It really does not matter whether the globe is warming or cooling. Very few can verify the truth and the weather can easily be manipulated. What is important is to ensure that while people are caught in the debate, those in power are not left unchecked with their grand theft. A theft which only requires a convincing story so people will agree to give up more of their freedom and accept a steep rise in cost of living.
13 years is too short a time to form a basis for conjecture. 100 years is too. But note the following: The OBSERVED climate cycle spans approximately 100,000 years. In addition, this OBSERVED climate cycle repeats itself again and again every 100,000 years.
My conclusion? The Sun is orbiting the Alpha Centauri triple (4 light years away) and our solar system passes in and out of the stream of interstellar dust of the Orion Belt. This DUST shields us from COSMIC RAYS. Hello?
Unfortunately your statement that ther has been no significant warming since 1998 is unture. see my video Global Warming Answers 2 & 3: Ai6ju28nAyk where I do the analysis in front of your eyes and prove that statement wrong.
@SteveWrathall Starting in 1998 distorts the result if you started the year before or after you get a very different answer. You are also using the annual data - that means there are too few points to get a decent fit. Use the monthly data it gives you many more points. You are not including the uncertainty on the annual mean in the fit. If you exclude the times when there is a strong el nino or la nina you efffectively remove the unrepresentative peaks & vallies you get a strong +ve trend..
@drkstrong "The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing
ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement
with anticipated global temperature
rise." I accept ENSO should not be included in temperature trends. The NOAA does also. This is what their State of the Climate 2008 states about the trend. Not only no statistical warming but none.
@capemall I showed you in my video that if you remove the months affected by ENSO (both +ve & -ve) you get a clear warming trend with a high degree of significance (over 3 sigma)
@drkstrong So you obviously would never argue from authority since you have now placed your you tube video above a report written by the NOAA and published in BAMS. You jest, right?
@capemall You mean the 2009 report? I read that when it came out and dont recall anything in it to contradict what I said, in fact the reverse. Also note they are working with 12 months less data than I am as I include most of 2010
@drkstrong if you didn't see it in the 2009 report why would you think I meant the 2009 report when I said the 2008 report? now you really have me confused, on one hand you say you don't include the months with la ninas and el ninos and then you state you include most of 2010 which was dominated by an el nino.
@capemall I misread 2008 as 2009 (misplaced my reading glasses!) but why would you not be using the most recent (albeit already out of date) data?. 2008 is a low year so you start on a high year (98) and end on a low (08).
Again in my analysis I state that I use only data when the SOI is considered neutral (<1) actually for the fit I used if used modulus(SOI) < 0.5 which means there were several months in 2009 and 2010 that met the criterion.
@drkstrong I used 2008 because 2009 didn't have the enso adjusted trend in it thus why you didn't remember seeing it...I didn't start in 1998...in fact I didn't start at all...I am regurgitating what the NOAA did and they started in 1999....I'm sure your method is superior to those used by the NOAA but just to amuse me and yourself why don't you see what results you get
@capemall I just looked back at the NOAA BAMS report and could not find where it talked about a trend in global temperatures from 1999 to 2008 - any clue where it said that.
@capemall Did you bother to read the paper? Apparently not. They say that trends of 10 years or less are unreliable and can give sharp increasing or decreasing trends (precisely what I said in my video). I calculate that you need at leats 15 years to estatblish a trend of about 0.2C/decade with randon fluctuations similar to the month to month changes in global temperatures. You also need to start & end at the same time of year and avoid strong El Nino or La nina years as a start/end point
@capemall Because It means that you have no basis for stating whether there is a positive or negative trend the paper says that. Also the uncertainty quoted is not stated how many sigma if it is 3 sigma then it is significant. I suspect it is 2 sigma which means it is barely significant. However if you include 2009 and 2010 the significance goes way up.
@drkstrong Typically NOAA works at the 95%. Since their comment about 15 years of no warming would invalidate the models at the 95% I assume they are staying consistant. If I'm not mistaken that is 3 sigma.
@drkstrong maybe some things are but those things aren't climate science where you will be hard pressed finding things above the 95th%...at least I haven't noticed any..but hey....you know more then the NOAA according to you so write them and tell them they are putting out meaningless statistics
@capemall Did you bother to read the paper? Apparently not. They say that trends of 10 years or less are unreliable and can give sharp increasing or decreasing trends (precisely what I said in my video). I calculate that you need at leats 15 years to estatblish a trend of about 0.2C/decade with randon fluctuations similar to the month to month changes in global temperatures. You also need to start & end at the same time of year and avoid strong El Nino or La nina years as a start-end point
@drkstrong I went and looked at your video. now use your method from 1999 to 2008 and see if you get the same result as NOAA...if you do then extend it to 2010 and see what you get...if you don't then find a new method
@capemall The method I use is a standard statistical analysis package (IDL LINFIT) - I dont know what NOAA uses but I know that LINFIT is a tested and reliable routine. I'll give it a try when I have some time to kill and see what I get. I'll let you know.
@ValarMorgoth I wonder how many times I have to tell you I dont work for NASA, never have - never will, before you get it.
Chemtrails & HAARP are prime examples of conspiracy theories. The HAARP one is scientifically hilarious. Can anyone to me explain how an intermitent radar system with what amounts to a billionth of the power of the magnetosphere can affect anything? To affect the ionosphere & magnetosphere for 1 s I calculated we would have to use all the power generated in 100 years.
@drkstrong Ok, you didn't even mention chemtrails. Never heard of Nikola Tesla, eh?
Now I am absolutely certain that your comments on AGW videos are part of your job.
The purpose of it is to lead to conclusion that GW is caused by too many people on Earth which will have to lead to depopulation, hence RFID chips, martial law.....
You do work for nasa and government,
google: "keith strong nasa pictures"
also google: "keith strong nasa" to find this fat ass's nasa and lockheed emails.
@ValarMorgoth You seem to be certain about lots of things that are wrong - you can add my "job" to that list
Please give a reference where it says I work for or ever had worked for the government in any capacity - in fact I cant work for the govenment because that requires US citizenship. Ooops - you are wrong again. The "wrong" list is getting long and your face should be getting red while your credibility drops yet further. You my friend project negatives onto people without evidence.
@drkstrong And of course, no comment on the influence of nasa on drilling the holes in the atmosphere with its rockets.
Also, I never heard you mentioning the testings of thousands of atomic bombs by usa, nasa, lockheed martin and other illuminati structures and it's the influence on the climate.
But I hear you a lot from you how gas from cans causes global warming.
@drkstrong More BS no answers, as usual. Now you invented how you are not US citizen. Muahahahaha... good one. I guess you will be using that one from now on.
For someone who insists on facts you fail a lot on giving rational answers.
I guess that, by submitting BS while failing to answer, you have admitted defeat.
@zeitgeisthero So? the fact is that whether temperatures have been plateauing for a decade or continuing the moderate <1 deg C per century increase we've seen since the industrial revolution is irrelevant. The CAGW hypothesis has been predicting SEVERAL DEGREES PER CENTURY for a number of decades now, and therefore we should have been seeing SEVERAL TENTHS OF A DEGREE PER DECADE. We have not. The hypothesis fails. It's called science.
2012 now, with claims of a "sizzling rise of 3 degrees (celsius)" that continue to melt the permafrost. One claim after another.
blacktigerpaw1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from SteveWrathall
No warming since 1998? WRONG.
See: watch?v=Ai6ju28nAyk
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong Cool story, bro.
blacktigerpaw1 4 months ago
It really does not matter whether the globe is warming or cooling. Very few can verify the truth and the weather can easily be manipulated. What is important is to ensure that while people are caught in the debate, those in power are not left unchecked with their grand theft. A theft which only requires a convincing story so people will agree to give up more of their freedom and accept a steep rise in cost of living.
007debtpredator 1 year ago
13 years is too short a time to form a basis for conjecture. 100 years is too. But note the following: The OBSERVED climate cycle spans approximately 100,000 years. In addition, this OBSERVED climate cycle repeats itself again and again every 100,000 years.
My conclusion? The Sun is orbiting the Alpha Centauri triple (4 light years away) and our solar system passes in and out of the stream of interstellar dust of the Orion Belt. This DUST shields us from COSMIC RAYS. Hello?
opchidexio 1 year ago
Unfortunately your statement that ther has been no significant warming since 1998 is unture. see my video Global Warming Answers 2 & 3: Ai6ju28nAyk where I do the analysis in front of your eyes and prove that statement wrong.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong From Hadley 1998 0.516 1999 0.263 2000 0.238 2001 0.399 2002 0.455 2003 0.459 2004 0.431 2005 0.474 2006 0.427 2007 0.401 2008 0.312 2009 0.439 2010 0.518
regression y = 0.0063x - 12.197 Standard error of slope 0.00674 t stat 0.9345 P = 0.815 ie retain null hypothesis that slope = 0
SteveWrathall 1 year ago
@SteveWrathall Starting in 1998 distorts the result if you started the year before or after you get a very different answer. You are also using the annual data - that means there are too few points to get a decent fit. Use the monthly data it gives you many more points. You are not including the uncertainty on the annual mean in the fit. If you exclude the times when there is a strong el nino or la nina you efffectively remove the unrepresentative peaks & vallies you get a strong +ve trend..
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong "The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing
ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement
with anticipated global temperature
rise." I accept ENSO should not be included in temperature trends. The NOAA does also. This is what their State of the Climate 2008 states about the trend. Not only no statistical warming but none.
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall I showed you in my video that if you remove the months affected by ENSO (both +ve & -ve) you get a clear warming trend with a high degree of significance (over 3 sigma)
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong So you obviously would never argue from authority since you have now placed your you tube video above a report written by the NOAA and published in BAMS. You jest, right?
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall You mean the 2009 report? I read that when it came out and dont recall anything in it to contradict what I said, in fact the reverse. Also note they are working with 12 months less data than I am as I include most of 2010
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong if you didn't see it in the 2009 report why would you think I meant the 2009 report when I said the 2008 report? now you really have me confused, on one hand you say you don't include the months with la ninas and el ninos and then you state you include most of 2010 which was dominated by an el nino.
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall I misread 2008 as 2009 (misplaced my reading glasses!) but why would you not be using the most recent (albeit already out of date) data?. 2008 is a low year so you start on a high year (98) and end on a low (08).
Again in my analysis I state that I use only data when the SOI is considered neutral (<1) actually for the fit I used if used modulus(SOI) < 0.5 which means there were several months in 2009 and 2010 that met the criterion.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong I used 2008 because 2009 didn't have the enso adjusted trend in it thus why you didn't remember seeing it...I didn't start in 1998...in fact I didn't start at all...I am regurgitating what the NOAA did and they started in 1999....I'm sure your method is superior to those used by the NOAA but just to amuse me and yourself why don't you see what results you get
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall I just looked back at the NOAA BAMS report and could not find where it talked about a trend in global temperatures from 1999 to 2008 - any clue where it said that.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Page 23
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall Did you bother to read the paper? Apparently not. They say that trends of 10 years or less are unreliable and can give sharp increasing or decreasing trends (precisely what I said in my video). I calculate that you need at leats 15 years to estatblish a trend of about 0.2C/decade with randon fluctuations similar to the month to month changes in global temperatures. You also need to start & end at the same time of year and avoid strong El Nino or La nina years as a start/end point
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Explain how this comment applies to anything I have posted or be a gentleman and make your apology.
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall Because It means that you have no basis for stating whether there is a positive or negative trend the paper says that. Also the uncertainty quoted is not stated how many sigma if it is 3 sigma then it is significant. I suspect it is 2 sigma which means it is barely significant. However if you include 2009 and 2010 the significance goes way up.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Typically NOAA works at the 95%. Since their comment about 15 years of no warming would invalidate the models at the 95% I assume they are staying consistant. If I'm not mistaken that is 3 sigma.
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall No that's 2 sigma. 3 sigma is 99.7%
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong ah ok...well statistics isn't my forte' and apparently it isn't your's either since everything is done to the 95th%
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall Actually not. Most things in astrophysics are done to 3 sigma (soemtimes 5 sigma - 99.9999%)
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong maybe some things are but those things aren't climate science where you will be hard pressed finding things above the 95th%...at least I haven't noticed any..but hey....you know more then the NOAA according to you so write them and tell them they are putting out meaningless statistics
capemall 1 year ago
@drkstrong Since this scum kept telling me to get my facts straight, I have done a bit of a research and got more data on this lying scum.
He worked for Lockheed Martin until recently (around 2006) when he had transferred to NASA Goddard Center.
There he works in climate manipulation and population sustainability department.
Funny, how nasa works on population issues.
The goal is DEPOPULATION.
If anyone wants, I will give you the home phone number of this scum and other data.
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
@ValarMorgoth
I have forgoten, his name is Keith Strong.
Religion: jewish
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
@ValarMorgoth Lol, I love how you had to put the person's religion in there to suggest a Jewish conspiracy.
blacktigerpaw1 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@blacktigerpaw1
Extremely clever you think you are ?
ValarMorgoth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drkstrong Bottom line is you were wrong ,again, and you just don't like it do you? Get over it.
capemall 1 year ago
@drkstrong You never even found the paper did you? Paste what it says that contradicts anything I have posted.
capemall 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@capemall Did you bother to read the paper? Apparently not. They say that trends of 10 years or less are unreliable and can give sharp increasing or decreasing trends (precisely what I said in my video). I calculate that you need at leats 15 years to estatblish a trend of about 0.2C/decade with randon fluctuations similar to the month to month changes in global temperatures. You also need to start & end at the same time of year and avoid strong El Nino or La nina years as a start-end point
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong I went and looked at your video. now use your method from 1999 to 2008 and see if you get the same result as NOAA...if you do then extend it to 2010 and see what you get...if you don't then find a new method
capemall 1 year ago
@capemall The method I use is a standard statistical analysis package (IDL LINFIT) - I dont know what NOAA uses but I know that LINFIT is a tested and reliable routine. I'll give it a try when I have some time to kill and see what I get. I'll let you know.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong I would like to hear you at least for once saying something about the influence of HAARP and CHEMTRAILS on our climate.
And since you work for nasa, I would also like to hear your opinion about the effects of thousands of rockets launched by nasa on the ozone.
I don't want the usual demagogy you serve in your comments.
I want your comment only on this.
Without your "look there" "read this" "nasa said so".
Thank you.
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
@ValarMorgoth I wonder how many times I have to tell you I dont work for NASA, never have - never will, before you get it.
Chemtrails & HAARP are prime examples of conspiracy theories. The HAARP one is scientifically hilarious. Can anyone to me explain how an intermitent radar system with what amounts to a billionth of the power of the magnetosphere can affect anything? To affect the ionosphere & magnetosphere for 1 s I calculated we would have to use all the power generated in 100 years.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Ok, you didn't even mention chemtrails. Never heard of Nikola Tesla, eh?
Now I am absolutely certain that your comments on AGW videos are part of your job.
The purpose of it is to lead to conclusion that GW is caused by too many people on Earth which will have to lead to depopulation, hence RFID chips, martial law.....
You do work for nasa and government,
google: "keith strong nasa pictures"
also google: "keith strong nasa" to find this fat ass's nasa and lockheed emails.
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
@ValarMorgoth You seem to be certain about lots of things that are wrong - you can add my "job" to that list
Please give a reference where it says I work for or ever had worked for the government in any capacity - in fact I cant work for the govenment because that requires US citizenship. Ooops - you are wrong again. The "wrong" list is getting long and your face should be getting red while your credibility drops yet further. You my friend project negatives onto people without evidence.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong And of course, no comment on the influence of nasa on drilling the holes in the atmosphere with its rockets.
Also, I never heard you mentioning the testings of thousands of atomic bombs by usa, nasa, lockheed martin and other illuminati structures and it's the influence on the climate.
But I hear you a lot from you how gas from cans causes global warming.
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
@ValarMorgoth More for tthe "wrong" list
NASA doe snot test atomic bombs - wrong + 1
LM does not test atomic bombs - wrong + 2
The illuminati dont test atomic bombs -wrong + 3 and wrong +4 because they dont exist
Gas from cans? Another divertion into the world of wrong?
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong More BS no answers, as usual. Now you invented how you are not US citizen. Muahahahaha... good one. I guess you will be using that one from now on.
For someone who insists on facts you fail a lot on giving rational answers.
I guess that, by submitting BS while failing to answer, you have admitted defeat.
DID USA TEST A BOMBS SHITHEAD ?
WHAT ABOUT ROCKETS SHITHEAD ?
illuminati scum ....
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
but the liberal media keeps telling us 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 2000 ???
zeitgeisthero 1 year ago
@zeitgeisthero Because it is true
drkstrong 1 year ago
@zeitgeisthero So? the fact is that whether temperatures have been plateauing for a decade or continuing the moderate <1 deg C per century increase we've seen since the industrial revolution is irrelevant. The CAGW hypothesis has been predicting SEVERAL DEGREES PER CENTURY for a number of decades now, and therefore we should have been seeing SEVERAL TENTHS OF A DEGREE PER DECADE. We have not. The hypothesis fails. It's called science.
SteveWrathall 1 year ago