're using a warmist blog to reference that, I think it's fair to use a blog from the other side in reply.
Judith Curry is having fun with the paper,
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncer ... data-sets/
noting that the methods they use to estimate the missing data are not exactly suited in the particular circumstances of polar temperatures:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11 ... magic.html
It's not a blog, it's a peer-reviewed paper.
So no, it's not equitable to respond by snarky blog posts.
I read the paper, but it's all statistics that's out of my league. While I can see the reasoning for a bias due to incomplete temperature coverage, I also know that application of statistical interpolation and other techniques can multiply existing uncertainties, until the noise swamps the signal.
That said, certainly the sea ice extent hasn't shown the same pause as the global annual temperature.
It's a blog put out by activist scientists like James Hansen, William O Donnel and Gavin Shmidt to push the warmist cause. Warmist, btw is at least as old a term as Denier, and older than definition changes like the new warmist definition for the word Pollution which now means whatever the new faith of Warmism decides it means. Take the odorless, invisible, benign, essential for life on earth, natural plant fertilizer we all exhale called Carbon dioxide for instance. The new warmist definition for that one is pollution.
Real Climate is a blog, but it will consider certain studies that help propagandize its cause. So if we are accepting such stories as news, you guys on the other side will of course not complain when I post a story on the front page news from the ten times as popular climate blog WattsUpWithThat on a study supporting climate skepticism, will you. Feel free to step right up and agree to that one, or tell me again why RealClimate is not a blog, when without Googling it I can tell you the search term RealClimate will return you thousands of pages.
The fact it covers scientific studies is nothing WUWT does not do.
RealClimate didn't publish the study.
If the very same study were noted on World Net Daily it would be instantly discredited and denounced as propaganda because of the source.
RealClimate has as much gravitas with skeptics as WND has with leftists.
RealClimate didn't publish the study.
If the very same study were noted on World Net Daily it would be instantly discredited and denounced as propaganda because of the source.
RealClimate has as much gravitas with skeptics as WND has with leftists.
It would never make WND. Not enough aliens.
How about the exact same story, republished by The Guardian? Is that better?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ed-by-half
Why does it always take 1 page of ad Hominem arguments to get people to focus on the message and not the messenger?
RealClimate didn't publish the study.
You did not link to the study. You linked to a blog post from Stefan at Real Climate.
Here is the link to the WuWT story on the same study.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/c ... ful-in-it/
One likes the study, the other does not, but which blog is news.
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences ... al-warming
The Weather Channel?
http://www.weather.com/news/science/env ... t-20131114
Global News?
http://globalnews.ca/news/967058/resear ... ing-pause/
ARS Techinca?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/ ... estimated/
RealClimate didn't publish the study.
You did not link to the study. You linked to a blog post from Stefan at Real Climate.
Here is the link to the WuWT story on the same study.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/c ... ful-in-it/
One likes the study, the other does not, but which blog is news.
They linked to the study. Studies can be boring and technical for most people, and if a dozen other news sites publish the exact same thing, is it not news?
Can we stop attacking the messenger now?