El Ni�o devastates coral reefs in Pacific Ocean | The Ring

?And then we wept': Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached

Yes, but we're in a cooling trend, climate change is just a communist cornspiracy, so after the aberration of El Nino things will get back to normal and it will be all good.

No one said this year wasn't hot, and not unlike the El Nino of 1998. And just so no one will tell me I don't look at the data, below is ALL the surface weather stations data from USHCN network. Not cheery picked, not 'selected' for any reason..the total data set.

I still don't like surface weather stations, way to much variability.








https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/dat ... ushcngiss/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEcnJFTxQcU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnsyXJH0oI

Funny thing is, the only newspaper in Queensland (where the reef is) not only misquotes David Attenborough on this, but they pretty much ignore the story all together.

Oddly, the paper is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch. Hmmmmmmmm.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/new ... 7288003133

Actually Steven Goddard says it isn't hot.

What, no response? Looks like I win the Internet debate! Yes! I am so proud.

don't need to respond, the data speaks for itself, I am sure some of these climate alarmist are starting to take a look around at the ENTIRE data set, and not say ignoring half of it, or manipulating the other half of it that is clearly outlined in the post I presented above.

I stand by my comments, the data ALL OF IT is posted with no manipulation or 'corrections' that are not valid. The trend is essentially FLAT.

So the assertion that CO2 emissions is resulting in dangerous warming is complete and utter bullshit.

I've shown you the Berkeley Earth project before. They took all sorts of data sets, threw away anomalies, and came up with this:





http://berkeleyearth.org/

You can believe whatever you wish to, but that belief is not backed up by any facts. The average temperature is rising, and it's in direct correlation to CO2 emissions and not with any natural phenomenon.

yeah I believe the raw data, and that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is only a trace gas, 400 ppm is trace amounts, 30,000 ppm of water vapor lets try that instead. This is complete and utter fraud.

The raw data is published on their site. http://berkeleyearth.org/source-files/

You are a physicist. You therefore know that data doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it still exists just the same.

And Richard Meuller, the founder of Berkeley Earth founded it to prove Climate Change was not real. He soon woke up to the reality.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... .html?_r=0

after all the miss information being published, I did my own analysis. I stand by my conclusions. there is no warming. Nothing you say will change that view, I did the work myself. So you can go along banging your drum, allowing policy makers to draft legislation and increase taxes on something that doesn't exist.

You can read whatever you want, it isn't going to change my mind.

Fair enough.

Trying hard to stay out of this, but somebody has to point out the obvious question.

Aren't you two arguing about different datasets for different regions?

Isn't Goddard's main graph that was posted for America? It's not just Goddard who pointed out how Hansen at GISS minimized the older data for America and increased the more recent.

The other graph UWish posted is USHCN ( United States Historical Climatology Network). Isn't that also exclusively American temps?

Doc is showing us Global temps of which there is a generally agreed upon long range warming trend of about 1.5 degrees or so over about a hundred and fifty years.

The Best Graph looks like it's been smoothed or something. Generally when you see that trend represented it happens in steps of 20 to 30 year trends rising, flattening out, or decreasing in shorter bursts but rising overall long range in step levels globally over the last 150 years. I never got the impression 1.5 warming over 150 years was that big a deal though. Especially when you consider it starts at the end of a 400 year cooling trend sometimes called the 'little ice age.'

I know what an anomaly is graphically speaking. I'm not sure what exactly is meant by throwing them away. I assume that's what makes the levels disappear though.

But as I understand it, yeah, there can be warming and cooling trends buried within the long term global trend of warming regionally and over time. I don't think that's in dispute.

Oh and Currie also worked on Best. She and Mueller often disagree on what can be concluded from that review of the data.

If we increase taxes on something that doesn't exist, the total tax bill will still be zero.