a) you left out the 2.3 degrees concerning relative humidity.
b) that figure did not consider the feedback loops which were mentioned in the next two numbered points.
c) you are a deceptive piece of .
AS the article points out they nominated the papers taht were most influential and the paper you are acting like they don't consider got near three times the number of votes as second place.
Further that is not what it says. He said it was not as extreme. They did not say it was low.
He is fond of those cherries, cause he goes a pickin' 'em often enough.
It doesn't matter guys.
The papers claims less than what Möller came up with, the warmer pundits are saying this model is correct. The IPCC et. al. uses Möller's numbers.
Prove it. Your word is worthless.
My God, you are so ing stupid.
And WC sends the white flag up immediately.
Remember when you told me how you didn't need the troubleshooting checklist because you had memorized it? Good times, partschanger.
Hey, RG, How's it going...
I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on T.V. (i.e. Bill Nye) but, I do encounter legitimate skepticism of the current leftist, alarmist, anthropogenic global climate change orthodoxy that makes me go hmmm....
For instance, (and this speaks to temperature manipulation, as well):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...dishonesty.php
how ya doin, asshole? Wasn't it a shame how CRA caused the Banksters' Great Depression?
powerlineblog is obviously, like chock full of bull , as part of the destructive right wing hate media
15,000 Scientists: Climate Change Is Already Past The Point Of No Return
That was 25 years ago.
To mark the anniversary of its signing, 15,000 scientists have issued what they call the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.”
The 15,000 scientists come from 184 countries. Penned by ecologist William Ripple of Oregon State University, it states, “Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse.
Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory.
”Think about what that means for minute. We learned in elementary school that the sun will likely implode, explode, or do some other weird thing in a billion years or so, condemning the earth to wander aimless in a dark and forbidding universe until the end of time.
And we are OK with that because, hey, a billion years is a really, really long time. Nothing to lose sleep over today, is it?
But this message, published November 13 in the journal BioScience, shreds the illusion that we have all of eternity to think of something to save the world.
Instead, it puts us on notice that people closely related to us — our children, grandchildren, and grandchildren of our grandchildren — will suffer the water and food shortages, the global conflict, and the rising sea levels that will threaten humanity with extinction.
Things Have Gotten Much Worse
Since that first warning in 1992,
global average temperatures have risen by more than half a degree Celsius and annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 62 percent.
Access to freshwater is lower,
the forests have been decimated, and
fisheries have dwindled.
There are 2 billion more people inhabiting the earth now than there were just 25 years ago, but there are
almost a third fewer mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish.
There is one bright spot.
“The rapid global decline in ozone depleting substances shows that we can make positive change when we act decisively,” the new letter notes.
Ripple and his colleagues have formed a new organization, the Alliance of World Scientists, whose mission, according to the Washington Post, is to provide a science-based perspective on issues affecting the well-being of people and the planet.
“Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences,” Ripple says in a press release about the new letter.
“Those who signed this second warning aren’t just raising a false alarm.
They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path.
We are hoping that our paper will ignite a widespread public debate about the global environment and climate.
”The authors offer 13 suggestions for reining in our impact on the planet, including establishing nature reserves, reducing food waste, developing green technologies, and establishing economic incentives to shift patterns of consumption. Now the question is, does anyone care enough to act on those suggestions?
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/14...eanTechnica%29
fellow frogs, the water is heading irreversibly towards fatat boiling points.
and pure assholes like Pussy Eater and his oligarchy/BigCarbon LIARS and 'd scientists are turning up the green house gas
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/
you can see their history all here. nothing is hidden.
of course, between the 9 models that they've used in their time, you pick out 1987 which is the only one that shows anything near that 0.5 degree change from 1880-1950 and act like they magically changed it now
how come in 1981, they didnt show that significant warming between 1880 and 1950, but then in 1987 they did? how does that fit into your narrative of a conspiracy? if anything, that would be more in line with a conspiracy that in 1987 they were trying to hide recent warming
Is the 1987 data a model or is it reporting experiential temperature data?
I believe the blogger picked the data because it shows NASA changed their temperature data between 1987 and 2016.
data set.
why didnt the blogger point out how they changed it from 1981 to 1987? do you think they manipulated it to show more warming from 1880 to 1950 for some nefarious reason?
did you also read in the link i provided how 1987 didn't use ocean data?
it even says so here in the original 1987 paper
full paper: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987...n_ha00700d.pdf
Is the 1987 temperature data accurate or not? It's a legitimate question.
And, if it is, where'd the .5 degree warming go in 2016?
Your ramblings suggest NASA has no idea how to record the temperature for the first part of the last century; which would also be a problem for AGCC proponents.
my ramblings? i'm demonstrate that you're cherry picking the most favorable data set out of 9 to try to make a point. as mentioned in the paper and in the giss link i originally shared, they didnt use ocean temperatures in that data set.
it's not to say it's inaccurate, but they aren't measuring the same things
its just re ed to say that a "favorable" shift (to your political position) from 1981 to 1987 to show that older warming is completely fine, but something unfavorable is a conspiracy to hide the real data
has there been any (anthropogenic) global warming since 2000?
Pussy Eater claims 10Ks of scientists around the world are frauds, incompetent, don't know how to measure temperature, but his bloggers, every one an advanced, credible climatologist, do.
5 mins of google makes them "smarty pants".
I don't see it as cherry picking when it's ostensibly a objective record of temperature data for the time period. My question is, where'd the .5 degree increase go when they recreated the same data record in 2016?
So, was this data excluded in later data analyses?
Huh? I'm not sure the blogger referred to any other temperature data except to say, "The data don’t fit your theory? No problem. Change the data! That is how the global warming alarmists operate."
You'll note the caption on this image from NASA's report makes the definitive, non-qualified, assertion that global surface temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees C from 1880 to 1940 and 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1950. There are no references to competing temperature data. So, did, or did not, NASA state, definitively, that temperatures rose by these amounts in 1987? And, if they did, what happened to that assertion in 2016?
These aren't hard questions.
Your blogger is harping on 1 data set out of 9. That is cherry picking. He doesn't seem upset or try to claim that the change between 1981 and 1987 was "manipulation". Why not?I don't see it as cherry picking when it's ostensibly a objective record of temperature data for the time period. My question is, where'd the .5 degree increase go when they recreated the same data record in 2016?
So, was this data excluded in later data analyses?
Huh? I'm not sure the blogger referred to any other temperature data except to say, "The data don’t fit your theory? No problem. Change the data! That is how the global warming alarmists operate."
You'll note the caption on this image from NASA's report makes the definitive, non-qualified, assertion that global surface temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees C from 1880 to 1940 and 0.5 degrees C from 1880 to 1950. There are no references to competing temperature data. So, did, or did not, NASA state, definitively, that temperatures rose by these amounts in 1987? And, if they did, what happened to that assertion in 2016?
These aren't hard questions.
I never said it was inaccurate like. I said they were measuring different things. 1987 didn't include ocean measurements. I sourced you to the original 1987 paper which says so, not a second hand graph produced elsewhere
It's amusing watching Yoni fixate on the normalization of the data and handwaving at one iteration amongst literally thousands. Of course his spoonfed take does not examine the content of the datasets in question.
Waving your hands at a land temperature study and comparing it as an equivalent to surface area temperature studies is a nice touch I think. I demonstrates his ignorance and poor critical thinking skills clearly.
There were 8 other data sets in 1987 for global surface temperature?
[Says they were measuring global surface temperature.
There are 9 data sets from giss that cover the 1880-1950 period in question. Don't play dumb
All the data sets produced by giss after 1987 included ocean temperatures. Your blogger de jure ignores that and claims they changed the data
why doesn't your blogger de jure show any concern for how the 1987 paper showed different results than the 1981 one? Why doesn't he claim the 1987 paper was deceptive manipulation where they changed the data to fit a narrative? It's because he likes the results of the 87 one better. He starts from his conclusion and works backwards.
Things are going well. Signed up for Team Rubicon, and went down to Houston to muck out houses with my fellow vets. hard work, comraderie, and helping those who need it. Kids are well, getting good grades, and shaping up to be kind, thoughtful adults. Wife is awesomeness, job is gangbusters. Life is awesome.
How are you doing? Howza kid? (seem to remember you had a newborn)
If this is what you think "legitimate criticism" is, you have a very, very low bar.
One doesn't have to be a scientist to engage in critical thinking when reading this. The linked article provided some out of context charts of a single 30 year old study, and just asserted a bunch of things it never demonstrated.
This is exactly the kind of the OP of this thread was for. It is "flat-earther" level of reasoning.
.
diabolically hide the real data... And put it right there on their home page and link to the paper
Pretty much.
And because it was a conclusion Yonivore likes it is automatically "legitimate", despite the fact it is actively misleading.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
