Reply With Quote
Is that what you call, it when NOAA records for a city are 2 degrees Fahrenheit less than the recorded record of that city?
Nice dissemble. OF course the oil lobby would never try to deceive us like the cigarette or lead industries did.
Is that what you call, it when NOAA records for a city are 2 degrees Fahrenheit less than the recorded record of that city?
Because of normalization. You don't understand it and I know it's been explained to you before. Your dumb and didn't get it then so it's litte surprise you still are oblivious.
No, you never explained that one that I recall.
How can an actual record be normalized two degrees less, years later, to become part of the official record?
When you are getting data from thousands and thousands of sources they have to be adjusted so that they have say the same thing. There are all manner of influences on a temperature reading for example if you move a thermometer farther and closer to a heat source what happens to the reading on the thermometer and what happens to the temperature of the heat source? Types of thermometer and all manner of things impact.
Stupid just discounts the whole thing out of hand. You simply do not understand the process.
There was never a mention of any short term trend that would result in a 20 year pause in warming. We were promised a steady march to a hot Earth with no polar ice caps, no polar bears, no glaciers, and flooded cities. Many of them said this would happen by the middle of this decade.short term trends in climate analysis. There is a reason when they give their projections they say 50 years down the line even if you are ignorant of the import of that.
This is literally the same Manny told you before.
"Short term trends," and other excuses only became necessary when the settled science was exposed to not be so settled, after all.
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
Yeah, I'm sure they have an excellent "sciency" explanation that is settled and beyond criticism, by now. But, watching the AGW crowd constantly have to explain why they've been wrong or have their deceptions exposed kind of puts a dent in their credibility.(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Oh, and the reason they make their predictions so far into the future is because they don't want to be around to be held accountable for being wrong. The mistake they made in the last part of last century is that they became impatient to redistribute the wealth and so, started Henny-Pennying the climate and trying to make people believe the polar bears and polar ice would be gone by 2015-2020 and the Empire State Building or Miami would join Atlantis at the bottom of the ocean.
I see.
Are they assuming that this happened and you know by how much it was affected?
What about an area where the land use hasn't changed in over 30 years?
I have rising sea levels and increased storm claims from the insurance industry. I don't gaf about polar bears and again you are ing because they don't see short term trends.
Errata FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...-figure-1.html
That said, I agree much of the warming is Mann made.
Go ask them yourself. I know that it has been done and peer reviewed including by scientists paid for by Exxon amongst others. If the science was actually bad then Koch, Exxon, et al would be all over it with actual studies. They have their own journals. They paid for BEST which is where many of the normalization factors came from.
Your ignorance is galling but not as galling as your ignorance of your ignorance.
I discovered this first hand when looking at local records, and comparing to NOAA. The records highs in the 70's were lowered by as much as 2.3 F compared to the official Portland records. No changes large enough to warrant that large of a correction. Land use remained effectively the same.
If this is indicative of all the NOAA records, then it is flat out wrong.
It's like trying to discuss algebra with a special ed kid. You are too dumb to understand so you just go back to your original position.
In think what you fail to acknowledge is that there are a growing number of really smart scientists that are questioning the validity of this whole "settled" science of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change because they've actually looked at the data or witnessed the lies or uncovered the deceptions. It's not just us low-class, backwater, hicks in this forum, Fuzzy. I've always found it amazing that posters, such as yourself, attack other posters as if their opinion or positions stood in a vaccuum.
We can't all be Manny and actually delude ourselves into believing we are an expert on something -- that if we truly were -- would probably preclude us from participating in a forum such as this.
I love how you ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph I just posted. Manny has at least one degree in climate studies.
You say all of that as if it meant something.
I love how you ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph I just posted. Manny has at least one degree in climate studies.
I ignored the University of East Anglia and that jackass Jim "Hockey Stick" Hansen after they were caught fudging the science too.
EDITORIAL: Exit Jim Hansen
And, over the years, I've posted dozens of articles citing dozens of scientists that disagree with your alarmism. You just don't pay attention. Instead, you keep hammering out the same old tired rhetoric.
"...ignore the AR4 model vs observation graph..." ing hilarious. You know, Fuzzy, when your team spends as much time "normalizing" numbers so it'll fit their models and assumptions, as they do actually trying to understand the science of climate, you should be ignored. Everything you post is suspect when your team is caught cheating.
Here's a growing list of scientists skeptical of, or down-right disagree with, the alarmists claims on global climate change...
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
There are 12 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
There are 29 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
There are 10 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
There are 3 listed with links to, and footnotes describing, their work.
Have at it. There's a lot to read and debunk, Fuzzy. You know, it appears many of the linked papers are of the "peer-reviewed" kind. That's one of your criteria for credibility, right?
And, I'm betting more than a few of them have at least Manny's level of education on the climate. Just a hunch, you understand.
Last edited by Yonivore; 11-26-2014 at 08:00 PM.
But Fuzzy will still claim its all mann made...
It is. It's Michael Mann made. And, I want to apologize to that head Jim Hansen for confusing his nonsense with Mann's in an earlier post.
Last edited by Yonivore; 11-26-2014 at 08:08 PM.
Are you aware of how many scientists there are working on the current iteration of IPCC and the disposition of the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society of Great Britain?
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_auth...rs_updated.pdf
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...hange-full.pdf
And you cannot even articulate their arguments. When I talk about normalization I discuss the process and basis. You guys just ignore that but instead name drop from a wiki page and masturbate. Nice
Can you dispute the normalization process in an intelligent manner or are you just going for the general whine?
A mercury thermometer on the wall in 1954 British Columbia is different than digital iteration on a pole in 2004 phoenix. You have to account for that so when you say 'temperature' it means the same thing.
And again if what you claim were true there are plenty of corps and think tanks capable of doing it intelligently even if you nitwits are not capable. Keep googling.
It's not a contest of numbers, it's a debate over science.
I'm not the one who suggested the other had not provided peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting their position. That was you. I've supplied a few so, read up and tell me where they're wrong.
I was being snarky about normalization but, in truth, the AGW crowd has had to come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations for why the ing planet won't cooperate with their models.
Actually, the Wiki page was just a nice aggregate of OTHER sources and links that aren't Wiki but, instead, the work of those listed.
It's the difference between 100 and 10,000.
Many of those you cited had no specialization in climate or climate related sciences.
It's a repeat of the Catholic Church against Galileo. Y'all will apologize in a few hundred years as well. And, no, the religious analogy isn't accidental...your arguments for AGW have become articles of faith that cannot withstand any scrutiny so, you demonize and try to silence those that dare to point out the flaws.It's the difference between 100 and 10,000.
Not that it's important but, many of them do have a specialization in climate -- more so than you or Manny, I suspect.
Yonivore the martyr. We'll put his statue right below Bush's likeness on Mt Rushmore.
You gave about 50 actual climate scientists and that is being generous with some and you cannot even articulate their arguments.
I posted the Academy publication for a reason as it is the best description of what the scientific community feels. It even considers the counter arguments. You clearly do not want to talk on that level but accuse others of fanaticism and faith above reason and logic.
It's horse . You are about as monolithic politically as one can be. Mindlessly so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
