Blatant deception in NOAA percentiles graph

If you go to this NCDC NOAA page there are a couple of graphs on it:

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/1

 

One has actual numbers for temperatures on it:

 

 

 

The other uses undefined percentile bins:

Why backradiation has no warming effect

We are told by greenhouse theorists that backradiation from the sky warms the ground -- 33C warmer than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect. In greenhouse theory, backradiation from the sky is recycled and counted again. For example:

 

NASA "radiation budget", or as I call it: "how to count energy twice"

 

Some insist that it's not the backradiation that does the warming, it's that light (EMR) is "slowed down" or "trapped" by the greenhouse layer. But even if EMR is trapped optically by the greenhouse gas layer it continues on its merry way in an energy sense.

Even if EMR is trapped by absorption, every photon that is absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer is matched by one that is emitted. This must be so per Kirchhoff's Law, unless the gas layer is changing in temperature. It will change in temperature from time to time, but not overall, not in a way that energy can be gained.

Only one 20 yr period of warming correlation to CO2 output

@350SantaBarbara @tan123 @billmckibben @JeffreyGoldberg Only one 20yr warming period '78-'98 matches human CO2 output pic.twitter.com/DEPaEvuQWp
— Paul Clark (@CarbonFooledYa) January 16, 2014

Not much correlation between Arctic temp and sea ice loss

We are told that runaway global warming is causing the sea ice loss at the North Pole. Although, like the rest of the world, Arctic warming stopped in 1998, the point in time when Arctic sea ice loss really took off. And such warming is pretty small anyway.

If you take the data from UAH and RSS for 60 degrees north to 82.5 degrees north and put it next to the sea ice loss, there's not much (inverse or reverse) correlation:

Quick critique of comments from Age article

Here's a quick critique of a few comments from The Age article:

 

Lack of accountability clouding the climate change debate

 

 

The Age is a heavily warmist Fairfax paper, with a following among the trendy latte sipping libaratchicks of inner city Melbourne.  The vast majority of comments, maybe 90%+ are warmist.

The article is by John Mclean and is critical of the IPCC.

Denier land: Climate justice for all

My next SkS inspired video parody of AGW. This was out in time for Australia Christmas eve; this post still in time for North America Christmas eve. Please enjoy your Christmas eve entertainment:

 

 

So far I have 27 views on it.  Not long before it reaches the 17,000 views of my first video...

 

It's also interesting to note that until recently my comments were automatically approved on WUWT, now they're back to pre-moderation only. (Perhaps it's the thread. Moderated only on "Tips and Tricks"?)

(Update 15 Feb 2014. No, my WUWT comments are still auto-approved. Seems you need approval always for comments on the static pages, such as "Tips and Tricks")

More fun with bizarre warmist rant

Is it a product of education? I'm 39 years old and I'm guessing almost every warmist is younger than me...sounds like it anyway. I voted Green when I was young too.

 

I guess today's generation had the hyper-left wing indoctrination in school, particularly about climate change.
 

I imagine these comments are copyright NBC, but by linking to the article it should get me out of trouble. Here's the article:

 

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds?threadId=3893793&commentId=81053462#c81053462

 

Here's the comment from StrengthInNumbers (a suitably Hitler Youth style of name); I couldn't think of a comment that was more wrong, and out of touch with reality. (Click image to enlarge and scroll through images.)

Wishful thinking distorts trendline on Greg Laden article?

 

Update: see below.

Update 2: Damn, Tamino critiques my post and wins, forces humiliating retraction from me (you can clearly see I've put a question mark at the end of the title now).  I now admit I don't know if the trendline by "ThingsBreak" was a case of wishful thinking or not. I suspected it was, but after reading Tamino's post I'm not so sure.  More below.

Update 3: Turns out this Tamino guy has authored a book on statistics. He proved I was out of my depth on the trendline issue, and suitably damaged my claim of a bogus one. Well done Tamino.

I tried to make an honest recontruction of that trend line; unfortunatley my only tool was Excel 2007 and the functions in it are limited.

I've read several of Tamino's posts over the years and been generally disappointed with them; also had my comments not approved by moderation. This particular post was quite good, though, and educational for me.

==========

This is curious. A new Greg Laden article on ScienceBlogs.com:

 

How to not look like an idiot

 

..where Laden argues cold doesn't mean lack of global warming, has an odd graph in it.  Look at the red trendline:

 

A warmist links to insurance claims to prove AGW

 

I still like to argue with warmists on the internet, even though it's becoming more apparent that we're speaking two different languages.

 

Warmists like to claim the scientific high ground, saying things like: there's a 97% consensus, or "climate change is real and happening now!". But it's apparent that the science doesn't really matter to warmists.

 

A good example of this is in this latest Huffington post article:

 

Sorry Climate Change Skeptics: Arctic Melting Trend Continues Despite Milder Year

 

 

 

When any and all climate data can be interpreted as AGW, as in the above article, then it's not science that's being done, but a confidence trick.

 

One thing I've seen from warmists is confusing CO with CO2. Both come out of a car exhaust, but only one kills you. This is from "Demetris G", in the comments section of the above article. I like the first rebuttal from "Robert W".

More warmist stupidity -- CO2 is "pollution"

Again CO2 is confused with real pollution in a comment by a warmist.

 

Now, according to the convoluted AGW theory, CO2 is pollution because it causes dangerous warming. But there's no direct harm of CO2 on humans or animals -- even the IPCC would admit to that. But as usual a warmist lives in his own fantasy and is quite happy making up any old claptrap, no matter how unscientific. He claims CO2:
 

"..harms the health of citizens.."

Wow. The whole quote from Phillip Givens is below, from this Forbes article. It's the last comment of the article at the moment on page 40 of the comments. (Screen shot).

My video that went viral!

I address the criticism.

Wow! Well that was unexpected! My little 2 minute video parody of Skeptical Science's "step-wise graph" went viral.

I only advertised it once with a single tweet:

 

 (I called it bad as in lousy, but people loved it!)

Jon Faine's foolish unproductive Bjorn Lomborg interview

Jon Faine is a master at creating the conversational environment he wants. Bjorn Lomborg has enough to say on the topic -- he easily could have been the sole guest for the whole hour, probably two. Instead a couple of clueless greenies were allowed to dominate and drown out Lomborg for most of the hour.

Bjorn's earlier radio interview with Newcastle ABC was better.  It was only about 10 minutes long but so much more productive than the later Faine interview. He actually had a chance to make his point in a clear and concise way. I couldn't find a link to the audio, the print intro is here.

More warmists lack of grasp of science

Nine months ago warmist "aria" made a comment on a page about polar bears that claims:

"..polar bears are much smaller then they used to be since they have less food because of the global warming,"

Nine months ago is recent enough to be well aware that polar bear numbers have increased in recent years. The slight decrease in floating Arctic ice, that's often portrayed as a sign of Armageddon by warmists, actually enhances polar bear's main prey, seals (more below).
 

I should admit at first I thought she made that up herself, but it's just another wacky claim from warmist scientists to add to the long list of things global warming does.

Hah, comments for IPCC YouTube video pulled after just four days

It was only up for about four days and the comments have already been pulled on this latest IPCC scare video. There were about 60 comments last time I looked, and most were sceptical.

 

 

Several comments, mine included, pointed out the fraud at 2:05 of the video: