global warming biggest scam ever

[m>s]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal everNew data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warmingWhen future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html), I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Related Articles


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02902/OBAMA_2902942g.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11365583/Barack-Obamas-personal-battle-against-climate-change.html)

Barack Obama's personal battle against climate change (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11365583/Barack-Obamas-personal-battle-against-climate-change.html)
23 Jan 2015
Rise in sea levels is 'faster than we thought' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11346154/Rise-in-sea-levels-is-faster-than-we-thought.html)
14 Jan 2015


Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.


Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

[Wild Cobra]

Is it any surprise?

[FlAVaK]

http://static.dasfilter.com/images/2015/1/20/wetterinfografik-bloomberg-gif.gif

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is stupid. They were suspicious? That is all he has to go by?

Every data point is going be normalized. it is the nature of an infinite types of measuring device. Either it was done correctly or not.

[Wild Cobra]

http://static.dasfilter.com/images/2015/1/20/wetterinfografik-bloomberg-gif.gif

Cool graph.

Too bad the NOAA records have been "corrected." We really don't know what it would look like of made from the recorded data of the past. I assume we would still show the latter years as generally warmer, just not as much.

Why didn't you include the source link, or are you one not to verify the accuracy of data, graphs, etc. and only post what suits your confirmation bias?

Original article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/berkeley-earth-temperature-averaging-process.pdf

This is BEST explaining their check on the temperature record. You guys realize that the reason for BEST was to check the record. Koch and Exxon signed off.

From their about page:


Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect.

More from BEST:


Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

They checked the shit you claim is 'suspicious.' You guys literally rehash the same refuted arguments over and over again. Are you so stupid and uncreative you cannot do better?

[boutons_deux]

"rehash the same refuted arguments"

... which are paid for by BigCorp, esp its BigCarbon division, esp its Kock Bros department.

[FlAVaK]

Cool graph.

Too bad the NOAA records have been "corrected." We really don't know what it would look like of made from the recorded data of the past. I assume we would still show the latter years as generally warmer, just not as much.

Why didn't you include the source link, or are you one not to verify the accuracy of data, graphs, etc. and only post what suits your confirmation bias?

Original article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/

Was in a hurry this morning after a sleepless night, stumbled over the GIF and wanted to share. Thanks for finding and sharing the link!

[Wild Cobra]

http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/berkeley-earth-temperature-averaging-process.pdf

This is BEST explaining their check on the temperature record. You guys realize that the reason for BEST was to check the record. Koch and Exxon signed off.

From their about page:



More from BEST:



http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

They checked the shit you claim is 'suspicious.' You guys literally rehash the same refuted arguments over and over again. Are you so stupid and uncreative you cannot do better?

Do you ever fully understand the claims you parrot?

I suggest you look up the definition for "unduly."

[DarrinS]

Global warming isn't a scam so much as it is a non-event. Lol @ the scale on that animated gif.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you ever fully understand the claims you parrot?

I suggest you look up the definition for "unduly."

I did. Now what?

[SnakeBoy]

Global warming isn't a scam so much as it is a non-event. Lol @ the scale on that animated gif.

Exactly what I thought when he posted it. It looks so scary that way lol.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The root word of unduly is due. As in deserving. To not unduly apply something means you applied it where it is due or deserved. IE they did it correctly.

WC is a gibbering idiot.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol at using double negatives.

Your parents should ask for their money back.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So guys what is wrong with the scale. The range of actual values goes from -.7 to 1.7 and the range is -1 to 1.5. In your own words explain how the scale is distorting and tell us what you think a better scale would be.

I'll help by giving an example that was used by Poptart in this very discussion.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s1600/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg

Here the actual values are between -.5 and .8 yet the scale goes from -5 to 5.

Do you need me to hold you guy's hand here through the critical thinking?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol at using double negatives.

Your parents should ask for their money back.

BEST is the one that said 'not unduly,' dipshit. Try again.

[Wild Cobra]

I did. Now what?

Does the definition eliminate the idea there was no bias?

Words have meaning. If there was no bias, the word "unduly" wouldn't have been added.

Warmers love their weasel words!

[Wild Cobra]

BEST is the one that said 'not unduly,' dipshit. Try again.

Yep.

It makes everyone happy, and they don't have to quantify any error.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Does the definition eliminate the idea there was no bias?

Words have meaning. If there was no bias, the word "unduly" wouldn't have been added.

Warmers love their weasel words!

Bias isn't necessarily bad, dumbass. Bias just menas a method of selection. They were biasing towards their normalization where it was due thus the use of the word unduly.

I am biased towards the truth. OH THE HUMANITY.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep.

It makes everyone happy, and they don't have to quantify any error.

:lol jfc, you are stupid.

CC was saying I was using double negatives. My response was only in relation to that statement and your inference is baseless.

BEST was addressing skeptic concerns about undue normalization. They concluded that there was no undue normalization. They also quantified their findings and the degree error involved. Go to their website and their findings page. They have all the raw data their too that you are always whining about not being available as well as their methodology there. They are nothing if not transparent.

[Wild Cobra]

Bias isn't necessarily bad, dumbass. Bias just menas a method of selection. They were biasing towards their normalization where it was due thus the use of the word unduly.

I am biased towards the truth. OH THE HUMANITY.

So you admit, what you quoted is meaningless.

Good!

[Wild Cobra]

:lol jfc, you are stupid.

CC was saying I was using double negatives. My response was only in relation to that statement and your inference is baseless.

BEST was addressing skeptic concerns about undue normalization. They concluded that there was no undue normalization. They also quantified their findings and the degree error involved. Go to their website and their findings page. They have all the raw data their too that you are always whining about not being available as well as their methodology there. They are nothing if not transparent.

Have at it. I don't dispute BESTs analysis.

Bad data in = bad data out.

Besides, I don't disagree we have been warming. I just disagree with the extent claimed.

[Wild Cobra]

Besides, I don't disagree we have been warming. I just disagree with the extent claimed.

How can any of you warmers keep believing the dogma when there is factual data out there like this:

Raw data:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-graph-2_3175679a.jpg

Data after corrections applied:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-puerto_3175673a.jpg

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How can any of you warmers keep believing the dogma when there is factual data out there like this:

Raw data:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-graph-2_3175679a.jpg

Data after corrections applied:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-puerto_3175673a.jpg

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html)

Again, BEST reviewed all of that already and rejected your assertion. You claim that you respect BEST but when they say that they reviewed GISS and the temperature record and concluded that the normalization was justified or not undue you try and claim that it is meaningless.

All you are doing here is showing that they are different and waving your hands.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, BEST reviewed all of that already and rejected your assertion. You claim that you respect BEST but when they say that they reviewed GISS and the temperature record and concluded that the normalization was justified or not undue you try and claim that it is meaningless.

All you are doing here is showing that they are different and waving your hands.
Where did they say normalization was justified?

Are you making things up again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did they say normalization was justified?

Are you making things up again?

I would tell you to look up the definition of the word unduly but you are willfully ignorant so I will hold your hand.



CITE
Translate
Facebook
Share
Twitter
Tweet
Google+
Share

unduly
[uhn-doo-lee, -dyoo-]

Examples
Word Origin

adverb
1.
excessively:
unduly worried.
2.
in an inappropriate, unjustifiable, or improper manner:
unduly critical.

not inappropriate = appropriate.

not unjustified = justified

not improper = proper

Remember telling me to look up the meaning?

[Wild Cobra]

I would tell you to look up the definition of the word unduly but you are willfully ignorant so I will hold your hand.



not inappropriate = appropriate.

not unjustified = justified

not improper = proper

Remember telling me to look up the meaning?
I love how you refuse to properly link the proper material. Is this intentional for lack of good material?

I use Merriam Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unduly



Full Definition of UNDULY

: to an extreme, unreasonable, or unnecessary degree

: in an undue manner : excessively

Not excessively biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not extremely biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unreasonably biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unnecessarily biased means it is may or may not be biased.

If it was the intent for BEST to say it was not biased, then why the qualifier "unduly?" This leave a wide open grey area, enough to drive a freight train through depending on perspective. "Unduly" gives no qualifying error range.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Reference dot com

LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I love how you refuse to properly link the proper material. Is this intentional for lack of good material?

I use Merriam Webster.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unduly



Not excessively biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not extremely biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unreasonably biased means it is somewhat biased.

Not unnecessarily biased means it is may or may not be biased.

If it was the intent for BEST to say it was not biased, then why the qualifier "unduly?" This leave a wide open grey area, enough to drive a freight train through depending on perspective. "Unduly" gives no qualifying error range.

:lol ffs you are an idiot.

Let's examine the word bias shall we:




11 Common Mispronunciations

CITE
Translate
Facebook
Share
Twitter
Tweet
Google+
Share

bias
[bahy-uh s]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography;
our strong bias in favor of the idea.
2.
unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice:
accusations of racial bias.
3.
an oblique or diagonal line of direction, especially across a woven fabric.
4.
Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

5.
Lawn Bowling.

a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.

6.
Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.
7.
a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.


So dumbass which one do you think they meant when talking about bias? Could it be a systemic distortion as a result of a sampling procedure?

You don't even know wtf they are talking about when speaking of bias in a statistical assessment. Your dumb ass thinks it means political bias. Now go ahead and waffle and talk of assumptions. It's all you ever do.

[Wild Cobra]

3d:

d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

You need to stop using reference dot com.

It's so comical that you think it's a valid source! No wonder you are clueless!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

3d:

d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

You need to stop using reference dot com.

It's so comical that you think it's a valid source! No wonder you are clueless!

:lol my dictionary is better than yours!



Dictionary.com

With more than 70 million monthly users worldwide, Dictionary.com is the world's leading and most definitive online dictionary. Our dictionary provides reliable access to millions of English definitions, spellings, audio pronunciations, example sentences, and word origins. In addition to our own team of experienced lexicographers, our content is licensed from trusted and established sources including American Heritage and Harper Collins. Dictionary.com’s main source is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, originally The Century Dictionary, which was published between 1889 and 1891 as one of the most prominent dictionaries in the United States.

Why is it not valid?

We can use your definitions and it doesn't change anything. It is still a statistical adjustment that was not unduly applied.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol my dictionary is better than yours!



Why is it not valid?

We can use your definitions and it doesn't change anything. It is still a statistical adjustment that was not unduly applied.

Wow...

Ignorance has no bounds with you, does it?

Most users is meaningless. That doesn't make it the best. When it leaves out definitions, and limits you to a small handful, it's no better than a pocket dictionary.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow...

Ignorance has no bounds with you, does it?

Most users is meaningless. That doesn't make it the best. When it leaves out definitions, and limits you to a small handful, it's no better than a pocket dictionary.

:lol dumbass doesn't want to discuss statistical bias.

You left out the rest of the quote I put on their too. Why are Harper Collins, American Heritage, and Random House invalid sources? They didn't limit shit. Only thing limited here is your intellect.

The statistical bias was not undue. deal with it.

[boutons_deux]

as if more AGW evidence would penetrate Repug/right-wingers shit-for-brains

New evidence of global warming: Remote lakes in Ecuador not immune to climate change


A study of three remote lakes in Ecuador has revealed the vulnerability of tropical high mountain lakes to global climate change -- the first study of its kind to show this. The data explains how the lakes are changing due to the water warming as the result of climate change.

The results could have far-reaching consequences for Andean water resources as the lakes provide 60 per cent of the drinking water for Cuenca, the third largest city in Ecuador.

"Andean societies are amongst the most vulnerable when it comes to the impact of climate change," says Dr. Michelutti. "Warming in the Andes is occurring at a rate nearly twice the global average and it's already impacting water resources as shown in this research. These changes are also a sign of bigger changes that are coming."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150209130734.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Scienc e+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

more proof the earth is cooling!

[RandomGuy]

http://static.dasfilter.com/images/2015/1/20/wetterinfografik-bloomberg-gif.gif

Danke.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Because nothing says impartial consideration of data by using quotes around things.

If it is that important, submit it to peer review. The science and data will out.

Thing is, that if the climate really isn't changing much, and we really aren't driving a good deal of it, that will become harder and harder for this super-secret conspiracy to keep a lid on.

Data accumulates.

So if you want to prove conventional scientific consensus down, all you need to do is write something a bit more solid than a stilted newspaper article and get to work

Until then, one might want to place a bit of skepticism and critical thinking on pronouncements from a guy like Christopher Brooker.


Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.

or the gem where the same guy was saying that intelligent design was a great critique of evolution:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495664/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html

The guy has a rather solid history of latching on to ONE source of information that conterveils common understanding and bloviating away his credibility.

He may have been wrong about smoking, intelligent design, asbestos, but he could still be right about "global warming". I will wait until his claims have been put through the wringer of peer-review, and subjected to a bit of actual scientific debate before accepting them at face value.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly, I will point out, yet again, that moderating CO2 emissions is beneficial to economies.

I have debunked claims of economic harm I have seen here, and asked for any proof that limiting CO2 emissions would do any harm to any economy other than Saudi Arabia's. I haven't gotten any.

So, even if this is some super secret conspiracy of scientists to fool us about warming climate, the policy result is, in the end, beneficial overall.

[unleashbaynes]

Somebody post that clip from the Newsroom and we'll call this thread a wrap.

[DarrinS]

http://static.dasfilter.com/images/2015/1/20/wetterinfografik-bloomberg-gif.gif

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q53/Pigglestein/Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.gif














http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s1600/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/B8Gaf.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://static.dasfilter.com/images/2015/1/20/wetterinfografik-bloomberg-gif.gif

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q53/Pigglestein/Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.gif














http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s1600/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/B8Gaf.jpg


So guys what is wrong with the scale. The range of actual values goes from -.7 to 1.7 and the range is -1 to 1.5. In your own words explain how the scale is distorting and tell us what you think a better scale would be.

I'll help by giving an example that was used by Poptart in this very discussion.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BsNAUboeko4/TLWp3FpcG0I/AAAAAAAAAYE/WT80q2s2z00/s1600/NASS+GISS+Global+Land-Ocean+Temperature+Index+%281880-2009%29.jpg

Here the actual values are between -.5 and .8 yet the scale goes from -5 to 5.

Do you need me to hold you guy's hand here through the critical thinking?

The scale on you and Poptart's graph is over 8 times the range of the actual values.

You complained about the scale on the graph fkla posted but its scale is only 1.25 times the range of actual values.

Intellectual dishonest cowardice is the DarrinS way.

[DarrinS]

The scale on you and Poptart's graph is over 8 times the range of the actual values.

You complained about the scale on the graph fkla posted but its scale is only 1.25 times the range of actual values.

Intellectual dishonest cowardice is the DarrinS way.


I didn't complain about it. I laughed about it. The ACTUAL range isn't shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The range is less than two degrees. Summer is 80 degrees hotter than winter here in Texas. DERP!

Ahh so you are back to acting like an ignorant dumbass regarding annual temperature anomalies. I know we have been over this before. Shall we revisit how the national academy qualifies such quantifications?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are climate changes of a few degrees a cause for concern?

Yes. Even though an increase of a few degrees in global average temperature does not sound like much, global average temperature during the last ice age was only about 4 to
5 °C (7 to 9 °F) colder than now. Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated with widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation as well as
with increases in some types of extreme weather events. These and other changes (such as sea level rise and storm surge) will have serious impacts on human societies and the natural world.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

[SnakeBoy]

Data accumulates.


Yes it does.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's so cute. You can see Yoni looking at the page and then Snakeboy posts. I don't know that they are the same but between that and them posting the exact same takes, I do wonder.

I found 10 very wrong statements from scientists so the work of all the tens of thousand of scientists worldwide are invalidated.

[Th'Pusher]

It's so cute. You can see Yoni looking at the page and then Snakeboy posts. I don't know that they are the same but between that and them posting the exact same takes, I do wonder.

I found 10 very wrong statements from scientists so the work of all the tens of thousand of scientists worldwide are invalidated.
Yoni, while a hyper partisan and a case study for intellectual dishonesty, is actually intelligent and well spoken.

Snakeboy, displays the partisanship and intellectual dishonesty in spades, but I don't think anyone here would characterize him as either intelligent or particularly well spoken.

[SnakeBoy]

It's so cute. You can see Yoni looking at the page and then Snakeboy posts. I don't know that they are the same but between that and them posting the exact same takes, I do wonder.


My Yoni persona no longer posts. I...He made a thread about it.

[Darth_Pelican]

http://static.dasfilter.com/images/2015/1/20/wetterinfografik-bloomberg-gif.gif

I lol'd in my office just now

[RandomGuy]

Yoni, while a hyper partisan and a case study for intellectual dishonesty, is actually intelligent and well spoken.

Snakeboy, displays the partisanship and intellectual dishonesty in spades, but I don't think anyone here would characterize him as either intelligent or particularly well spoken.

Seconded, although I would give Snakeboy a few points here and there for being more honest than Yonivore. Certainly never seen SB try to tap dance around apologizing for torture. That takes some special talent at lying to your face and rationalization of immoral behavior to attempt.

[RandomGuy]

Yes it does.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/climate-change-warnings-over-the-years.jpg

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=strawman

Meh.

Sorry, argument by strawman says less about the issue involved and more about the person making it.

[RandomGuy]

Does the definition eliminate the idea there was no bias?

Words have meaning. If there was no bias, the word "unduly" wouldn't have been added.

Warmers love their weasel words!

Bias or no, the imputus is on you to show how this bias affects the conclusions.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

You denialists loves your ad hominems.

[RandomGuy]

How can any of you warmers keep believing the dogma when there is factual data out there like this:

Raw data:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-graph-2_3175679a.jpg

Data after corrections applied:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-puerto_3175673a.jpg

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html)

Why were the corrections applied to the data?

You have not supplied enough data for a good critical thinker to reach any conclusion. Original source data is modified for all sorts of valid reasons.

Since you are not a good critical thinker, it is not surprising that you present this data as is, without context, but please try to do better.

If you don't know, just say so.

[DarrinS]

You denialists loves your ad hominems.

[Th'Pusher]

Are you suggesting that referring to some who denies AGW is an ad hominem?

[DarrinS]

Are you suggesting that referring to some who denies AGW is an ad hominem?


There aren't many true skeptics that refute AGW. It's the magnitude of the consequences that are debatable (and rightfully so). Using the term "denier", as in Holocaust denier, in this context is ad hominem.

[Wild Cobra]

Bias or no, the imputus is on you to show how this bias affects the conclusions.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

You denialists loves your ad hominems.
I'm not attempting to quantify it. I'm only saying their statement of conclusion does not state there was no bias.

[Wild Cobra]

Why were the corrections applied to the data?

You have not supplied enough data for a good critical thinker to reach any conclusion. Original source data is modified for all sorts of valid reasons.

Since you are not a good critical thinker, it is not surprising that you present this data as is, without context, but please try to do better.

If you don't know, just say so.
I know why that site's data was corrected. I read up on it. Any time there is cause to correct it, there is probability of added error and bias.

Why are you being so ignorant and stupid with your ASSumption?

Care to tell us, or do you not know why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There aren't many true skeptics that refute AGW. It's the magnitude of the consequences that are debatable (and rightfully so). Using the term "denier", as in Holocaust denier, in this context is ad hominem.

Well, many skeptics arguments were considered by the BEST project, experimented and evaluated, then finally rejected. Those included the concerns over error in the temperature record and the statistics involved which stupid here is determined to go back to 2005 for, which models yielded accurate results and which ones didn't, the spectrum analysis of the cycles involved with various celestial motions and ecological cycles. They are still churning out work and checking the science.

'True' in the context you are thinking is only a skeptic you envision yourself and nothing more. Put him with the Scotsman.

[Nero5]

Let's imagine you are lying in hospital sick for a month, 99 doctors come in one after the other and say I did this test, which was slightly different to the others and I'm certain that you have bowel cancer and it's growing. The treatment options are limited but some of them we know have a good chance of success. 1 doctor comes in and say's I don't trust those tests I read but I didn't do my own testing, but I think you're fine go home.
This is the climate 'debate' in a nutshell, but for reference the science for climate change is stronger than suggested above.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's imagine you are lying in hospital sick for a month, 99 doctors come in one after the other and say I did this test, which was slightly different to the others and I'm certain that you have bowel cancer and it's growing. The treatment options are limited but some of them we know have a good chance of success. 1 doctor comes in and say's I don't trust those tests I read but I didn't do my own testing, but I think you're fine go home.
This is the climate 'debate' in a nutshell, but for reference the science for climate change is stronger than suggested above.

You are dead wrong.

As long as you are incapable of understanding a persons viewpoint, you will fail in debate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are dead wrong.

As long as you are incapable of understanding a persons viewpoint, you will fail in debate.

Tell Nero about your CO2 drives warming with the solubility chart pretty please.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell Nero about your CO2 drives warming with the solubility chart pretty please.

That isn't what I said.

Please link my post of what you mean. Warming affects CO2 equalization.

[DarrinS]

Let's imagine you are lying in hospital sick for a month, 99 doctors come in one after the other and say I did this test, which was slightly different to the others and I'm certain that you have bowel cancer and it's growing. The treatment options are limited but some of them we know have a good chance of success. 1 doctor comes in and say's I don't trust those tests I read but I didn't do my own testing, but I think you're fine go home.
This is the climate 'debate' in a nutshell, but for reference the science for climate change is stronger than suggested above.

:lmao

Thanks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That isn't what I said.

Please link my post of what you mean. Warming affects CO2 equalization.

Whatever you say, flywheel. :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One piece of strong evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature is the last 11,000 years of ice data:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/800px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolati.jpg

Please note that once CO2 was up to about 264 ppm 11,000 years ago, there was normal climatic changes ranging +/- 2 C ever since. The increase to past 280 ppm in the last few thousand years had no change on centering of the +/- 2 C temperature range.


Extrapolating that CO2 drives temperature from that article is as accurate as saying the sun revolves around the Earth.

Perception does not always equal scientific fact.


Yes.

Sure, if CO2 lead temperature rather than lagging, over the long term.

But it does.

Then be relieved.

Mitigation would be to do all we can to stop black carbon emissions. It is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels like CO2 is. It is scrubbed out easy enough. CO2 is not the problem of combustion. Unburned components of the fuel are.


I think you watch "The day After" one too many times. Some of us believe Global Warming is good.

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

I could go on, but why beat a dead horse? Besides, I'm multitasking, doing two other things also. Just jumping in here from time to time.


The ocean is like a soda, going flat.

I suggest you do some real studying on the effects of temperature for a solutions ability to absorb gas, and the related equilibrium.

I will maintain my contention that temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not drive temperature.

As for the warming since 1850, and flattening out, look at the solar trending:

[Nero5]

You are dead wrong.

As long as you are incapable of understanding a persons viewpoint, you will fail in debate.

LOL!
I must have messed up then in my communication - tell you what, just for you I'll look for the crayon font and I'll use shorter words.
Of course what you think and what I think has no real worth. The science is what is important and science being what it is is not infallible, just like medicine, hence my analogy.
I have a good friend, just finished her Phd on climatic modelling and who works for the Bureau of Meteorology, but she comes from a pure mathematics background, really quite a smart lady. Anyway her current role is plotting the change in seafront inundation based on a rise in average temperature. A 2 degree rise in average temperature will raise the sea levels enough to wipe out around enough low lying land to displace a very large slice of the city. Cost? In property losses alone we could estimate $30,000,000,000.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL!
I must have messed up then in my communication - tell you what, just for you I'll look for the crayon font and I'll use shorter words.
Of course what you think and what I think has no real worth. The science is what is important and science being what it is is not infallible, just like medicine, hence my analogy.
I have a good friend, just finished her Phd on climatic modelling and who works for the Bureau of Meteorology, but she comes from a pure mathematics background, really quite a smart lady. Anyway her current role is plotting the change in seafront inundation based on a rise in average temperature. A 2 degree rise in average temperature will raise the sea levels enough to wipe out around enough low lying land to displace a very large slice of the city. Cost? In property losses alone we could estimate $30,000,000,000.

It's funny. Now that the finance/insurance industry have a vested interest counter to that of the oil lobby, US conservatives are starting to waffle. Oil is still king in the GOP between the Koch SuperPacs and the Bush coalition but the worm is starting to turn particularly on the coast of the south. Houston is a lesson in cognitive dissonance.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow.

What a demented mind.

[Nero5]

Fuzzy you do get a very strong demographic slit via age bracket too. Once you get to 50+ then the rate of science denial increases, which is curious. We of later generations may suspect that the drugs of the flower power generation may be to blame or it's guilt over 'causing' the issue, fear about losing some privilege or sense of authority, a change in world too fast to feel comfortable with who knows?.

[Wild Cobra]

Those of you who are younger, haven't seen past climate extremes. You think things like Katrina are first types of incidents, and fall prey to scare tactics. Those of us who lived longer have seen things that our parents would called 30 year cycles, and recognize the incidents are just hype. When the so-called experts are going to lie to us on several things, why believe anything they say?

I witnessed this, firsthand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Day_Storm_of_1962

[Nero5]

meh! So one storm yes?
The city in which I live, state capital and population of 3,000,000 recently had a drought that lasted around 7 years and we were on water restrictions for the last 3. The climate change has clearly been recorded. We now routinely get desert species of birds in suburban areas as there is insufficient food and water in their natural habitat. The good thing about this is that there is a long history of recording bird life and ornithologists being noted for their lack of practical jokes means that the record is sound for over 100 years. The species that were very very uncommon are now in my street each morning. We recently had the worst bushfires in history, fires that claimed 173 people and 414 injured and destroyed 2029 homes in one event. The forest near where I grew up, which had eucalyptus tree believed to be around 300 years old is now dying - not the usual rainfall pattern.
Oh BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[RandomGuy]

There aren't many true skeptics that refute AGW. It's the magnitude of the consequences that are debatable (and rightfully so). Using the term "denier", as in Holocaust denier, in this context is ad hominem.

after all these years, you still have no fucking clue what the difference is between an insult and an actual ad hominem.

You aren't wrong because you are a lazy shit. You are a lazy shit because of the way you are wrong.

Does that clear it up?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not attempting to quantify it. I'm only saying their statement of conclusion does not state there was no bias.

So you can't show if they are biased, but their conclusion was valid.

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

I know why that site's data was corrected. I read up on it. Any time there is cause to correct it, there is probability of added error and bias.



:rollin

You saying that sounds like mouse when he promises to post THE proof that will debunk evolution... next week. :lmao

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Now fuck off and show the reason why that stations data was modified and how, or STFU, conspiracy boy.

If the reason is valid, then the data, modified and all, is still useful.

Further, the context in which satellite data, using far more advanced and sensitive equipment, might count more than an aging weather station in determining temperature. c'est va?

[Wild Cobra]

My God Random. You are a fucking idiot.

I am at a loss how to simplify my intent any farther. Sorry you fail to comprehend my meaning, but as far as I care, that's your failure. Since you just jump to insults rather than asking me to elaborate farther, then I respond in kind you moron.

[DarrinS]

after all these years, you still have no fucking clue what the difference is between an insult and an actual ad hominem.

You aren't wrong because you are a lazy shit. You are a lazy shit because of the way you are wrong.

Does that clear it up?


Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

On me too.

Maybe he's having a mental breakdown?

[RandomGuy]

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

On me too.

Maybe he's having a mental breakdown?

I guess that is easier for you to believe or say than, you know, actually providing the evidence you have been asked to.

Because good critical thinking is, like, hard, 'n' stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wow, you went full FuzzyLumpkins on me.

Can you even articulate the skeptic position on CAGW?

So you get to be the arbiter of what is true skepticism? BEST does the work of skeptics. They shit all over a ton of models and forcing mechanisms in their work. Another great example is the astrophysicist community about 10 years ago. There was some uncertainty about the emission spectrum of the sun which drew questions regarding system input. Your sophistry demands its bias to policy outcome though so I can see where the disconnect is for you. Those groups of studies ultimately concluded that CO2 forcing is both real and significant.

We can point to many examples of you being lazy completely independent of all that though. It is what it is. Youre getting others to make your arguments for you here too. Argument by innuendo is pseudo-science.

[DarrinS]

So you get to be the arbiter of what is true skepticism? BEST does the work of skeptics. They shit all over a ton of models and forcing mechanisms in their work. Another great example is the astrophysicist community about 10 years ago. There was some uncertainty about the emission spectrum of the sun which drew questions regarding system input. Your sophistry demands its bias to policy outcome though so I can see where the disconnect is for you. Those groups of studies ultimately concluded that CO2 forcing is both real and significant.

We can point to many examples of you being lazy completely independent of all that though. It is what it is. Youre getting others to make your arguments for you here too. Argument by innuendo is pseudo-science.

???

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract

[RandomGuy]

???

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

???

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract

I was articulating AGW skeptic positions like you asked for. WTG representing the AGW skeptic movement as a lazy, uncreative, dissembling bunch with nothing substantive to say.

This time can I get a meme and some smilies?

[RandomGuy]

I was articulating AGW skeptic positions like you asked for. WTG representing the AGW skeptic movement as a lazy, uncreative, dissembling bunch with nothing substantive to say.

This time can I get a meme and some smilies?

Pretty much.

Darrin doesn't even try any more, yet the total failure on his part to find enough proof for his position, let alone understand it doesn't deter him.

[Nero5]

WTG representing the AGW



Arrrggghhhh! Attack of the TLA* warning!!!!
Care to expand?







*Three Letter Acronym

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Arrrggghhhh! Attack of the TLA* warning!!!!
Care to expand?


*Three Letter Acronym

wtg = way to go

agw = anthropocentric global warming

[boutons_deux]

agw = anthropocentric global warming

agw = anthropogenic gw

[DarrinS]

wtg = way to go

agw = anthropocentric global warming

Fail

[Nero5]

Thanks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fail

oh noes!

[Winehole23]

no correlation between greenhouse gases and observed temperatures:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[Wild Cobra]

no correlation between greenhouse gases and observed temperatures:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Are you saying it is impossible that it is coincidence, that two factors of many, both rise in a near linear relationship?

[Winehole23]

nope

[Winehole23]

are the two not correlated?

[Wild Cobra]

are the two not correlated?

The two have a reasonable good correlation. That does no mean CO2 is the dominant reason. If you take TSI changes, and assume the same 100 year lag for 70% equalization that James Hansen does for CO2, you have this for solar response:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TSI%20Equalization%2060%20pct%20at%2081%20to%20120 %20years_zpsdmysznnd.png

Radiative forcing on solid surfaces reemit most the heat back out relatively quickly as longwave. The oceans are different since shortwave penetrates past the surface, so even though TSI is relatively small, the accumulated change in flux is very significant.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The two have a reasonable good correlation. That does no mean CO2 is the dominant reason. If you take TSI changes, and assume the same 100 year lag for 70% equalization that James Hansen does for CO2, you have this for solar response:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/TSI%20Equalization%2060%20pct%20at%2081%20to%20120 %20years_zpsdmysznnd.png

Radiative forcing on solid surfaces reemit most the heat back out relatively quickly as longwave. The oceans are different since shortwave penetrates past the surface, so even though TSI is relatively small, the accumulated change in flux is very significant.

That link in your graph doesn't work. Does the fact that it's at least 7 years old give you any pause? I mean since then the solar, sea and land data has improved significantly.

Nevermind that you are waving your hands at one man's data set as opposed to the consensus that is the IPCC data.

[Wild Cobra]

That link in your graph doesn't work. Does the fact that it's at least 7 years old give you any pause? I mean since then the solar, sea and land data has improved significantly.

Nevermind that you are waving your hands at one man's data set as opposed to the consensus that is the IPCC data.

I works for me:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

or:

http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/papers/Hansen_etal_2005.pdf

And yes, I handwave the 97% as most the warming, as only idiots who don't understand science believe it as the pundits spin it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I works for me:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

or:

http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/papers/Hansen_etal_2005.pdf

And yes, I handwave the 97% as most the warming, as only idiots who don't understand science believe it as the pundits spin it.

Youre posting graphs from 2005 dude. That is all that really needs to be said.

Now I just looked through the link and I didn't see that graph. Did you put that graph together WC?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Biggest scam ever eh? :lol this fucking place

[Wild Cobra]

Youre posting graphs from 2005 dude. That is all that really needs to be said.

Now I just looked through the link and I didn't see that graph. Did you put that graph together WC?

LOL...

Are you really that fucking lame?

Yes, I made the graph. I have presented t before, and explained what it was.

I get really fucking annoyed at having to repeat myself over and over to you over time.

The data comes from the accepted SORCE data. My graph matches theirs:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM-TSI-Reconstruction1.jpg

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol I like how you start from 1600 and think it is valid.
:lol I also like how you make it those 100 year averages to try and dampen the signal as much as you could.

Your graph is still not valid. That argument wasn't that interesting back then.

Is that all you have?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol I like how you start from 1600 and think it is valid.
:lol I also like how you make it those 100 year averages to try and dampen the signal as much as you could.

Your graph is still not valid.

Is that all you have?

I'm sorry that you don't understand it. If I take the time to explain it, will your puny mind comprehend the exponential 81/100/120 yr rate broken down to a dynamic annual formula?

I started it when the SORCE data started.

Like a whiny bitch, you nitpick so many think you are ignorant of. How pathetic of you.

Maybe it would help t ask questions. Until you do, you will remain an ignorant, whiny bitch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sorry that you don't understand it. If I take the time to explain it, will your puny mind comprehend the exponential 81/100/120 yr rate broken down to a dynamic annual formula?

Oh I get regression series and natural proportions, dimwit. You very obviously don't.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh I get regression series and natural proportions, dimwit. You very obviously don't.

Care to share with us what I did wrong, or are you speaking out your ass again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Care to share with us what I did wrong, or are you speaking out your ass again?

:lol I like how you start from 1600 and think it is valid.
:lol I also like how you make it those 100 year averages to try and dampen the signal as much as you could.

I opened with it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And remember how I told you before the last time you posted this shit how you don't understand linear systems and normalizing statistics?

We're right back there again with you trying to dampen a periodic signal down into a line and trying to ad hoc shoehorn it onto another graph.

You clearly are not competent to make your own graphs.

[Wild Cobra]

And remember how I told you before the last time you posted this shit how you don't understand linear systems and normalizing statistics?

We're right back there again with you trying to dampen a periodic signal down into a line.

You clearly are not competent to make your own graphs.

You never explained it. You just said I was wrong.

Please show us what the response to the annual TSI would do when plotted. You are the only one who makes such a claim. Even other warmers I have debated in another forum acknowledge the correctness of the data and my results for my methodology.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I mean as you step back the dampening the line moves closer and closer to the empirical apparent curve.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean as you step back the dampening the line moves closer and closer to the empirical apparent curve.

"Step back?"

Are you always this bad at explaining things?

Do you mean increase the speed of equalization?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is different about how we measure the sun from 1600 and how we measure the sun from now?
Why on Earth would you choose to scale proportionally up from 81 for a rolling average except to try and make a line?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What your harebrain thinks of equalization is actually an attenuation of the TIR which is a periodic system which serves to dampen the signal. You just chose to dampen it at a rate of 80 to 120 times the period length of what you were comparing it to.

You are one clueless bumbling fucktard.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

dp

[Wild Cobra]

What is different about how we measure the sun from 1600 and how we measure the sun from now?
Why on Earth would you choose to scale proportionally up from 81 for a rolling average except to try and make a line?

How many times must I explain this to dipshits like you?

That isn't a rolling average. It is an exponential response trying to equalize to a changing value. That is why when the response curve is lower then the TSI, it rises. And falls when the response is higher. I there was a single shift that held a new value, it would take 81, 100, and 120 years for the response to make it's way 70% to the change.

Regardless o how we measure the sun, the curve will be similar as there aren't any significant differences in relative values. Only the actual levels. Inthe end, we have a long slow climb in solar heating of the earth until around 2004 with the same assumption Hansen makes with CO2.

[Wild Cobra]

What your harebrain thinks of equalization is actually an attenuation of the TIR which is a periodic system which serves to dampen the signal. You just chose to dampen it at a rate of 80 to 120 times the period length of what you were comparing it to.

You are one clueless bumbling fucktard.


I mean if you want to equalize on that harebrained level you would need to do the same thing to the Hansen handwaving from 7 years ago.

OMG..

Do you even have a brain, or is it made of silly putty?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How many times must I explain this to dipshits like you?

That isn't a rolling average. It is an exponential response trying to equalize to a changing value. That is why when the response curve is lower then the TSI, it rises. And falls when the response is higher. I there was a single shift that held a new value, it would take 81, 100, and 120 years for the response to make it's way 70% to the change.

Regardless o how we measure the sun, the curve will be similar as there aren't any significant differences in relative values. Only the actual levels. Inthe end, we have a long slow climb in solar heating of the earth until around 2004 with the same assumption Hansen makes with CO2.

You should just relabel them rolling averages over those periods and erase all that pedantic failure.

How about you make a graph comparing the other forcings using similar rolling averages. That would actually be meaningful. All you have done to this point is show you can do middle school math and science concepts.

[Wild Cobra]

You should just relabel them rolling averages over those periods and erase all that pedantic failure.

How about you make a graph comparing the other forcing using similar rolling averages. That would actually be meaningful. All you have done to this point is show you can do middle school math and science concepts.

LOL...

My God, you are a major idiot.

That is not a rolling average.

I'm done with your stupidity wasting my time.

Goodbye.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

My God, you are a major idiot.

That is not a rolling average.

I'm done with your stupidity wasting my time.

Goodbye.

You can run away if you like.

You still haven't justified your "same 70% equalizations over 80 to 100 years." I mean an average is when you take all the data points over a range and then divide it by the range. IOW. you weight them all proportionally equal. Sounds an awful lot like an equalization over a range.

In fact your dampening the signal twice. First with the 70% of the total and in your rolling 'equalization' that samples at an incredibly low rate.

Compare and contrast with how the University of Colorado samples at a period of 6 hours.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_SORCE.jpg


6-hourly averaged SORCE/TIM data are available since March 2003

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

All you are doing is degrading the signal twice and then comparing it to the original signal. Oh and then waving your hands and saying that it's significant. Harebrained is about right.

[SnakeBoy]

Too bad the NOAA records have been "corrected." We really don't know what it would look like of made from the recorded data of the past. I assume we would still show the latter years as generally warmer, just not as much.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/




https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ushcn-comparisons.png?w=1044

[Wild Cobra]

You can run away if you like.

You still haven't justified your "same 70% equalizations over 80 to 100 years." I mean an average is when you take all the data points over a range and then divide it by the range. IOW. you weight them all proportionally equal. Sounds an awful lot like an equalization over a range.

In fact your dampening the signal twice. First with the 70% of the total and in your rolling 'equalization' that samples at an incredibly low rate.

Compare and contrast with how the University of Colorado samples at a period of 6 hours.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_SORCE.jpg



http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

All you are doing is degrading the signal twice and then comparing it to the original signal. Oh and then waving your hands and saying that it's significant. Harebrained is about right.

Not my fault you fail to comprehend what the graph shows. What shows you to be even more the fool, is you ignorantly attack, instead of asking what is happening in it.

No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions - Charles P. Steinmetz

[Wild Cobra]

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/


I know it's a silly question because you don't know better, but why do you link a blog, rather than the source (SORCE) pages?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know it's a silly question because you don't know better, but why do you link a blog, rather than the source (SORCE) pages?

Why do you post graphs that you made yourself? Look at the bottom of the page at the bibliography btw. Note the authors credentials. Compare them with your own.

Also again:

You still haven't justified your "same 70% equalizations over 80 to 100 years."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dr. Greg Kopp is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. He has a background in solar physics and aerospace instrumentation. Greg is the instrument scientist for the TIM (Total Irradiance Monitor) spaceflight instruments aboard SORCE, TCTE, and TSIS. As the PI of the TSI Radiometer Facility, he helped establish the now accepted lower TSI value of 1361 W/m² representative of solar minimum. He maintains updated TSI plots on his TSI page.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you post graphs that you made yourself? Look at the bottom of the page at the bibliography btw. Note the authors credentials. Compare them with your own.

Also again:

You still haven't justified your "same 70% equalizations over 80 to 100 years."

Would you expect the equalization time to be much different?

[boutons_deux]

More Than Exxon: Big Oil Companies for Years Shared Damning Climate Research

New investigative reporting exposes a task force headed by the American Petroleum Institute also knew about global warming since the 1970's

It wasn't just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet.

New investigative reporting (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco) by Neela Banerjee with Inside Climate News revealed on Tuesday that scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company may have for decades known about the impacts of carbon emissions on the climate.

Between 1979 and 1983, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry's most powerful lobby group, ran a task force for fossil fuel companies to "monitor and share climate research," according to internal documents obtained by Inside Climate News.

According to the reporting:

Like Exxon, the companies also expressed a willingness to understand the links between their product, greater CO2 concentrations and the climate, the papers reveal. Some corporations ran their own research units as well, although they were smaller and less ambitious than Exxon's and focused on climate modeling, said James J. Nelson, the former director of the task force.

"It was a fact-finding task force," Nelson said in an interview. "We wanted to look at emerging science, the implications of it and where improvements could be made, if possible, to reduce emissions." :lol


The 'CO2 and Climate Task Force,' which changed in 1980 its name to the 'Climate and Energy Task Force,' included researchers from Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, and Sohio, among others.

One memo by an Exxon task force representative pointed to 1979 "background paper on CO2," which "predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt," noting that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily.

And at a February 1980 meeting in New York, the task force invited Professor John A. Laurmann of Stanford University to brief members about climate science.

"In his conclusions section, Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with 'major economic consequences,'" Banerjee reports.

He then told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with 'globally catastrophic effects,'" Banerjee reports.

The documents show that API members, at one point, considered an alternative path in the face of these dire predictions:

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered "for consideration" the idea that "an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation," according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980.

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a "potential area" for research and development that called for it to "'Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.' This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements."


"Yet," Banerjee notes, "by the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change."

The lobby group teamed up with Exxon and others to form the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which successfully lobbied the U.S. to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

The damning revelations are the latest in an ongoing investigation (http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken) into what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and then suppressed (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/14/exxons-climate-lie-no-corporation-has-ever-done-anything-big-or-bad)for decades —all while continuing to profit from the planet's destruction.

Reports that Exxon, specifically, lied about climate change were published early October in the Los Angeles Times (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/), mirroring a separate but similar investigation by Inside Climate News (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming)in September. Those findings set off a storm (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/19/heat-building-exxon-multiple-probes-explore-climate-cover) of outrage, including a probe (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/05/exxonknew-escalates-ny-attorney-general-subpoenas-oil-giant-over-climate-crimes)by the New York Attorney General.

Nelson, a former head of the API task force, told Banerjee that with the growing powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1980's, API decided to shift gears.

"They took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, which was primarily lobbyists," he said. "They weren't focused on doing research or on improving the oil industry's impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in how to make it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry. That's not meant as a criticism. It's just a fact of life."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/22/more-exxon-big-oil-companies-years-shared-damning-climate-research

[Wild Cobra]

More Than Exxon: Big Oil Companies for Years Shared Damning Climate Research

New investigative reporting exposes a task force headed by the American Petroleum Institute also knew about global warming since the 1970's

It wasn't just Exxon that knew fossil fuels were cooking the planet.

New investigative reporting (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco) by Neela Banerjee with Inside Climate News revealed on Tuesday that scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company may have for decades known about the impacts of carbon emissions on the climate.

Between 1979 and 1983, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry's most powerful lobby group, ran a task force for fossil fuel companies to "monitor and share climate research," according to internal documents obtained by Inside Climate News.

According to the reporting:

Like Exxon, the companies also expressed a willingness to understand the links between their product, greater CO2 concentrations and the climate, the papers reveal. Some corporations ran their own research units as well, although they were smaller and less ambitious than Exxon's and focused on climate modeling, said James J. Nelson, the former director of the task force.

"It was a fact-finding task force," Nelson said in an interview. "We wanted to look at emerging science, the implications of it and where improvements could be made, if possible, to reduce emissions." :lol


The 'CO2 and Climate Task Force,' which changed in 1980 its name to the 'Climate and Energy Task Force,' included researchers from Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, and Sohio, among others.

One memo by an Exxon task force representative pointed to 1979 "background paper on CO2," which "predicted when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt," noting that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily.

And at a February 1980 meeting in New York, the task force invited Professor John A. Laurmann of Stanford University to brief members about climate science.

"In his conclusions section, Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with 'major economic consequences,'" Banerjee reports.

He then told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with 'globally catastrophic effects,'" Banerjee reports.

The documents show that API members, at one point, considered an alternative path in the face of these dire predictions:

Bruce S. Bailey of Texaco offered "for consideration" the idea that "an overall goal of the Task Force should be to help develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation," according to the minutes of a meeting on Feb. 29, 1980.

The minutes also show that the task force discussed a "potential area" for research and development that called for it to "'Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.' This would include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing and requirements."


"Yet," Banerjee notes, "by the 1990s, it was clear that API had opted for a markedly different approach to the threat of climate change."

The lobby group teamed up with Exxon and others to form the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which successfully lobbied the U.S. to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

The damning revelations are the latest in an ongoing investigation (http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken) into what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and then suppressed (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/14/exxons-climate-lie-no-corporation-has-ever-done-anything-big-or-bad)for decades —all while continuing to profit from the planet's destruction.

Reports that Exxon, specifically, lied about climate change were published early October in the Los Angeles Times (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/), mirroring a separate but similar investigation by Inside Climate News (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming)in September. Those findings set off a storm (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/19/heat-building-exxon-multiple-probes-explore-climate-cover) of outrage, including a probe (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/05/exxonknew-escalates-ny-attorney-general-subpoenas-oil-giant-over-climate-crimes)by the New York Attorney General.

Nelson, a former head of the API task force, told Banerjee that with the growing powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1980's, API decided to shift gears.

"They took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, which was primarily lobbyists," he said. "They weren't focused on doing research or on improving the oil industry's impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in how to make it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry. That's not meant as a criticism. It's just a fact of life."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/22/more-exxon-big-oil-companies-years-shared-damning-climate-research




yawn.

Isn't this the third time posting this nonsense now?

OK Dorthy. Click your heels three time and say "there's no place like home" three times.

LOL...

Common Dreams.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Would you expect the equalization time to be much different?

nice dodge. Formula, dipshit. Show your work for the 'equalization.'

I like the century long sample rate so you can degrade it into a line personally. Fits in with your normal stupidity.

[boutons_deux]

yawn.

Isn't this the third time posting this nonsense now?



No, it isn't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known.

The group's members included senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron, according to internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News and interviews with the task force's former director.

An InsideClimate News investigative series has shown that Exxon launched its own cutting-edge CO2 sampling program in 1978 in order to understand a phenomenon it suspected could harm its business. About a decade later, Exxon spearheaded campaigns to cast doubt on climate science and stall regulation of greenhouse gases. The previously unpublished papers about the climate task force indicate that API, the industry's most powerful lobbying group, followed a similar arc to Exxon's in confronting the threat of climate change.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

That is the source article for boutox's article. Its good and the source this time is a pullitzer prize winning nonprofit as opposed to a left wing partisan news site.

[boutons_deux]

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

That is the source article for boutox's article. Its good and the source this time is a pullitzer prize winning nonprofit as opposed to a left wing partisan news site.

Fuzzy Brains, we can all see that dark red stain running down your pants leg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy Brains, we can all see that dark red stain running down your pants leg

:lol how can you say 'we' about anything. Youre all on your lonesome, buttcheeks.

[Wild Cobra]

nice dodge. Formula, dipshit. Show your work for the 'equalization.'

I like the century long sample rate so you can degrade it into a line personally. Fits in with your normal stupidity.

Here is one hypothesis used, exported from Excel to Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PZCjt-YyUeQzxZVL73_O4FmZzyF9nqmBhq6eqfGTmMg/edit#gid=0

You can see my work, and it is not a running average.

[ChumpDumper]

So I guess were just waiting on the first real cold snap to ridicule global warming again, right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here is one hypothesis used, exported from Excel to Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PZCjt-YyUeQzxZVL73_O4FmZzyF9nqmBhq6eqfGTmMg/edit#gid=0

You can see my work, and it is not a running average.

:rollin

Why are you even using Hansen's methods? You use him as a strawman of unreliability regularly.

The behavior of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is not the same as the Earth's thermodynamic response to the sun.

With CO2 there is an actual explained mechanism for the feedback loop because of the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and the environment's response to temperature increase. You have no mechanism but your usual wishful thinking. You are desperate to hide that energy somewhere. I always preferred the deep ocean current wishful thinking.

Also the range for the majority of the 1600's should have clued you into the validity of your data. How convenient that the TSI can stay the same for 80 years right after a minimum. This was one of my original points. Counting sunspots is not the same as satellite data. Just because it's the best information that we have for that time period doesn't make it okay to use it.

[Wild Cobra]

:rollin

Why are you even using Hansen's methods? You use him as a strawman of unreliability regularly.

The behavior of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is not the same as the Earth's thermodynamic response to the sun.

With CO2 there is an actual explained mechanism for the feedback loop because of the thermodynamic properties of CO2 and the environment's response to temperature increase. You have no mechanism but your usual wishful thinking. You are desperate to hide that energy somewhere. I always preferred the deep ocean current wishful thinking.

Also the range for the majority of the 1600's should have clued you into the validity of your data. How convenient that the TSI can stay the same for 80 years right after a minimum. This was one of my original points. Counting sunspots is not the same as satellite data. Just because it's the best information that we have for that time period doesn't make it okay to use it.
They don't do it with sunspots, but with isotopes. You are so fucking stupid. I'm not using Hansen's method.

Maybe you should reflect a bit. You should ask more question related to the science. Not ones that you think are cute.

No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions - Charles P. Steinmetz

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They don't do it with sunspots, but with isotopes. You are so fucking stupid. I'm not using Hansen's method.

Maybe you should reflect a bit. You should ask more question related to the science. Not ones that you think are cute.

No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions - Charles P. Steinmetz


same equalization of 80 to 120 years as Hansen claims

So its the same equalization that Hansen claims but your not using his method.

I have a quote that I've use several times to explain you:



A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

You have completely dropped the argument about the lack of a mechanism for "the same equalization" like the one HAnsen uses for his CO2 feedback. It instead is your wishful thinking. It's what your foolish mind does routinely. Did you even bother to look up Hansen's formulation because your formula reads like the Mickey Mouse Club or a recipe for the EZ Bake Oven?

You also dropped the argument about the inaccurate and incomplete data collection. The telescope was invented in 1600 dipshit. That is why the measurements began then those crazy guys wouild look at the sun through the scope and count them which made many go blind.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm

That there is a study where they demonstrated the correlation between TSI and sunspots justifying the use of data to compare that which it correlates. The property is not transitive dumbass. That means its not valid to compare it with your wishful thinking. We've talked extensively about your inability to compare datasets to insure that a comparison is valid. As I said, for anyone but a fool that flat line that goes for most of the 1600s should have been a clue.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know how he calculates equalization. I uses a simple method that follows an exponential one.

When ever I prove you wrong on something, you find something else to troll about instead of addressing what is said.

You are pathetic.

[boutons_deux]

WC flatters himself that his science out-sciences, destroys the science of 97% of real scientists.

[Wild Cobra]

WC flatters himself that his science out-sciences, destroys the science of 97% of real scientists.

The 97% is only scientists that say AGW is real, without quantifying how much. When you take the studies and polls and find which ones claim it is "most" of the warming, the percentage is considerable smaller.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n1/full/ngeo2581.html



The Earth’s energy budget for the past four decades can now be closed, and it supports anthropogenic greenhouse forcing as the cause for climate warming. However, closure depends on invoking an unrealistically large increase in aerosol cooling during the so-called global warming hiatus since the late 1990s that was due partly to tropical Pacific Ocean cooling.


Figures. They are baffled, and can only make the model work if they tweek it for excessive aerosol; cooling.




where we have used the fact that 93% of the Earth’s energy change is due to the change in ocean heat content


This is likely true, and they ignore the primary driver of ocean heat.




GMT increase has stalled for the past 15 years, often referred to as the global warming hiatus. A downturn in the natural cycle of GMT, anchored by tropical Pacific cooling, is a leading hypothesis consistent with observed regional climate anomalies


They simply have not been able to properly explain this yet, and maintain CO2 as dominant.




whereas they are only thermodynamically coupled through surface heat flux in CAM4-OML.


This is where they really screw up, repeatedly. They fail to consider how deep shortwave and UV penetrate the ocean.


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n1/images/ngeo2581-f3.jpg

In the end, what they don't look at is long term ocean heat content equalization with the solar shortwave changes, but they do show in the left graph exceeding 100 years for effect.

[boutons_deux]

Oil Industry’s Suppression of Climate Science Began in 1940s, Documents Reveal

A trove of newly uncovered documents (https://www.smokeandfumes.org/#/) shows that fossil fuel companies were explicitly warned of the risks of climate change decades earlier than previously suspected.

And while it’s no secret—anymore (http://www.commondreams.org/tag/exxonknew)—that the companies knew about those dangers long ago, the documents, published Wednesday by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal even more about the broader industry effort to suppress climate science and foment public doubt about global warming.

Industry executives met in Los Angeles in 1946 to discuss growing public concern about air pollution. That meeting led to the formation of a panel—suitably named the Smoke and Fumes Committee—to conduct research into air pollution issues.

But the research was not meant to be a public service; rather, it was used by the committee to “promote public skepticism of environmental science and environmental regulations the industry considered hasty, costly, and potentially unnecessary,” CIEL writes (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/04/13/new-documents-reveal-oil-industry-knew-climate-risks-decades-earlier-suspected).

The group continues:

In the decades that followed, the Smoke and Fumes Committee funded massive levels of research into an array of air pollution issues, often conducted by institutes fostered and governed by the oil companies themselves. By the mid-1950s at the very latest, climate change was one of those issues.

The documents also show how Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) scientists actively engaged on climate science in the company’s name beginning in the 1950s, even as they actively funded and published research into alternate theories of global warming.


Among the documents is a report by the Stanford Research Institute presented to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 warning of the potential consequences of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
That report states:

Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climate change. If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis. [....]

[T]here seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.


“We begin with three simple, related questions,” said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. “What did they know? When did they know it? And what did they do about it?”

“What we found is they knew a great deal,” Muffett said, “and they knew it much earlier and with greater certainty than anyone has recognized or that the industry has admitted.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/oil_industrys_suppression_of_climate_science_20160 413?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

AGW is SCAM ? :lol

AGW is planetary HOAX? :lol

yourightwinuts are suck SUCKERS, DUPES, LIED TO, and you LOVE IT. G F Y

[MultiTroll]

bouts since you do not believe in God, just how do you expect the spiral into complete destruction is going to be avoided?