Dedicated To Laz and Co


I recently wrote a little post,  A Visual Assist —- Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!

You see, The Hockey Schtick found a little jewel hidden in NASA’s web site.  It was a graphic adaption from a Cosimo paper.  The graphics sucked because one could hardly read it, it was so pale.  So, being selfless civic minder person that I am, I decided to darken and contrast it, so everyone could see what the Hockey Schtick was talking about. 




I made very little commentary.  I mostly reaffirmed what is commonly known by rational people.  Well, no good deed goes unpunished.  A couple of warmist dingbats came by left their slimy ooze on my post.  Apparently, they objected to the title of the post.  Because after 3, 4, 5, ….. well however many revisions of whichever data set (take your pick) has finally erased these arctic temps, Laz and uknow believe the 5th version of the Gospel of James Hansen to be truth, just like they did the 4th, and the 3rd, ……  I’m not sure if they understand that people laugh at their understanding of truth or not. 

For the record, that graph is derived from a paper written by a fellow named COMISO!                                                                             HIS PAPER IS RIGHT HERE—-> Wave(Link to pdf is here.)  Wave <—  HIS PAPER IS RIGHT HERE!!!

Within the paper, you find it has cool things such as references.  While it may be different on warmist blogs, I make the assumption people can and will read for themselves.  I don’t often explicitly state things because again, I assume the average reader here has at least some cognitive abilities.  This assumption has been shown to be, to a very large extent, correct.  That is until tweedle dum and dumber showed up. 

Did I tell you that they objected to the title?  Apparently, because no data set has extended the data set COMISO used to present day, they assume that the arctic can’t be cooler today than in the 30s.  In fact, they seem to insist that it isn’t.

Now, I made it a point in the prior post to criticize splicing and comparing unlike things.  Of course, this is how Hansen, Jones, and the gang now handle their global temps, particularly when referencing arctic temps.   Cosimo warned against such validity, as well.  Still, it is a compelling question.  By looking at the graph above, we can easily see (thanks to be black line I drew) that the 5 year running avg was 1/2 K below the late 1930s.  Now, I suppose it is possible for the arctic to have warmed 1/2 K on average, over the last 11 years. 

Now, I wouldn’t normally do this, but because they insist, for entertainment value alone, we’ll see if the arctic has warmed that much or not over the last 11 years.

Let’s look at satellite data, because I don’t like the constant revisions and homogenizations our thermometers continually go through, including the ones 75 years ago.  So, go here.  This is a link to UAH data. 

Here, I started in Dec 2001 for continuity sake. 



This graph is as titled.  This is monthly data from Dec 2001 to present.  I’ve added a trend line (red) and then the 60 month(5yr) moving average, just like the graph from COSIMO.  I’ll lighten the monthly line to clear the noise and then splice the data on just like Mikey would do!  Thumbsup   I’ll line up the graph to show the width of 10+years, and align the anomaly axis to match Cosimo’s.  Then I’ll lay them next to each other and anyone can see what’s what.


Okay, well, as I’ve said in the past, I’m not a graphics guy, looks like I missed the zero axis by about 1/10th or 1/20th of a degree.  this isn’t any big deal because even if you add 1/10th to it, we can plainly see that the arctic temps haven’t risen enough to be higher than what it was in the 30s according to Cosimo.  It’s just that simple. 

Now, for the sake of clarity and replicability, it seems I used the data under the “No Pol”.  The trend was ~ 0.03/yr for the 12.5 years.  So, if we did like the warmists do, we’d say that the arctic, after adding the recent arctic temps, is still colder than what it was in the late 1930s. 

But, I’m not a warmist, so we can say that it probably is, but we don’t really know.  And, neither does anyone else. 


This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Dedicated To Laz and Co

  1. Well, now let’s be honest: If they had any reading comprehension skills they wouldn’t be what they clearly are. QED.

  2. Bruce says:

    Gleckler et al 2012 came out recently along with press releases saying that sea surface temperatures rose due to human caused global warming. There was great wailing and teeth gnashing in the CAGW community with cries its worse than we thought, the world must accept totalitarian government or we’ll all die before Thanksgiving (ok, ok, slightly satirical here, but the wailing was very noisy).

    Then if you actually looked at their data you found this: SST average temperatures rose by 0.022 – 0.028 C per decade for the last 50 years.

    For a grand total of about 0.125 C. In sixty years, during which pCO2 rose from 310 to 385 ppmV (the study finished in 2010).

    If you calculate what 0.125 means if it was all due to CO2, it comes out like this:

    2XCO2 = (0.125 x log(2)) / (log(385) – log(310)) = 0.4 C/doubling

    This empirical value for climate sensitivity is even lower than arch-sceptics Lindzen & Choi found. Of course the ocean has a lagged response, but for the IPCC value of 3 C to be correct then a full 87% of the heat absorbed by the oceans in the last 50 years would have to be hiding somewhere. Or you can apply some Occam and say, yes, empirical climate sensitivity is actually quite low, the CAGW crowd are wrong and the heat went up and out, not down.

    And in other words a paper which was intended to show human beings are causing catastrophic global warming showed exactly the opposite.

    And I say to Lazarus and any others reading this: get over it. There is abundant data showing the ’30’s were hot, as was the RWP and the MWP. So what? If empirical 2XCO2 is so low there’s absolutely no way we humans can increase the world temperature by more than a degree or so. Meanwhile plants are growing like crazy in the increased pCO2. Why is this bad?

    • suyts says:

      It always fascinated me to be called a science denier when we weren’t the ones claiming that heat lowers and hides and lurks for the opportune time to strike it’s deadly blow!

      The reason why this is bad is because it blows up their totalitarian Misanthropist ideology. Way back when, it was people like Laz and uknow, that caused me to be a skeptic. They spent an enormous amount of time wailing and crying like you described above. Saying woe is we! We’ve doomed ourselves! But, when a bit of solid evidence comes to note, they don’t celebrate the fact that humanity might not be doomed. They don’t even look into the evidence themselves. They simply reject it out of hand and attack the messenger of good news. Well, exactly like they behaved with me.

      The fact is, they don’t care about science, facts, or evidence. They care about continuing the assault on humanity.

      I did offer to post any proof they had that I had posted something incorrect….. crickets chirping.

  3. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:

    • DirkH says:

      Laz, you keep beating the “cherry picking an area” horse. So you insist that there cannot be Polar Amplification, and that the climate models are bunk?

    • suyts says:

      Lol, Laz, you’re arguing against a strawman and you don’t even realize it.

    • suyts says:

      Lol, Yeh, I cherry picked giving a visualization to what the Hockey Schtick was stating. If Laz had an operating synapse, then he’d realize I didn’t pick any of it. But, he doesn’t have one, so we’re stuck with is irrational arguments against statements I never made.

      • Lazarus says:

        “I did offer to post any proof they had that I had posted something incorrect….. ”

        Is this clear enough for you or do you need it re-writing with shorter words?
        Can I expect a correction or just more scientific illiterate nonsense?

      • suyts says:

        You want me to address what I believe to be a invalid technique? Okay, how’s this, …….. you’ve demonstrated why this is invalid. Following your technique one can easily see the step bias introduced on the spliced graphed. I’m a bit busy right now, but, I’ll demonstrate the step you’ve artificially introduced if and when I’ve time. In the mean time, your link will suffice for anyone who wishes to go look.

  4. Pingback: A Glimpse Into The Mind Of An Alarmist…. A Case Study! | suyts space

  5. Pingback: A Response To Lazarus’ Criticism | suyts space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s