Dr. Inferno: Staggering Drop in Global Temperature!

[Barrett808]

WOW that's the biggest drop in global temperature EVER

Note: Pay attention to the green line in the graph, NOT the red line. The red line will deceive you into thinking the world is warming. It's only there for purposes of illustration later. Please ignore it until then.

The current temperature anomaly for March 2011 has just come in at -0.1C. That's MINUS 0.1C which is below the freezing point of water, so how can the arctic be melting?

The total temperature drop highlighted by the green line is almost as great as the entire warming that occurred since 1900! So much for global warming then! If this continues we will enter an ice age next year!

You might remember being told to focus on a similar drop and minus numbers in 2008. You might even remember how important that event was a sign of things to come. The eminent Joe Bastardi at the time described the 2007-2008 drop as "straight out of the book of climate. The pattern is so much like the 1949-1950 La Nina, which was signaling the start of the reversal of the warming of the earth’s climate in the 1930s, ‘40s and early 50s. Only someone choosing to ignore it, or not wanting to see it, would not be cognizant of it."

I couldn't find the book of climate at the library to confirm his claim, but it certainly rings true with what I want to believe. Besides when heavy weights like Piers Corbyn and David Archibald are predicting the world will cool in coming decades, who can argue? ...

Staggering Drop In Global Temperature

[XemaSab]

1. I love the smell of satire in the morning

:P

[jpak]

2. There are "staggering drops" all through that record - teh fraud!!11 teh fraud!!!1111

:rofl:

[Avant Guardian]

3. Your source is the global warming 'denial depot?'

lol

[Barrett808]

9. Oh, for sure. Check out Dr. Inferno's corrected Arctic Sea Ice Extent graph:

Graph modified so that y-axis reflects range of total surface area of the Earth

That's far more clear. Immediately I am having trouble seeing the sea ice. This is good. If you can't see it, it's not a problem.

The final correction is to do likewise with the x-axis. It is typical of warmists to omit the past even as they try to predict the future. Lets add in the full age span of the Earth:

How To Cook A Graph SkepticalScience.com Style

[LARED]

4. Is this satire or for real? I can't tell. nt

[Buzz Clik]

5. It was cold this morning. Where's yer global warmin now?

[kristopher]

6. This post reminds me that rightwingers take Colbert as being one of them... nt

[Barrett808]

7. "Is Arctic ice decline being caused by microwave radiation emitted from NASA satellites?"

One of my favorite Dr. Inferno revelations:

So is in fact arctic ice decline being caused by sustained subjection of arctic ice by microwave radiation emitted from NASA satellites? Is NASA literally cooking the books (ie ice)? Is it a coincidence that satellite "measurements" of sea ice and temperature both began in 1979, the year in which Jimmy Carter resumed diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China?

NASA, Not Man, Behind Arctic Sea Ice decline

[bluerum]

8. Doh! Last 30 years plotted - even with that drop the best fit shows a .4 degree increase.

[Barrett808]

10. You and your "statistics" -- Here's Dr. Inferno's even more correct way to view the graph

August 2009 Arctic Sea Ice data is just in and it's another nail in the coffin of AGW. Ice is just refusing to melt and continues the pattern of severe growth of recent years. Are we headed into another Ice Age?

Please send this to your senators and congressmen so they will have true information to base decisions on. Perhaps just as they are about to pass some Death Taxes they will see this graph and realize "hang on a second! we're being lied to!"

Arctic Sea Ice: Staggering Growth

[bluerum]

13. I stand corrected - that data has staggering implications for humanity

[wtmusic]

16. Especially in 2005 where time goes backwards briefly.

I wonder what changed its mind?

[Nederland]

15. Yes it does

A 0.4 degree increase over 25 years. If that trend continues, we will see a total rise of 1.44 degrees by 2100. Not exactly the 4 degree rise that alarmists claim, eh?

[bluerum]

17. Catastophic none the less.

[Nederland]

18. Catastrophic?

By what measure? The world has seen that much warming three times in the last 4000 years (Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period) without much consequence. In fact, all of those periods were periods when civilization flourished.

[Barrett808]

19. Keep in mind that humans have introduced an enormous excursion in the global carbon budget

...unlike anything previously in Earth's history. Probably the only comparable event is the Permian-Triassic extinction, and we're dumping carbon into the atmosphere at a rate that's orders of magnitude greater even than the rift volcanism that destroyed the Permian biosphere.

[Viking12]

20. Liar.

[Nederland]

23. Cherrypicker.

Did you really think you could pick the only 6 reconstructions that support your view and not have someone call you on it?



Plus, when posting those graphs can you please note that the black line represents observed temperatures spliced on to the end of proxy dats? At least the original authors of those graphs had the integrity to do that...

Also, let's not cut the graph off just where it gets interesting, ok?

[Viking12]

24. Really? 'CO2 Science' and 'Universal Industrial Gases, Inc.' are your sources?

:spray:

[Nederland]

25. If you have a problem with the data...

...point it out.

[Viking12]

27. What data?

The first graph is not supported by any citations nor any data. The second is a graph from a single spot in Greenland that doesn't pretend to represent either the globe nor the late-20th/early 21st century. You're a joke.

[Nederland]

28. You pointed out the name of the website

...so obviously you know where to go for the data. Just in case that is too hard for you, here is a link: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Now, go to that page and you'll see other links to all the peer reviewed studies broken down by region. If you have a problem with any of the 75+ peer reviewed studies that say the you are wrong, please explain.

[wtmusic]

29. Looks like you found the deniers' version of Westboro Baptist Church

Three brothers who are geologists? Come now.

Although they'd love anyone with legit climatology credentials to review their work, seems no one wants to bother. I've reviewed one piece, which consists of 830 blank pages.

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/epa/CO2ScienceEPAComments_Full.pdf

Highly overrated. :D

[Viking12]

31. Yep. Not much difference between the two.

Denier cult.

[Nederland]

32. Still waiting

Give me the name of one of the peer reviewed studies you find objectionable and explain why. Vague hand waving will convince no one.

[wtmusic]

33. I find 830 blank pages objectionable.

There. :D

Seriously - none of their peers are qualified to review anything about climatology. They were geography majors in college (though they're completely out of their realm with global warming, they're probably very good at naming the mountain ranges in Italy).

Anyone qualified in climatology wouldn't waste their time reviewing that tripe.

Show me a climatologist-reviewed study (I don't think you can) and I'd be happy to discuss. Anything else is a waste of time.

[Viking12]

30. Not one of those articles say I'm wrong.

That you have no idea why they don't is why you link to a denier site.

Hint: Camp Century is NOT a representation of the global temperatures.

[NickB79]

21. Yeah, because we all know climate change happens in a predictable fashion

:eyes:

It's not like there are tipping points or positive-feedback mechanisms or anything that could add a little curve to your straight-line estimations.

[Nederland]

22. Are you saying climate change is unpredictable? (nt)

[hatrack]

11. The fiendish cunning of George Soros - - is there no limit to his power?!?!

:rofl:

[Odin2005]

12. Satire WIN!!! Somebody should show that to the Denialist regulars at Jeff Master's Blog.

[Kurovski]

14. A satellite! Wow.

Can it see ladies in bikinis?

[wtmusic]

26. The red arrow is longer, so it wins. nt