Talk-Polywell.org

The Arctic is warming at eight times the rate of rest of the planet. This accounts for the supposed "cooling" over the last several years that the climate cranks have been trumpeting about in the HADCRUT model. Because HADCRUT does not cover the Arctic, this warming escaped notice. At least, of the climate cranks and the newspapers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092217.htm

No surprise here. The Antarctic is ice on top of land, so heat can only get in from the top. The Arctic is over a warming pot of water called the Arctic Ocean. It's not like the heat in the oceans is somehow magically excluded from it. Also, remember the recent article I posted on that said the heat was in the ocean? Yep. Turns out, the Arctic ocean. That's called consilience.

Warming rate does not equal missing heat.

To simplify it for you dx /= X.

Sorry you can't read.

Read it again.

Add the warming seen in the Arctic and the warming rate has not declined at all.

Do you know what latent heat is?

Watts is on it, of course:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/14/c ... more-97437
Turns out there aren't any measurements and it's imaginary heat.

So Willard "Tony" Watts doesn't know what latent heat is either. Figures.

And it is not a measurement based observation

have reconstructed the 'missing' global temperatures

And he only covers 1/6th of the globe.

I wonder what 1/2 of the missing heat would do if concentrated in the arctic. Shouldn't it be ice free by now?

Arctic ice is back to the normal range (normal since satellite measurements) these days.

Second, UAH satellite analyses. Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature).
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncer ... data-sets/

So the data is poor and from this they are extrapolating better data? Climate 'science' is truly extraordinary.

S, you are hoping for a miracle to save your theory. I'm hoping we don't have another ice age.

We can design hot weather crops. We are woefully deficient in the science of growing crops under ice.

MSimon wrote:And it is not a measurement based observation

have reconstructed the 'missing' global temperatures

And he only covers 1/6th of the globe.

Of course; HADCRUT covers the other 5/6, duh.

This is rich:

Robert Way adds: "Changes in Arctic sea ice and glaciers over the past decade clearly support the results of our study. By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change."

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/ext ... tent_L.png

Sorry one lie per customer per post.

If you had some other point you better re-post it because I've read the last one all I'm gonna.

This is rich:

Robert Way adds: "Changes in Arctic sea ice and glaciers over the past decade clearly support the results of our study. By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change."

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/ext ... tent_L.png

MSimon wrote:This is rich:

Robert Way adds: "Changes in Arctic sea ice and glaciers over the past decade clearly support the results of our study. By producing a truly global temperature record, we aim to better understand the drivers of recent climate change."

Yep.

Schneibster wrote:Sorry one lie per customer per post.

If you had some other point you better re-post it because I've read the last one all I'm gonna.

I'm posting official data. You object to data? How typical.

S,

For 2013 your chart shows data within the normal range. What exactly are you trying to do? Corroborate the information (which has more months in 2013) I posted?

Or are you hoping I'll only look at 2012?

We're not talking about weather.

MSimon wrote:

Schneibster wrote:Sorry one lie per customer per post.

If you had some other point you better re-post it because I've read the last one all I'm gonna.

I'm posting official data. You object to data? How typical.

No, I object to you posting known obvious lies. Next time post the data first and the lie last and you'll have less trouble. The very first thing it says is that this is the missing heat from HADCRUT implying you have to add it to HADCRUT to get the correct result. HADCRUT covers 5/6 of the Earth. Obviously, all they had to do was study the remaining 1/6. If you're not lying you're really not very bright.

Besides, I doubt anything you have trumps the Arctic Ice Death Spiral. Might as well call it the Climate Crank Death Spiral.