# Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say



## ScienceRocks (Sep 1, 2015)

*Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html


Utterly amazing! Nino enhanced warmth!!!!

This year will probably end up well into the .8c's on both surface datasets.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Sep 1, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
> Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html
> 
> ...


OK


----------



## JGalt (Sep 1, 2015)

NASA's fault. If they hadn't sent all that junk into space and pissed off the Space Gods, this wouldn't be happening.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 1, 2015)

Given the globull scientists past record of fudging data....just saying


----------



## JGalt (Sep 1, 2015)

So why doesn't the "global warming" Illuminati take their cause to the Chinese? After all, it's not the US who's the biggest polluter in the world, it's the Chinese.

Maybe stage a protest in Tiananamen Square? I'd really like to watch that, for the hilarity, I mean.

Or better yet, those "global warmers" should take a lesson from those Buddhist monks. They can douse themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Granted, they'd be creating a pretty big "carbon footprint", but think of the lasting impression they'd make? Shit, I'll even spring for the gas and lighters. I have a credit card and I know how to use it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Given the globull scientists past record of fudging data....just saying


Given the dumb shit you have posted in the past, you have zero credibility. All accusations of your bettors, from someone about a 100 IQ points below the scientists. 

I see no one showing any evidence that 2015 is not going to be the hottest ever.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Given the globull scientists past record of fudging data....just saying
> ...



Bleh, shush you little nothing. How's that? You left loons are annoying


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2015)

JGalt said:


> So why doesn't the "global warming" Illuminati take their cause to the Chinese? After all, it's not the US who's the biggest polluter in the world, it's the Chinese.
> 
> Maybe stage a protest in Tiananamen Square? I'd really like to watch that, for the hilarity, I mean.
> 
> ...


Fine. You first, dumbass. China is presently the biggest polluter. However, over the last 100 years, we have been the primary polluter.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 1, 2015)

EDITORIAL: Climate scientists manipulate data to support warming - Washington Times

More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Tracking Climate Fraud


----------



## JGalt (Sep 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Given the globull scientists past record of fudging data....just saying
> ...




Even if it was, there's no evident that people's SUV's, air conditioners, BBQ grills, or what the fuck ever, is making it warmer.

So the earth goes through cycles or warming and cooling. No big deal. Some people can sit in their cold dark houses for an hour on Earth Day, but I'll be in my back yard burning some tires just for fun.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 1, 2015)

JGalt said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



It's called weather....some people just figured how to scam and make money off of it


----------



## JGalt (Sep 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > So why doesn't the "global warming" Illuminati take their cause to the Chinese? After all, it's not the US who's the biggest polluter in the world, it's the Chinese.
> ...




No, you people are the ones wanting to make a lasting political statement. Go right ahead, I'll spring for the gas and lighters.

Except, like the rest of the pussies who protest, scream and cry about how "evil" this country is, not one of you has the balls to make a *real* political statement, other than joining some stupid Facebook or Twitter protest.

What pussies. Back in the day, we knew how to protest. But this current bunch of millennials is nothing but pussies.


----------



## Zander (Sep 1, 2015)

it's gonna be like, super duper hot!!

  We're talking like, maybe as much  0.1 degrees hotter!!


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 1, 2015)

Zander said:


> it's gonna be like, super duper hot!!
> 
> We're talking like, maybe as much  0.1 degrees hotter!!


----------



## gipper (Sep 1, 2015)

Obama is a serial liar.  

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.  

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2015)

gipper said:


> Obama is a serial liar.
> 
> Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.
> 
> Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?


What reason have I to give anything you post credibility? 

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.


----------



## gipper (Sep 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is a serial liar.
> ...


How does one become such a big dupe?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 1, 2015)

by a mile huh? they're still pushing for all those "grants" they are given and paid for by the TAXPAYERS. so what are they going to say now, they have all this globull warming HYPE to uphold AND to continue to lie and pull the wool over the people's eyes so they can continue to milk us all out of monies and FREEDOMS. thankfully not everyone is buying into their BULLshit


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 1, 2015)

JGalt said:


> NASA's fault. If they hadn't sent all that junk into space and pissed off the Space Gods, this wouldn't be happening.



Obama's fault too. we hardly heard of gloBULL warming until he was crowned king of the world


----------



## JGalt (Sep 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > NASA's fault. If they hadn't sent all that junk into space and pissed off the Space Gods, this wouldn't be happening.
> ...



With all that hot air and noxious stench coming from the White House, I'd have to say you are correct.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 1, 2015)

SNIP:
What’s Really Melting: Obama’s Alaskan Lies



Alex Wong/Getty Images

by Steve Milloy1 Sep 201517


*President Obama’s hike up the rapidly melting Exit Glacier today has run into some unfortunate buzzkill: reality.*
*
*
The hike is supposed to be the high point of this week’s trip to Alaska, undertaken for the purpose of dramatizing global warming. The media pitch is that Exit Glacier has been rapidly retreating for decades because of global warming.

Sadly for the President’s play acting, though, the National Park Service  previously reported that Exit Glacier has been exiting since at least the early 1800s — before the Industrial Revolution even got underway.





This isn’t the only intrusion of reality into the President’s staged climate drama.

While the President made big news announcing that he was changing the name of Mt. McKinley to Denali, the irony is that multiple glaciers there are actually expanding, according to the National Park Service, something hard to square with his global warming fantasy.

Also, while the media is busily hyping the storyline that Alaska is both melting and drowning, reality is more of a mixed bag.

First, surface temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center shows that the average temperature in Alaska isn’t much changed over the past 95 years.





Next, while sea level has apparently increased at parts of the Alaskan coastline, at other locations seal level has declined.





*While in Alaska, John Kerry likened global warming to World War II. As over the top as that comparison is, Kerry is correct in one respect: climate alarmism has certainly blown science and reality to hell and back.

all of at:
What’s Really Melting: Obama’s Alaskan Lies - Breitbart*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2015)

*LOL.* 

Scientific American Frontiers . Hot Times in Alaska. The Heat is On | PBS

Alaska's glaciers are melting. A University of Alaska group has been keeping track of 100 representative glaciers by taking precise height measurements from a specially equipped light plane. They've found that glaciers have been thinning for 50 years, and the rate is increasing. Their surfaces now are dropping an average of 6 feet a year. One result is staggering volumes of water added to the oceans-900 trillion gallons in the last 50 years from Alaska and western Canada alone, raising sea levels by about a quarter of an inch worldwide.

Alaska's permafrost, which underlies 85 percent of the land, also is heating up. Alan is shown boreholes sunk into the permafrost that are registering temperatures a fraction of a degree away from thawing, and he visits the Tanana River flats where collapsing "drunken forests" indicate that the underlying permafrost is already breaking up. 









*

*




*Certain insect pests thrive in warmer climates and are threatening to kill Alaska's vast boreal forests.*


Everywhere, Alaska is getting warmer and dryer. Researchers analyzing satellite photographs have found that the state has lost 15 percent of its lake and pond area during the last 50 years. Forest scientist Glenn Juday shows Alan the insect pests that are thriving in the new warm conditions, and predicts that if present trends continue Alaska's vast boreal forest simply "won't be able to grow."

*Of course a yellow rag like Breibart  means more to you than real science.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2015)

Temperature Changes in Alaska | Alaska Climate Research Center

You may view charts of temperature climate trends by location here.





*Sure dear little Stephanie, no temperature change. LOL*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
> Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html
> 
> ...




Sharpen up that pencil...  Got whip those numbers up higher and ;lower the older ones...  Got to show this year was theeeee HOOTTTESSSTTTT!...







I will call BU:LL SHIT!  and I have empirical evidence to prove it!   Why do you fools keep playing with broken models?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Temperature Changes in Alaska | Alaska Climate Research Center
> 
> You may view charts of temperature climate trends by location here.
> 
> ...



You want to post the ADJUSTMENTS made to that data set?  They are stunning.. this year alone they have added almost 3 deg C..  I wonder why that is?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Given the globull scientists past record of fudging data....just saying
> ...



Hottest ever?

Why do you keep on insisting the earth is only around 130 years old?

Damn pick up a history book once and a while...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Given the globull scientists past record of fudging data....just saying
> ...



Naww.. Just the satellite record that USED to agree perfectly with the surface data and for some strange reason -- known only to skeptics and politicians --- the surface data is going WAAAY out of whack...   Won't be exceptional measured with space age technology out of the hands (largely) of activist political appointees like Gavin Schmidt at NASA...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
> ...



That's land data from RSS.. Not gonna show the El Nino which WILL raise 2015 by a bit. I think intelligent folks can understand that an El Nino year is different from Global Climate change.. Just show the ENTIRE sat record. That's the only record that counts anyway..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...






Like this one? Opps that's the old one..

Try this one..




Thats much better... Both from 1979 in two graphs...


ANd 1998 has this year beat to death by almost a full degree C!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 2, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



His article yaps about how warm the ocean has been...I am still waiting for some to give me some day to day data on the ocean temperature between 1870 and 2004


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2015)

bear513 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And make that ENOUGH ocean data to accurately figure out the GLOBAL ocean average for 1894... And while you're at it --- give us the VOLUMETRIC heating to depths of 700 meters.. And make it quick.... 

And bring me an O'Doules.. I have to stay sober til my call to China tonight..


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is a serial liar.
> ...


back at ya!!! Look up that word hypocrite yet and see your photo?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is a serial liar.
> ...


hmmmm...And what have I told you socks.  They lie, they all lie, Yes, yes yes, they all lie.  Now until you post the experiment that gives them credibility, then you lie!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 2, 2015)

The last time there was a major disagreement between Dr. Spencer's numbers, and those of the rest of the climate community, the result was one that Dr. Spencer does not like to talk about.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The last time there was a major disagreement between Dr. Spencer's numbers, and those of the rest of the climate community, the result was one that Dr. Spencer does not like to talk about.



Oh hell no.. The resultant change to the readings were in the 2nd digit right of the decimal point. Was a bit embarrassing --- but again --- not many groups tried to wrangle a team of 12 satellites and calibrate and normalize them.    THIS TIME --- there is the RSS record to impugne. Making it 10 times harder for you and your warmernuts to claim problems with the satellite records. And just last month --- UAH brought out the last methodology that coincidentally gives even BETTER agreement with RSS.. Totally different signal processing -- Totally similar results for the entire fucking globe.. NOPE -- guess again who's cooking the books....

WDr. Gavin Schidmt... Carrying on the proud Hansen tradition of activism at NASA GISS...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2015)

Flac ... carrying on a proud tradition of finding hilariously bad justifications for ignoring all the real data.

Back in the real world, prelim results for August 2015 show an anomaly in the high .8's. Since the previous August record was +0.81C in 2014, it's basically a given that August 2015 will be found to be the hottest August in the historical record, continuing 2015's climb to a blowout record for hottest year.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Flac ... carrying on a proud tradition of finding hilariously bad justifications for ignoring all the real data.
> 
> Back in the real world, prelim results for August 2015 show an anomaly in the high .8's. Since the previous August record was +0.81C in 2014, it's basically a given that August 2015 will be found to be the hottest August in the historical record, continuing 2015's climb to a blowout record for hottest year.



Not a remarkable month in either of the satellite records. Matter of fact -- ALL of these historic record claims for 2015 are not backed by the satellite records that USED TO AGREE with NASA GISS.. What do YOU think is going on with that? I KNOW what's going on with the surface records. It's a high El Nino year and the kitchens at GISS are cooking the data.

Satellites will SHOW an El Nino bump.. But probably will be less or comparable to the 1998 bump...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Not a remarkable month in either of the satellite records. Matter of fact -- ALL of these historic record claims for 2015 are not backed by the satellite records that USED TO AGREE with NASA GISS.. What do YOU think is going on with that?



Like most people, I think the extremely complex, convoluted, fudged and twiddled satellite models are off.

I don't think the extremely reliable and straightforward surface temp measurements have been tampered with, given that there's never been a speck of evidence supporting such a deranged fantasy.

Finally, I'll point out the surface adjustments make the total warming look smaller, meaning that any conspiracy theory claiming the opposite can immediately be written off as being totally delusional.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is a serial liar.
> ...


 
What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2015)

My, my, a bald statement without any indictation of what you are talking about. Nice emblem of Treason on the bottom there, also. 

So tell me, who is directing this grand conspiracy that has the vast majority of scientists in the world telling us lies? Illumanti? The Masons? The Knights Templar? Tell me, must be some really powerful forces that can get all the different people from different nations and cultures to all agree to publish fraudelent  papers in so many differant scientific journals. Tell me, oh all knowing person, Mr. Wildcard.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> EDITORIAL: Climate scientists manipulate data to support warming - Washington Times
> 
> More Countries Caught Manipulating Their Climate Data
> 
> ...



Oh. Denier blogs and The Washington Times.

Seems like major science journals would have this as a story, since fraudulent data is massively destructive to both scientific journals and scientific careers.

But I guess they are in on the plot too, huh?  And I bet you think pharma has a cure for cancer but won't release it because they want people sick to make money too...


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EDITORIAL: Climate scientists manipulate data to support warming - Washington Times
> ...



Go away, noob


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc.  because their statements  are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



I thought so.

Can't respond, so you pretend that your length of time being wrong somehow trumps my length of time pointing out you're wrong.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



All you are doing is harping on sources...I have little patience for that rookie crap.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





threegoofs said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > EDITORIAL: Climate scientists manipulate data to support warming - Washington Times
> ...



Do you really want to fuck with us paid noob?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You hit all the paid poster crap in one shot.. congratulations!  You must be a proud reader of Skeptical Crap and Lies Science..


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



If anyone is paying that one they are not getting their money worth


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Yup lassy we have heart, soul and real science on our side 

They just have paid pretend science And propaganda on theirs..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Well, sources are quite revealing.

And your lack of competent sources is even more revealing.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Ah, yes. I must be part of the conspiracy, right?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...




Can't find one, huh?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Damn, Bear, fucking with a willfully ignorant ass is all too easy. Perhaps you are a paid poster, doesn't mean everyone else is. I certainly am not. I make a very adaquaete salary where I work.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Yessireee............  Silly lass hates sources. Much prefers nonsense form obese junkies and fake British Lords.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




I'm starting to see the pattern here.  No coherent arguments, denial of basic facts, and misinterpretation simple sources.

And then when they've not noting else, they accuse the other side of being paid to post.

Oh, well, I guess they think I seem very professional.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



i'll stick with degreed scientist over you...You think you know more then them??? No wonder you think we don't need any of our science institutions. Goddamn, seek help.

What denial of basic facts? This year based on the surface data is turning out to be extremely warm. How is that denial? This is partly because of a insanely powerful nino! How is that not a fact?

Professional? lol You wouldn't be made a toilet washer at the noaa. haha


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Can you show me your secret temperature data base? Otherwise, you couldn't hit the back side of a barn standing 5 feet away.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 5, 2015)

bear513 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Noaa, nasa and nearly every science institution on this planet is fake? Is that what you're saying??? You're mentally challenged if you believe this. I do feel sorry for you and believe you may very well have much heart in what you believe.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


I think you're confused.

I'm the one who said the Washington Times was a ridiculous source.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



What WAS the consensus of those organizations ?? And what exact question did they answer? Because the world is slightly warming and NOBODY rejects the premise that climate changes.. Did they POLL their membership on any important questions --- or was this a front office statement? 

Did they answer the question of what the additional temperature rise was gonna by in 2050? 2100? If not -- how is a massive remediation campaign justified? It's not about fluff and propaganda statements.. It's about science. And if you don't know what questions these "consensus statements" answer -- you better figure out what the scientific arguments ARE -- before you go waving "statements" in front of folks who have folllowed this science misadventure for decades....


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


Yeah....see, this is why I posted the link.  So you could FOLLOW IT and see what they said.

I know exactly what the consensus statements answer, and have a pretty good understanding of the arguments and data behind them.

I have followed this for decades as well, and as a working scientist (albeit in a different field) and former academic, I've got a really good handle on what the strong indicators are of good science.

So read the statements. And then maybe go through the executive summary of the IPCC, to which they generally refer.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Secret data?

The Australians made such a fuss over their temperature dataset that a committee was formed to investigate. Although it was in session for only less than one day, it had some interesting conclusions. One thing that they conceded was that homogenization could not be replicated without detailed information that 'experts' made in deciding which stations were to be used in comparisons. Do you doubt that GISS, BEST, etc do not have the same inaccessible choices in their programs? 

BEST states on their website that stations are given a reliability number according to matching 'expectations', from 2 to 1/13th. As you can well imagine no cooling stations are left even though Muller admitted that 1/3 of all long running stations had cooling trends before calculations were started. Would you care to find me half a dozen stations in BEST that still have a negative trend? I have seen clumps of stations within a few 10s of kms that have similar records but are then wildly 'adjusted' to match stations hundreds of kms away.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...




I agree. Many parts of global warming theory are agreed upon by both sides. Unfortunately the media and many of the warmers here don't understand that. Scoffing at a prediction of a two metre sea level rise does not mean that you disagree with some warming caused by man-made CO2 increases. Skeptics disagree with insane prophesies of doom, and exaggerated conclusions not supported by real data, not the general principals of physics.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 5, 2015)

Its a fucking BS "add in the deep ocean warming" fake number


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Then all these Institutions (at least their front offices) agree on the magnitude of the warming expected in 2050 and 2100 and are attributing 100% of the temperature rise to anthropogenic factors???   They have stated the expected sea level rise? WHEN were these statements issued and how often are they renewed. Because after about 2010 ---- ALL of the earlier projections had already started to fail and the projections and scary propaganda has been scaled WAY back.. As they have done with the "magic multipliers" that bestow superpowers on CO2's ability to heat the globe. Waaay beyond what the basic physics and chemistry says about the warming power of CO2. Because according to your theory -- man-made CO2 is only the TRIGGER to a self-sustaining positive feedback in which the Earth destroys itself because of a mere 2degC change in "global" average. 

So show me where all these politically motivated statements convey ANY useful information to policy makers or the public.. I've seen them --- don't need the links. Because I KNOW they are standard boilerplate POLICY statements and NOT scientific consensus on the IMPORTANT questions..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



I'll assume 3goofs -- you are what you say.. That's just how I am.. Read my tag line. So lemme take a whack at your challenge. NONE of these institutions polled their membership, offered any questions to be answered by the membership -- nor did they ask for APPROVAL of these statements.

You want an interesting story on what happens when a prestigious institution puts up a statement like this to their general membership???



Cookies must be enabled. |  The Australian

_*AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.
*_
Should have just let the old one ride. Want to quote me any REVISIONS of policy statements made by those orgs since 2011 or so? Gonna be WAAAAY hard to find. As it is in "polls" after 2012.. Because the projections have largely failed ALREADY and the hype was too transparent and the scientists involved have more principles than activism ..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Like I said, maybe you should actually read them.  A little reading might probably help you.

They are referring to the general tenets of the IPCC. You seem unfamiliar with them.

I never claimed these statements were the consensus. But they sure reflect the consensus.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..


You're not real good at posting links, eh?

If you grasp the science, you'd understand there is no bias.  It's like a cardiology consensus paper on heart failure that assumes heart failure is a real condition, and ignores the 3% of chiropractors that say it's just a misaligned vertebra.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 


> In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.


 
That's because you are just as gullible as he is.    

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



You say --
"They are NOT the consensus --- but they reflect the consensus." Do I have that correct? 

Actually -- those statements generally say that the Earth is warming (sometimes with an unjustified "unprecedented" in there) and that man made emissions is the approximate cause..

I AGREE to those conditions. In that some or a majority of the warming we've seen MAY LIKELY be due to man emissions..  That's NOT what the panicked and scary predictions are predicated on. But if the bottom line is 1 or 1.5 degC of warming by 2100 -- this wouldn't even justify 1/10th of the exaggerated media and political hysteria.

You theory says that the Planet we live on is a lemon. And that it will destroy itself --- irreversibly --- without any help from man if we reach a 2degC (or so) trigger. And the panic is about hysterical projections made back in the 80s and 90s about 6 to 12 degF by 2100 and likely up to 20degF in the Northern Hemi by that time..  You need to understand the subtle but important nuance in that CO2 emissions alone by man  -- does NOT get you to those numbers invented to scare people... That's the magical part of GW theory that I disagree with.


The skeptics have already prevailed on those projections and the earth itself has failed to cooperate. Since the temperatures have barely risen over the last 12 to 18 years. And the RATE of warming is now down to about 0.13degC/decade for the last 80 or 100 years. NO accelerations, just a lot of excuses for the failure of the IPCC models in less than 20 years since they were run... And an embarrassment that climate science (IPCC science at least)  has not appreciated the NATURAL volatility in temperature vis a vis man's contributions.  

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..
> ...



I purposely didn't link it --- assuming that you either KNEW what their mission was --- or that you can use basic search tools and find it.. I like to know we're BOTH working on learning here. Besides -- I post it EVERY WEEK because the warmers we now have in this forum keep convieniently forgetting it.. 

The IPCC mission is to investigate MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming --- Not Climate Change, Not objectively ALL the science on the issue of our little "blip" in temperature --- but ONLY the man-made causes of climate change. That's because the UN political body is bound and determined to make a social justice issue by encouraging calls to redistribute wealth from the Industrialized to the non ................. 

And their purposeful UNDERESTIMATION of natural variations in Global temperatures has bit them in the ass with the current "pause" and no real good estimation of how "NATURAL" variation can almost make the man-made signature disappear for a couple decades. The rout is on. The game is almost over.. Thanks for playing. REAL climate science will have to be done in order to reach USEFUL consensus... Not biased ones like the IPCC...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



LOL.

The Heartland Institute.

The same guys who fought for tobacco companies, and then when they lost and the money dried up, they went to coal and oil companies.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.



A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely.  That's pretty good evidence right there.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Again, feel free to post the link.

And as for your other rantings, you might want to post some articles which back your statements up. Not Heartland articles or blog posts, but actual scientific studies.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The only science you know Matthew is how to use baking soda, water and powder cocaine to make crack ....

Lay down the crack pipe Matthew and quit listening to Naomi...


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Yup. Consensus drops precipitously once the questions go beyond the absolute basics.

It should be noted that there have been some pretty high profile physicists who have publicly resigned because of their disgust with global warming alarmism decreed by politically motivated leadership in many of these associations.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..
> ...




Wow! Just wow. What a stupid straw man analogy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.
> ...



What is the last date you can find on ANY of those statements? You do understand that front office statements are policy and not science and not MEMBERSHIP approved.  And you read what happened to the Aussie GU when the membership DID get involved?? NONE of those agencies would EVER dare put this to it's membership now since the projections have failed and failed badly.. Hansen in 1988 told the world to expect 0.5degC/decade warming rate. He's the Chief Charlatan that got the circus rolling...

Which brings us to your misconception that they haven't failed and badly... So here's a link I will provide.. And you should probably read the AR5 IPCC where they ADMIT that the models had failed..






That's the IPCC version of the failure. From a draft of the AR5 to discuss WHY their selected models had FAILED less than 20 years out.. If you understand that chart -- you can no longer claim that the predictions are correct..

AFTER the politicians and the UN publishers got a hold of it. They tried to tone down the MAGNITUDE of the failure by tacking on about 100 years of irrelevant unmodeled history to the left side of that graph to minify the apparent disagreement. They also TRUNCATED the original projections that went out to 2050 and beyond because that was just too embarrassing to reprint...


But there t'is....


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I can't see sigs on Tapatalk.

And frankly, the forum quoting makes posts pretty tough to read on the app, too.

So let's see...no, the organizations didn't poll their members generally. But few got any pushback. You found one, there have been a few others where people resigned in a huff, but that's pretty rare.

The deal is that there is a very solid consensus that the climate is warming, and man, specifically from CO2 burning, is the primary cause.  The degree of warming is not known, but the general consensus is that if we don't actively try to mitigate emissions soon, it will be a bad outcome. This is less a scientific consensus than a policy one, since science isn't really equipped to answer questions of cost utility as well as physics.  But the physics say we are headed for a 3-5 degree rise byn2100 if we do nothing, and that's widely seen as bad.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


It's an analogy. Not a straw man.

Calling something a straw man analogy would be the stupid move.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 5, 2015)

It's the sun stupid!


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'.  In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.

I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections.  That's an interesting spin.  Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


 
And yet you're just gullible enough to believe the IPCC which misleads by misrepresenting the science of climate change and it's potential consequences.  

LOL.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



You mean the organization which has had its main findings endorsed by virtually every important body of science in the world?

What do you know that the NAS doesn't know? (And if you've never heard of the NAS, you are....outta your league).


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.
> ...



It was predicted 30 years ago fool?

Post a link?

And if you say you are a "scientist"

Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'.  In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.
> 
> I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections.  That's an interesting spin.  Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.




Do you actually doubt that it came from the IPCC? Hahahahaha.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'.  In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.
> 
> I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections.  That's an interesting spin.  Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.





threegoofs said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Again post a link that 30 years ago it would be the hottest year on record today fool.

I will be waiting.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.



No shit a high school kid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

You say --
"They are NOT the consensus --- but they reflect the consensus." Do I have that correct? 

Actually -- those statements generally say that the Earth is warming (sometimes with an unjustified "unprecedented" in there) and that man made emissions is the approximate cause..

I AGREE to those conditions. In that some or a majority of the warming we've seen MAY LIKELY be due to man emissions.. That's NOT what the panicked and scary predictions are predicated on. But if the bottom line is 1 or 1.5 degC of warming by 2100 -- this wouldn't even justify 1/10th of the exaggerated media and political hysteria.

*But, if they are somewhere between 2 and 4 degrees, or even more, there may be some major problems. In fact, even at 1.5 degrees, we may see some major problems. But you are saying not to worry, nothing might happen. *

You theory says that the Planet we live on is a lemon. And that it will destroy itself --- irreversibly --- without any help from man if we reach a 2degC (or so) trigger. And the panic is about hysterical projections made back in the 80s and 90s about 6 to 12 degF by 2100 and likely up to 20degF in the Northern Hemi by that time.. You need to understand the subtle but important nuance in that CO2 emissions alone by man -- does NOT get you to those numbers invented to scare people... That's the magical part of GW theory that I disagree with.

*No, we are not saying this planet is a lemon. Another one of your damned strawmen. What we are saying is that with the present and future human population, we are probably making some real problems for ourselves. We are sure as hell going to find out what the cost of our adding GHGs to the atmosphere is.*


The skeptics have already prevailed on those projections and the earth itself has failed to cooperate. Since the temperatures have barely risen over the last 12 to 18 years. And the RATE of warming is now down to about 0.13degC/decade for the last 80 or 100 years. NO accelerations, just a lot of excuses for the failure of the IPCC models in less than 20 years since they were run... And an embarrassment that climate science (IPCC science at least) has not appreciated the NATURAL volatility in temperature vis a vis man's contributions. 

*Hmmmm......... So the increases in storms we are seeing this year, and the damage from the drought in the West are not in line with the predictions? One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather will have wider and wilder swings, with an overall warming, and that is exactly what we are seeing on a global scale.*

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

*No consensus today? So tell me, which Scientific Societies, which National Academies of Science, and which major Universities have changed their stance on AGW? Please post a link to their statements as to the change, and what inspired it. *


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

He is online right now vigorously trying to find me links...

Waiting.... Tick tock and silly proxy graphs don't count bitch..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Actually the physics says the warming power of CO2 alone is somewhere around 1degC/doubling of concentration in the atmosphere. Since we're not even at first doubling since the industrial truely kicked (280 to 560ppm) the next doubling is 560 to 1120ppm which we likely won't hit til at least CLOSE to 2100 --      So -- the "physics" says maybe another 1.5degC by 2100..  If you're quoting fahrenheit -- we'll let it slide. 

"Widely seen as bad" is a very non-scientific and subjective term. And the numbers WE are talking about here are NOT the numbers that prompted all those declarations that you like to quote -- because they've been revised way the hell down in the past 6 or 8 years. Along with the "magic multipliers" or global climate sensitivity numbers that were driving this propaganda.. Widely seen as bad ----- is more in the province of demagogue politicians and international movements that have an agenda to spread. Or say -- by a Pope.. 

Also man MIGHT be responsible for 30 to 60% of the warming, but the remainder is clearly the juxtaposition of many known and natural cycles that oscillate and periodically gang up on thermometers. 

The Shaman side of Global Warming was to embellish the warming powers of CO2 and postulate wildly about doom and destruction due to an inherent instability of the planet's climate system.. If the system was unstable, we would have likely not had 4 previous glacial cycles and a recovery from each that gives a rather BRIEF period for the hospitable life as mankind knows it..


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


 


> You mean the organization which has had its main findings endorsed by virtually every important body of science in the world?


 
No I mean the organization that is believed to be a scientific body, but is rather a corrupt political organization masquerading as scientific, and manipulates by quoting the scientists who promote the lies and misinformation based on fraudulent science and ignores those who don't.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You say --
> "They are NOT the consensus --- but they reflect the consensus." Do I have that correct?
> 
> Actually -- those statements generally say that the Earth is warming (sometimes with an unjustified "unprecedented" in there) and that man made emissions is the approximate cause..
> ...




With all respect --- you are seeing zebras when you hear hoofbeats if you believe that omens of the Warming gods are upon us.. Can't reach thru that haze to rescue you.. Outside of Hansen and few activist zealots -- there are very few scientists blaming a particular drought or forest fire on 0.6degC change in your lifetime..

I'm asking YOU why these statements from Societies have not been UPDATED to reflect the mountain of knowledge gained since they were issued.... Won't find it.. Won't find NEW polls of "climate scientists" or any meaningful public debate or NEW statements of increased concern. And as I wrote -- what is said in those statements is frivolous since even I (Chief of Operations -- CC Denial -- Tenn branch) agree with most of them.

NONE of them says to look out your window and interpret every weather related event as climate change..  ZERO --- not a one.. OK maybe Zimbabwe Academy of Science --- but they cannot even afford pencils anymore..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

Name those natural cycles. And how they are in effect right now. One I will name, is the El Nino. Yet, even though we knew that we would eventually have a strong El Nino again, our resident 'Phd' was stating five years ago that by today we would be seeing a major cooling. And here we are, with the three very warm years we have had 2005 to today, giving lie to all the people claiming that Hansen and the rest were wrong, and we are cooling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION RELEASES REVISED POSITION STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
*STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS HOW HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE CHANGING EARTH’S CLIMATE AND THE HARMFUL IMPACT OF THAT CHANGE ON SOCIETY*

5 August 2013

2



WASHINGTON, DC—The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.

”AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. ”Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”

AGU’s position statements are renewed every 4 years. The climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003. It was then revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, and again in February 2012.

AGU’s Position Statement Task Force reviews each statement to determine if it should be renewed as is, modified, or eliminated. In March 2012, the Task Force determined that the climate change position statement would require updating prior to renewal.

With input from AGU’s Council, relevant section and focus group leadership, the Position Statement Task Force, and staff, a panel of experts was subsequently formed to review the statement and make any necessary modifications. A draft of the updated statement was printed in _Eos_ in November 2012, and all AGU members were encouraged to submit comments. After further revisions by the review panel based on the comments received, the statement was then adopted by the AGU Council in June 2013 and by the AGU Board in August 2013.

*Well, seems like the AGU statement was revised 2 years ago. That recent enough for you? Or would you prefer a weekly revision?*


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
> Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html
> 
> ...







And after they have falsified the data I am sure it will be.  And we will have yet another summer without ever breaking 100 degrees no doubt.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Name those natural cycles. And how they are in effect right now. One I will name, is the El Nino. Yet, even though we knew that we would eventually have a strong El Nino again, our resident 'Phd' was stating five years ago that by today we would be seeing a major cooling. And here we are, with the three very warm years we have had 2005 to today, giving lie to all the people claiming that Hansen and the rest were wrong, and we are cooling.


Manufactured warming.. by pencil whipping..  

IT has been cooling since 2002.. but again you will believe your adjusted crap and ignore empirical evidence..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*GOD BLESS THE NOAA AND NASA!!!! They make me proud. Better then living in the cave like a africans or muslims!!!*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change*

*Climate Change*
_Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015_

*Position Statement*
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

_*Purpose*_
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

*My, my, only two and one half years since the Geological Society of America revised it's statements. You might note that both the AGU and the GSA came out with stronger statements on AGW than their prior ones.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
> ...



We should have broken 100 degrees at least 10 times this year but we have only reached 94 deg F this summer..  and the trend is now cooling fast so it wont happen this year..  the facts do not support their "hottest ev'a" crap.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *GOD BLESS THE NOAA AND NASA!!!! They make me proud.*


SO your proud to be in bed with liars and fraudsters... Noted..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'.  In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.
> 
> I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections.  That's an interesting spin.  Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.



There WAS severe monkey biz pissed on that chart.  Anyone that can drive MS Office can tell how to scale graphs and pad them to accentuate or attenuate features of the data. Putting an irrelevent 100 years of past temperature on the left side in the final version made the errors look smaller by a factor of five. No conspiracy.. 30+ years of science and engineering tells me that.. And THEN -- cutting off the projections to go ONLY to 2015 instead of continuing them out as ORIGINALLY PRESENTED -- was done for spite and to avoid major embarrassment. If ya WANT --- I'll show you the originals and put those actual temps on top of it.. But if you're really in science -- you would already KNOW how to lie with graphs and statistics.. Or defend yourself against those that play to lie with graphs and statistics.. 

If you think that the very tops of those errors hitting SOME of the projected region is a true wonder and success -- you need to realize that the temp. data ends in 2010 (?) when the report came out. And since then --- the temps have walked off of ALL of those estimates..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*Climate Change*
*An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society*
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012) 

*pdf version*

The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

*Background*

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

*How is climate changing?*

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century. 

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat. 

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

*My goodness, this statement is three years old. How terribly out of date, right?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*Global Climate Change*
*ACS Position Statement*
PDF Version

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

*Climate Change Impacts*
The Earth’s climate is the product of complex, highly dynamic, and often nonlinear, interactions among physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring at many scales in the atmosphere; at terrestrial, fresh water and marine surfaces; and in the depths of the oceans and landforms. While recent research advances in Earth systems science have greatly strengthened our understanding of prior and current climate properties and processes, our ability to quantitatively predict how the future climate will respond to continued and increasing greenhouse-gas and fine-particle emissions is still limited. Even more limited is our ability to precisely predict how the Earth’s ecological and human systems will respond to climate changes.

However, comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem. This sober conclusion has been recently reconfirmed by an in-depth set of studies focused on “America’s Climate Choices” (ACC) conducted by the U.S. National Academies (NRC, 2010a, b, c, d). The ACC studies, performed by independent and highly respected teams of scientists, engineers, and other skilled professionals, reached the same general conclusions that were published in the latest comprehensive assessment conducted by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007). Recently, some errors in the IPCC (2007) reports have been acknowledged and questions about the transparency of the IPCC process have been raised. An independent review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), a collaboration of the world’s leading national science academies, found “that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well,” and that “through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations.” (IAC, 2010) The IAC also recommended managerial and procedural improvements that would strengthen future assessments.

*Goodness, looks like this one might be 5 years old, at the most.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*UK science communiqué on climate change | Royal Society*

*UK science communiqué on climate change*
*Downloads*

Statement

PDF, 413.0kb

21 July 2015


The Royal Society is one of 24 of the UK’s Professional and Learned Societies that have endorsed this communiqué on climate change. Together the organisations involved represent a diverse range of expertise from across the sciences, social sciences, arts, humanities, medicine and engineering.

The communiqué states that if we are to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming in this century to 2°C relative to the pre-industrial period, we must transition to a zero-carbon world by early in the second half of the century. It highlights the risks associated with climate change, as well as the potential responses and opportunities of low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.

*The Brits not pulling any punches here. And that is 24 Scientific Societies speaking as one. So let us see what they have to say.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2015/21-07-15-climate-communique.PDF

Risks. Climate change poses risks to people and ecosystems by exacerbating 
existing economic, environmental, geopolitical, health and societal threats, and 
generating new ones. These risks increase disproportionately as the temperature 
increases. Many systems are already at risk from climate change. A rise of 2°C 
above pre-industrial levels would lead to further increased risk from extreme 
weather and would place more ecosystems and cultures in significant danger. At 
or above 4°C, the risks include substantial species extinction, global and regional 
food insecurity, and fundamental changes to human activities that today are taken 
for granted.
Responses. Responding to the challenge will require deploying the full breadth of 
human talent and invention. Creative policy interventions and novel technological 
solutions need to be fostered and applied. This will require a sustained 
commitment to research, development, entrepreneurship, education, public 
engagement, training and skills. 
Opportunities. While the threats posed by climate change are far-reaching, 
the ways in which we tackle them can be a source of great opportunity. There 
exists vast potential for innovation, for example in low-carbon technologies. 
Capturing this potential quickly and effectively will drive economic progress. 
There are also significant additional benefits available from climate mitigation and 
adaptation actions, including food, energy and water security, air quality, health 
improvements, and safeguarding the services that ecosystems provide.

*Looks like they have made up their mind. And they speak for a lot of scientists.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Name those natural cycles. And how they are in effect right now. One I will name, is the El Nino. Yet, even though we knew that we would eventually have a strong El Nino again, our resident 'Phd' was stating five years ago that by today we would be seeing a major cooling. And here we are, with the three very warm years we have had 2005 to today, giving lie to all the people claiming that Hansen and the rest were wrong, and we are cooling.



AMO PDO ENSO Arctic Oscillations, MJ Waves, Hale Cycle --- how many ya want/? 

You got several resident PhDs here. And I can't control them.. 

Hansen WAS completely wrong in the 0.5degC/decade lie that started this whole thing in 1988..  Has it warmed 1.5 degC since 1988 Rocks? Is the North Hemi gonna blaze up 20 degF by 2075?

Hansen was also wrong to write a silly paper trying to equate violent weather with ONLY temperature. And just manipulating those events as Gaussian distributions.. But he's your man.. The ultimate activist scientist with no concern for the integrity of the process. Those "death trains of coal" and "boiling oceans" were easy marks for him.


 And there's hardly a meterologist that doesn't rely on GW funding that would agree with him..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

Rocks -- those are press releases .. Where's the beef? 
WHAT are they endorsing for a 2050 temperature, sea level, scare level?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *UK science communiqué on climate change | Royal Society*
> 
> *UK science communiqué on climate change*
> *Downloads*
> ...



Yeah -- they're speaking as one.. Because probably one guy drafted the statement. Show me the process where the MEMBERSHIP APPROVED or ENDORSED IT..  Or at least show me the conference where the 24 organizations sat down and DEBATED the wording. You got ANY record of the process of how 24 organizations hashed out a "consensus statement" ??? 

This is all response to political activism and the desire to keep those orgs in good sted with the govt..


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.

Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Climate Change*
> *An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society*
> (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)
> 
> ...







And every year we have fewer and fewer days where we break 100 degrees.  In fact last year was the first time in 25 years where we never once broke 100 degrees.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Name those natural cycles. And how they are in effect right now. One I will name, is the El Nino. Yet, even though we knew that we would eventually have a strong El Nino again, our resident 'Phd' was stating five years ago that by today we would be seeing a major cooling. And here we are, with the three very warm years we have had 2005 to today, giving lie to all the people claiming that Hansen and the rest were wrong, and we are cooling.
> ...



and that is the truth!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate Change*
> ...


Link?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *UK science communiqué on climate change | Royal Society*
> ...



Its more than that. Its activist seeing their gravy train being derailed and they are pulling out all the stops to keep it going.  Had these "groups" actually done their home work, they would know that they do not have any consensuses or that is the reason they are in a closed loop circle to keep it from being exposed.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 5, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *GOD BLESS THE NOAA AND NASA!!!! They make me proud.*


Propaganda

Back in the dino age C02 on earth was 5 times higher and the earths temperature was oo


Old Rocks said:


> *Global Climate Change*
> *ACS Position Statement*
> PDF Version
> 
> ...




God Damn you are paranoid as hell

How much weed you smoke a day?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

With average high of 80, it's officially Seattle's hottest summer on record

This might be the ultimate statistic to show just how hot a summer it's been in Seattle this year: 

In typical summers, Seattle gets a handful of 80 degree days a year (25 to be exact -- OK, so they're big hands). 

This summer? It was the average high temperature.

In about as big a surprise as Kanye West doing something zany at the MTV Video Music Awards, Seattle has officially notched its hottest summer on record. (Yes, technically there are still three weeks in summer by our calendar, what with that whole autumnal equinox and all, but "meteorological summer" runs June 1-Aug. 31. Meteorological fall is Sept. 1-Nov. 30; winter is Dec. 1-Feb. 28, spring is March 1-May 31). 

And by all measures, it wasn't even close. 

It is indeed the first summer ever here that averaged a high temperature over 80 degrees, checking in at 80.2. (The fact that 47 of the 92 days this summer were above 80 might have had something to do with it*.) Second place on the hottest average high temperature? WAY down the chart at 77.6 degrees, set both in 1961 and 1958. 

Our average summer high is 73.4. 

*Pretty warm in Seattle.*


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






National Weather Service


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

FOX 12 Weather Blog

*It’s The Hottest Summer Ever Recorded In Portland*
August 31, 2015
You just survived the hottest summer (by far) we’ve seen here in Portland.  The numbers:









Here is one more graphic NWS just put on their Facebook page…looks like you folks in Salem and Eugene saw your hottest too!





*Portland was warm, also.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Severe Storms Possible Northern Plains*
Heavy rain and localized flash flooding are also possible in the northern Plains and portions of Florida. Elevated fire weather conditions continue in the Great Basin and Intermountain West. Meanwhile, rain and high elevation snow will impact the Pacific and Interior Northwest.

*And?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

Hottest and driest summer in Spokane ever

SPOKANE, Wash. - The period from June 1 through Aug. 31 was the hottest and driest summer on record in Spokane.

Reports said the hot and dry conditions caused extreme drought and big wildfires that still are burning across the region.

The average daily temperature this summer was 72.7 degrees, which is derived from adding up all the daytime highs and nighttime lows. The previous record, 71.3 degrees, was set in 1922.

Normal for the three-month period is 67 degrees.

Very hot for Spokane, as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

*Unseasonably cool holiday weekend caps unusually hot summer

Hot runner-up:* From June through August, the summer of 2015 has been the second-hottest on record, with an average Boise temperature — factoring in daily highs and lows — of 76.6 degrees. For the all-time record, you need to look back 150 years, to 76.8 degrees in 1865, the National Weather Service reports.

Read more here: Unseasonably cool holiday weekend caps unusually hot summer


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

bear513 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'.  In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.
> ...


No, did I say that?

Did you miss the part about how the graph actually shows good correlation with predictions?

Do you even understand the graph you posted??


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.


Yet you post a graph you don't understand and interpret it wrong.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

bear513 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.
> ...


Well, if you think I'm a high school kid, it doesn't say a whole lot about how far your education went.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> FOX 12 Weather Blog
> 
> *It’s The Hottest Summer Ever Recorded In Portland*
> August 31, 2015
> ...









How many days in a row did you have temps over 100?  Way back in 1941 you had 5.  The most ever recorded.  Seems to me that your meteorologists are ignoring some records there....

From July 13 to 17 in 1941, there were five consecutive days of highs of 100 degrees or higher, making it the longest consecutive streak of 100-degree or higher days since record-keeping began at Portland International Airport in October 1940.


Extended heat wave, with possible 100-degree days, high humidity, next week in Portland forecast (video)


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'.  In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.
> ...



This is nonsensical.  The data and ranges clearly fall in the ranges that were predicted, aside from a few outlier years, which is to be expected in the short run.

Temps have generally been higher since 2010, so we can be sure that most of those years will be well into the predicted range.

All in all, an excellent graph.

See, only people who can't interpret data think that the look of the graph matters.  The data is the data, and that data shows remarkable correlation between predicted ranges and observed temps.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.
> 
> Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.



Wow.

I've seen some bad deniers on some boards, but these guys take the cake.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate Change*
> ...


Thanks for letting us know about your weather.

Maybe there is a local weather forum you can join.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...









No they haven't.  Temp levels have flatlined for the last 18 years.  Only through the magic of computer derived science fiction do climatologists come up with fanciful tales of .38 degree rises in temperature.  A number that is not measurable in the real world.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


No, temperatures have increased. 

You must be referring to the RSS satellite data set, the one that cuts off the upper latitudes and southern latitudes and measures the upper troposphere rather than the surface.

But you don't know the difference or care, because deniers tell you it's not warming.

Scientists who study this are pretty clear.


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Maybe you can present something that isn't pure propaganda?  I understand that you wish to do everything your masters tell you to do, but the rest of us actually care about science and the scientific method.  Let us know when you all stop demanding virgin sacrifices and return to real science.  M'kay...


----------



## westwall (Sep 5, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...








Bullshit.  The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine.  Period.  The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila!  They have whatever bullshit number they want.  But the numbers are still that...bullshit.  Not born out by fact.


----------



## David_42 (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You're one of those.. *sigh*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2015)

perature (LT) anomaly for August, 2015 is +0.28 deg. C, up from the July, 2015 value of +0.18 deg. C (click for full size version):




Now I don't agree with this graph, but even by it, the last eighteen years are definately the warmest on the chart. By other measurements, 1998, 2005, 2010, and 2014 were about equal. 2015 will blow them all away. 

See Why 2015 May Be the Hottest Year Ever

*See Why 2015 May Be the Hottest Year Ever*


*See Why 2015 May Be the Hottest Year Ever*
Already, the first six months of 2015 have been the hottest on record.

Anomaly of land and ocean temperature, June 2015
Based on 1981-2010 average.




5ºC
(9ºF)
0ºC
(0ºF)
-5ºC
(-9ºF)






2010




2005




2000




NG STAFF
SOURCE: NOAA NATIONAL CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION, STATE OF THE CLIMATE: GLOBAL ANALYSIS FOR JUNE 2015

By Brian Clark Howard
Graphics by Lauren James, Chiqui Esteban, National Geographic 
PUBLISHED FRI JUL 24 1206 EDT 2015

summer has felt like a scorcher in many parts of the world, and now scientists have the data to prove it.

June land- and ocean-temperature anomalies
Based on 1881-2015 average
Globally, it's the hottest ever recorded...
The 12-month variation of the temperature in June 2015 is almost 1.5°F above average—the highest ever.


Globally, it's the hottest ever recorded...
The 12-month variation of the temperature in June 2015 is almost 1.5°F above average—the highest ever.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 5, 2015)

westwall said:


> [
> Bullshit.  The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine.  Period.  The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila!  They have whatever bullshit number they want.  But the numbers are still that...bullshit.  Not born out by fact.


Love the confident statements.

But I would trust a link more.

And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.



Did not say that.. The societal endorsement however means about as much as NASCAR pledging to go green. (Oh you didn't mean "start the race"??) They didn't ask the team owners or drivers until AFTER the campaign was designed and launched.. In this case --- those scientific orgs NEVER involved the membership in those statements and if they DID -- you would have heard about the debates --- like you did with Australia Geophysical Union..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 6, 2015)

According to the NCEP reanalysis data, August 2015 was the warmest on record by 0.08C.







2015 16.149
2014 16.069
2012 16.039
2003 16.021
2013 16.012


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

David_42 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...








Yep.  I'm a scientist who actually demands empirical data.  Terrible I know, you who have staked pretty much your whole religious belief on computer models.  Models that are so poor that well known charlatans have a better predictive rate.  That's just pathetic.


----------



## David_42 (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm a self proclaimed genius as well, want a cookie? *Yawn* The computer model conspiracy bullshit, I'll trust the majority of scientists, the UN, etc..


----------



## David_42 (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You may very well be a scientist, but I can't take your word for it.


----------



## David_42 (Sep 6, 2015)

United Nations and Climate Change
I'll trust them, sorry.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...








Oh, heck you wouldn't pay any attention to those anyway.  You're a creature of Skeptical Science and those charlatans.

Here's a simple news story that sets the ground for you.  It's simple so even a simple person like you should be able to understand what we're talking about.

I know it's difficult so here it is.  NASA states that they are accurate to one tenth of a degree.  The "record" though, is five times lower than what NASA claims they can measure.

See the problem?  Nope, I didn't think you would.  That would be honest and we all know that you are intellectually dishonest.




The U.S. government is at it again, hyping meaningless records in a parameter that does not exist in order to frighten us about something that doesn’t matter.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.

But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics.NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. *NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.*

*TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times*


----------



## David_42 (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


So, in other words, you get to ignore all studies done by other countries and believe that NOAA/NASA are wrong on every calculation despite the clear evidence that the temperature is rising?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.
> 
> Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.





Old Rocks said:


> *Climate Change*
> *An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society*
> (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)
> 
> ...




Evidently AMS was considering letting the cats out of the bag and herding them because they commissioned a poll in 2012 of their membership.. Want to know the CONSENSUS?? Only real consensus was that the earth is warming and there is a LARGE conflict within AMS about the whole topic that needs to be aired...

Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

*Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.

With substantially fewer than half of meteorologists very worried about global warming or expecting substantial harm during the next 100 years, one has to wonder why environmental activist groups are sowing the seeds of global warming panic. Does anyone really expect our economy to be powered 100 years from now by the same energy sources we use today? Why immediately, severely, and permanently punish our economy with costly global warming restrictions when technological advances and the free market will likely address any such global warming concerns much more efficiently, economically and effectively?

In another line of survey questions, 53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure. These results provide strong refutation to the assertion that “the debate is over.”

*
Now will you testimonial idolizers please tell me again the MEANING of an endorsement for Global Warming from AMS given the views of their members above? You think with only 59% responding that "humans are the primary cause" that's a sweeping consensus statement? And what does "primary cause" mean? Is is 51% of the warming or 80% of the warming.. Apparently over 30% of respondents wouldn't even go for PRIMARY...

Let's get this right now.. Because I don't want to put the Forbes summary out there... The actual poll results on that question..

*3. Do you think that the global warming that has occurred over the past 150 years has been caused... [Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]

Mostly by human activity 59%

More-or-less equally by human activity and natural events 11%

Mostly by natural events 6%

I do not believe we (scientists) know enough yet to determine the degree of human or natural causation, even in the general terms stated in the categories above 23%

I don’t know 1%*



Furthermore If 53% of them tell you there is CONFLICT about Global Warming WITHIN the society  -- how much are YOU willing to grovel to go shoving the AMS "statement" out there in people's faces as your PRIMARY consensus proof???

Don't forget GoldiRocks -- About the THIRD TIME I've given this to you. You always seem to let out the other ear and never respond.. Maybe THIS TIME --- you will...


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

David_42 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...







Are you stupid?  NASA says they can only measure to a tenth of a degree.  THEY say this.   How can you then believe their assertions to a record that is five times lower than their admitted ability to measure?  Riddle me that Batman.  Riddle me that.


----------



## David_42 (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I know they say this, and yet, NASA isn't the only one conducting these measurements, and even so, the effects of climate change have been building up since industrialization and are clear, I can care less if they're wrong by 1/10th of a degree, I'll look to other countries/NOAA/etc.. See, the thing is, I hope 2015 isn't the hottest year, that would mean efforts to reduce climate change are going well.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well.. 

About 30% of the membership that sees a conflict within the society are reluctant to bring the topic up in AMS meetings and forums.. 


11. I am reluctant to bring up the topic of global warming in AMS meetings or other AMS forums. [Asked if answer to Question 8 is “Strongly agree” or “Somewhat agree”]

 Strongly agree 9%
 Somewhat agree 20%
 Neither agree nor disagree 27%
 Somewhat disagree 17%
 Strongly disagree 27%

Yeppers -- that society is WHOLE HOG on the Global Weirding Bandwagon..  Aint they????  

HEY 3Toes (or whatever the newbie name is) --- How about some more* MEMBERSHIP views* from all those prestigious science endorsements that you and Roxy value so highly.. I  love reading them... 

I think EVERY ONE of those organization endorsements ought to be accompanied by a membership poll like this one.. Don't you guys????


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Matthew said:


> According to the NCEP reanalysis data, August 2015 was the warmest on record by 0.08C.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




From what happy horseshit does THAT graph come?? There has been no 0.3DegC  increase in ANY ACKNOWLEDGED data set between 2000 and today..

What you smoking Matthew? Reanalyzed weed or something??


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

David_42 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



You seem to measure progress against Global Warming politically.. So if we build more windmills and the temperatures cool off a bit --- the heroes are those wise and far-seeing politicos  that funded them? It's that's easy for you --- don't change a thing. Keep on believing in magic and fairy dust..


NASA GISS (the "space systems" guys) have to IGNORE THEIR OWN SATELLITE data entirely to make those fervent scary press releases about "warmest ever" every month.. Instead they "hand interpret" 100,000 thermometer coverage so that they can "juice stuff up a bit" to make the headline..

Bet you believe the balance in the Soc Sec trust fund, the ObamaCare enrollment numbers, numbers of deported, and the Unemployment figures when they are first announced to make the headline.. You never HEAR about the retractions a couple weeks later.. Which is what NASA has been doing several times a year now with these "records"...

You go ahead and plan your life and finances on ANY numbers coming fresh out of the Fed Govt lately..


----------



## waltky (Sep 6, 2015)

Dat's why Uncle Ferd tells Granny  to wait...

... `til the cool of the evenin' to cut the grass...

... so's she won't get a heatstroke.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

David_42 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > David_42 said:
> ...









Take a real close look at where the other countries get their data.  Yeppers, it's from NOAA.  Go ahead, don't believe me just look it up for yourself.  Then go talk to a mathematician at your local university and ask them if claiming a .38 rise OR decrease are equally valid with error bars of that size.

Go ahead...I dare you...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



From Hansen?

Your high priest ? 

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Try me at trivia pursuit bitch


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> David_42 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yup they don't care about science like Judith , they just want to justify the ends to the means..they are sick puppys and want to drag the rest of us down with them.

I am so glad billionaires can whisper in politicians ears, to try to stop this fear mongering cult.

I won't give up my dodge ram for a clown car run on batterys, I won't give up my gym shoes and wear shoes made out of wood.


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.
> ...



They've been holding those positions for years now.  Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement?  No.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Realize asspublicans Obama won by 350 electorals in 2012! Do you assholes really think that cut, slash and deregulate will do anything differently in 2016? Assholes?





Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So you are saying its the elite that runs the show?

Its bureaucratic bull shit.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> [/B][/COLOR]
> 
> *TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times*



I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well..
> 
> About 30% of the membership that sees a conflict within the society are reluctant to bring the topic up in AMS meetings and forums..
> 
> ...


The AMS is mostly made up of TV weathermen.  Not sure why you think their views are critical.

Generally, the more accomplished and educated the scientist is in climatology, the more likely they are to say AGW is a significant problem.

See Anderegg, et al 2010 in PNAS.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

bear513 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

bear513 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



LOL.  Yep.  When you think trivial pursuit somehow reflects a good education, I think I see what level you're coming from.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Its called wisdom , no the difference between knowledge and wisdom child.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

bear513 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [/B][/COLOR]
> ...



Give me names 

Don't throw out random shit ...

I want names


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

bear513 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

bear513 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



If you want it, look it up, troll.

I'd suggest you first tackle the other reference you asked for...although I think we both know you can't since it's a pretty decent prediction of what has happened from 1981.

You are in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever recorded.  And the science told you that was going to happen, but you're too dense to understand.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Sooooooo

Lets recap noob

First you claim you were a scientist.. Well that lie didn't work out for you, then you post crap about Hansen, that didn't work out for you.

You couldn't give me data on the oceans temperature between 1870 ~2004. 
I am starting to get bored of you..

I hate fibbers on here.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.
> ...




Paid shill poster! thanks for the admission.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Now this is dam funny!  You would trust a link more but your ok with  your side hiding their work, denying access to their data and methods while saying "trust US".  This is like you using John Cooks site Skeptical Science and telling us its factual... the Lies abound!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

Matthew said:


> According to the NCEP reanalysis data, August 2015 was the warmest on record by 0.08C.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WOW... 0.08 degs F...  when the margin of error of the ground stations is above 0.2 deg C..  Tell me again how this has any meaning in the real scientific world? This is like tell us that we are unable to measure accurately below 0.2 deg C yet it was the hottest EV'A by 8 ONE HUNDREDTHS of a degree...

Statistical significance =  NONE

Statistical Reliability =  Less than 20%


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well..
> 
> About 30% of the membership that sees a conflict within the society are reluctant to bring the topic up in AMS meetings and forums..
> 
> ...



Wow 72% do not think AGW is an issue.. yet they wont thump their political masters in the head...  Very sad indeed...  Guess i will be sending them my letter of dissent on their political position.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Sooooooo
> 
> Lets recap noob
> 
> ...




No.  You challenged me to produce a prediction reference. I produced a published scientific reference and you dismissed it because...you can't actually dispute the facts.  So you relied on insults and deflection.

Then you started ranting and whining about some unrelated ocean temps from random dates and I'm sure will demand something else after that because you've got nothing else.

I'd call you a liar too, but I think that assumed higher cognitive functions you haven't demonstrated here.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well..
> ...



You fail at scientific literature analysis, dude.


What was the conclusion of that paper?

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
"DISCUSSION. Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010)."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [/B][/COLOR]
> ...



??  and you say your a scientist??  I am laughing my ass off...











Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2015)

Billy, you and your team have been predicting an ice age for 35 years straight now. And you've been hilariously wrong for 35 years straight. And everyone knows it.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Well, then I guess you can interpret this as well.





And this:





And as an example of consequences:


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I'll note that you STILL haven't come up with a scientific article to defend your point.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [/B][/COLOR]
> ...







Like I said.  I kept it simple for you as that seems to be the maximum level of your intellect.  You tell me how any scientist can make a claim of warming when the error bars on the "study" are five times greater than the claimed increase in temperature. 

 I'll wait.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...







How about you come up with something that doesn't come from a science denying global warming supporter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so all these scientfic societies are in on a huge conspiracy or committing scientific fraud. Somehow, this just doesn't make sense.
> ...


Well, if you don't like the statements by the leadership, you have the oppertunity to vote that leadership out.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...







Neither have you.  EVERYTHING you post is from global warming alarmist sites.  Come up with something from an unbiased source.  M'kay...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2015)

Thus lies Mr. Westwall once again. He has been presented with numerous peer reviewed articles from the PNAS, Geology, Nature, and other scientifc journals. He just states that there is this huge worldwide conspiracy, and he is one of the enlightened ones that know the truth. Claims to be a Phd Geologist, and never misses a chance to diss other geologists in the AGU and GSA. And posts links to WUWT and Monkton to prove his points. LOL


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're making this up. Why don't you present the 'study' and the explanation from scientists.

I'm not running down every idiotic article you find from the Moonie Times.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


So the University of Washington is a science denying institution. You just keep getting more loopy with time, Mr. Westwall.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Funny- I've posted from Science, PNAS, and the NASA and NOAA websites.

I guess they are biased....towards science.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Thus lies Mr. Westwall once again. He has been presented with numerous peer reviewed articles from the PNAS, Geology, Nature, and other scientifc journals. He just states that there is this huge worldwide conspiracy, and he is one of the enlightened ones that know the truth. Claims to be a Phd Geologist, and never misses a chance to diss other geologists in the AGU and GSA. And posts links to WUWT and Monkton to prove his points. LOL


As deniers go, he's definitely in the upper quartile for idiocy.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Got that answer on the 1981 prediction yet?

Thought so.


----------



## RodISHI (Sep 6, 2015)

Been pretty cool in the Midwest compared to most others we've spent here in the summer. The dogs are just now fully losing last years fur. That generally happens in May or June.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

RodISHI said:


> Been pretty cool in the Midwest compared to most others we've spent here in the summer. The dogs are just now fully losing last years fur. That generally happens in May or June.



Thanks for the local weather update.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak... 

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip... 

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it.. 

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

waltky said:


> Dat's why Uncle Ferd tells Granny  to wait...
> 
> ... `til the cool of the evenin' to cut the grass...
> 
> ... so's she won't get a heatstroke.



That would be SEVERAL degrees cooler -- right Waltky??  Not just 0.237 degrees cooler... Tell Uncle Ferd to get a 5 digit reading thermometer -- just to be sure ole Granny don't bake..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [/B][/COLOR]
> ...



Didn't escape a whole bunch of folks who have been following the continual "adjustments" and propaganda coming out NASA/NOAA.. Also doesn't fool NASA ---- who usually WAIT 2 or 3 weeks -- and then give the press a retraction and clarification that MAYBE goes on page 23... Want to see a couple of those???  


Then you'll recognize this for what it is.. An INTENTIONAL misinformation campaign to keep this issue on Life Support for the cause.. Propaganda.. Just like the "balance" left in the Soc Sec Trust Fund is not real accounting.. 

Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure

*The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.*


Read more: Nasa scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest but we're only 38% sure 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



No response on his regrets.. He HAS NONE -- he's a political appointed activist HACK.

They are not fooling ANYONE who's following this circus.. Especially not scientists or math folks..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause..  ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap..  So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled..  But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2015)

The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists.  A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.

And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Scientific reference?

Got one?

Because The Daily Mail resembles the National Enquirer more than Scientific American.

But then again, you would have had to leave your county to know that.


----------



## westwall (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...






Yes, and every one of those "studies" is almost entirely based on computer models that are beyond worthless, come from warmist supporters who generate all of their funding by supporting the fraud, and who's "peer review" consists of wives and fellow travelers.  

I hate to break it to you, but your sources are shit, and have been for the last 20 years.  It's sad too, prior to the "pause" Dr. Jones actually did produce some good work.  But then he and all of his cronies began to believe their tall tales and what's even worse began to believe that computer models produced data.

Big mistake.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Really you needed to science to tell you that an up pointing linear curve brings new records ALL THE TIME???
EVEN WHEN --- it levels out for 16 years???  Shucks..  I thought most folks could figure that out by themselves...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Did they get the comment from the Chief WithDoctor at NASA or didn't they? 

I'm sure you'll find this page 28 retraction somewhere you approve of.. It happens -- all the time --- deal with it..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Newbie wants a "scientific reference" to the retraction of a propaganda statement.. 

Kid needs a bunch of bunch of work as the scientist he claims to be...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And they MIGHT -- if they cared. They join for the prestige and discounts on conferences and Dental Insurance. Not for activist political  reasons or scientific integrity..

How about every one of those endorsements YOU think are consensus come with a similar poll of the membership to that AMS poll? Or better yet -- they seek CONSENT of the membership to issue it?? THAT would make it mean something..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW. 

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists.  A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.
> 
> And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?



Well let's just say I agreed with your pile of BS there. What would be the value of a Global Warming endorsement from an institution that "are not scientists" and are specialists in lawn care..

Don't think you thought that quite through...  Typical.. I KNOW AMS is in your list of "consensus" institutions.. Because I actually read your crap occasionally.. And I don't forget what I read..

But you failed  to research the poll -- which qualified the education, experience, etc of folks being polled at AMS --- Again --- you show you are not following the program..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You seem to be slightly retarded.  I don't know how to get this through to you, but there was no retraction. 2014 was the warmest year recorded. You just don't understand probability and stats.

Here's an analogy.  You seem to be the stupidest person here, but there is a likelihood that some other denier is even stupider than you. The resolution of stupidity is good, but variable, so new information may reveal that you're abject lack of understanding may be edged out by someone else.  But at this point, you have the crown.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




....says the guy unable to come up with any references other than the Moonie Times.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Warmest year on record?

GTFO here child....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



What fucking scientist that you claim to be ass hat a clown?

God Damn I hate talking to children


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members. 

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

Crick said:


> The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists.  A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.
> 
> And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?



Tell me again about Al Gores degree....  Fucktard!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



OK -- jig is up.. You are no scientist if I have to explain to you what a 38% confidence in a statistics statement means.

THAT -- right there ballofgoofs --- is a scientific retraction by the head Shaman at NASA GISS.. Done after the damage occurs to the scientific truth with his misleading public announcement of said fact that is not a fact.

We're pretty much done if you don't understand confidence in data analysis. Or can't tell a propaganda campaign from disciplined, principled science..

Your example might have been humorous if you understood what a retraction based on data confidence looks like -- but instead, I'm thinking you have a volcano project to get done for class on Tuesday..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Every one of your references is from a model, from Pro-AGW sites..  How about you get some real Data and quit playing with broken models!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



You really are left wit retard!  That 1981 prediction of Hansen's FAILED...  but then you knew that and just wanted to prove your ignorance..


----------



## depotoo (Sep 6, 2015)

As they have all other polls they have ever taken.





flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Most real scientists recognize the top of sign wave curve.  I see that these retards cant figure it out but want to spew lies and propaganda..  Yes the records will be set during those few years, but guess what follows...  they wont fair well when the cooling of the next 30-75 years sets in..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


This is the published study.

Sorry you're too clueless to understand that.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


LOL.

No. They are actual data plots from the people who monitor temperature and ice coverage on the planet.

Not surprised you can't tell the difference, yet 'know' the vast majority of scientists are wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists.  A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.
> ...



An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

DISCUSSION. Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 
62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change 
(Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).

*Hmmmmm...........*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

A    very    large    majority    of    respondents    (89%)    indicated    that    global    warming    is   happening;    in    contrast    few    indicated    it    isn’t    happening    (4%),    or    that    they   
“don’t    know”    (7%).        Respondents    who    indicated    that    global    warming    is   
happening    were    asked    their    views    about    its    primary    causes;    a    large    majority   indicted    that    human    activity    (59%),    or    human    activity    and    natural    causes    in   more    or    less    equal    amounts    (11%),    were    the    primary    causes.        Relatively    few   respondents    indicated    that    the    warning    is    caused    primarily    by    natural    causes   (6%),    although    a    substantial    minority    (23%)    indicated    they    don’t    believe   enough    is    yet    know    to    determine    the    degree    of    human    or    natural    causation.

*So, 59% believe that we are the primary cause of the warming, and 11% believe it may be equal parts natural and anthropogenic. That is 70% that believe we have a major part in it.

4. Over    the    next    100    years,    how    harmful    or    beneficial    do    you    think    global   
warming    will    be    to    people    and    society,    if    nothing    is    done    to    address    it?
[Asked    if    answer    to    Question    1    is    “Yes”]
Very    harmful 38%
Somewhat    harmful 38%
The    harms    and    benefits    will    be    more   
or    less    equal 12%
Somewhat    beneficial 2%
Very    beneficial 0.4%
Don't    know 10%

*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


Cool  Dueling papers... One only asked questions to known warming apologists and the other took a balanced sample...  who to believe..


----------



## mamooth (Sep 6, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> OK -- jig is up.. You are no scientist if I have to explain to you what a 38% confidence in a statistics statement means.



Hilariously, you're actually trying to claim it means "retraction". Wow. 

So, are you saying something crazy out of stupidity, or is that your desperation talking?

Nonsense like that does explain why the scientific community ignores denier crazy talk.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 6, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Yeah Rocks -- so only 40% consider it a crisis.. That's NOT why this topic SMOTHERS any other enviro actions and hogs so much media attention.. That's 38% that view the likely potential of flooding cities, killer storms and 1000s of others punishments of the gods..

And only 60% said human activity was the Primary cause.. Whatever primary means. And if you read FURTHER, you'll find about 30% that say the science isn't good enough yet to tell the proportion between human and natural..


I'd say --- AMS would be in for a dose of Aussie Rugby over any "position paper" they put up to the membership -- wouldn't you??    The front office statements that you arm yourself with don't mean crap as evidence of "consensus"...


----------



## depotoo (Sep 6, 2015)

From a 2010 study of  (convinced)ce vs (unconvinced)ue researchers, stating 97% agree, of 1372, that they widdled down to 908,  they  included 2% of ue researchers in that research, coming to that 97%. 
From that study, they admit, it is less than scientific-
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the  tenets of anthropogenic climate change(ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.  A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting  researchers relative to agreeing researcher, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not  been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions

And another poll, article from Forbes-
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?


----------



## depotoo (Sep 6, 2015)

Whose desperation??





mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > OK -- jig is up.. You are no scientist if I have to explain to you what a 38% confidence in a statistics statement means.
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 6, 2015)

*n the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2may cause great disruption to the climate.*

*32,000 Sounds Like A Lot*
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

*Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to theclimate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.*

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

Comments 1 to 33:


Nick Palmer at 20:26 PM on 16 April, 2010
I've posted this before but I haven't seen the point understood yet.

The actual wording of a major part of the petition is so constructed that even fully legit climatologists - even James Hansen - could happily sign it.

It is this bit (the second paragraph):
_There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate._

The weasel wording is "is causing or will", which are 100% definitive statements (there's no probability in them). Catastrophic heating/disruption is by no means certain so the average pernicketty scientist could sign with a clear conscience.

The first paragraph may have just been skated over by respondents as out of date now (by mentioning 1997...)
*The OISM petition was never vetted, and many of the names are in doubt. It is the last resort of those that have nothing else, and it amounts to nothing.*


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 6, 2015)

depotoo said:


> From a 2010 study of  (convinced)ce vs (unconvinced)ue researchers, stating 97% agree, of 1372, that they widdled down to 908,  they  included 2% of ue researchers in that research, coming to that 97%.
> From that study, they admit, it is less than scientific-
> Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the  tenets of anthropogenic climate change(ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.  A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting  researchers relative to agreeing researcher, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not  been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions
> 
> ...


Nice unreferenced cut and paste.

Also totally wrong.

The original number came from a Naomi Orestes study done in about 2006.  And it was confirmed a couple more times in the scientific literature.


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

More than a couple

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






*Surveys of scientists and scientific literature*

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[113][114][115]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[116] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Societyor the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[117][118][119][120]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[121] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[122]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[123]

A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[124]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[125]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[127]

Add 112 to the entry numbers below to correlate to endnote references in the text.

Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A._ *107* (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
*Jump up^* Doran consensus article 2009
*Jump up^* John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". _Environ. Res. Lett._ *8* (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
*Jump up^* Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). _Science_ *306* (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
*Jump up^* Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
*Jump up^* Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
*Jump up^* ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
*Jump up^* Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
*Jump up^* Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
*Jump up^* Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". _Science Communication_ *30* (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
*Jump up^* Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). _EOS_ *90* (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
*Jump up^* Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change" (PDF). _Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A._ *107* (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
*Jump up^* Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". _Environ. Res. Lett._ *8* (2): 024024.Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
*Jump up^* Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
*Jump up^* Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". _Slate_. Retrieved14 February 2014.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> More than a couple



Flat Earth Society agrees the Earth is Flat


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *n the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2may cause great disruption to the climate.*
> 
> *32,000 Sounds Like A Lot*
> In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)
> ...



The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

A lot more than a couple

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*1990s*

Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1–3
In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media conducted a survey of 118 scientists regarding views on the climate change.[1] Analysis by the authors of the respondents projections of warming and agreement with statements about warming resulted in them categorizing response in 3 "clusters": 13 (15%) expressing skepticism of the 1990 IPCC estimate, 39 (44%) expressing uncertainty with the IPCC estimate, and 37 (42%) agreeing with the IPCC estimate.
Stewart, T. R.,[2] Mumpower, J. L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
A Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by theCenter for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992. Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[3]
George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (_Washington Post_, September 3, 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."[4]

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[5] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited. On a scale of 1 (highest confidence) to 7 (lowest confidence) regarding belief in the ability to make "reasonable predictions" the mean was 4.8 and 5.2 for 10- and 100-year predictions, respectively. On the question of whether global warming is occurring or will occur, the mean response was 3.3, and for future prospects of warming the mean was 2.6.
In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change.[6] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made. 89% agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels", though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.
*Early 2000s*
In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[7] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[_citation needed_] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to_Science_ on December 22, 2004 was rejected.[_citation needed_]

One of the questions asked in the survey was _"To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"_, with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[8] The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that _"there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."_[_citation needed_]

*Oreskes, 2004*
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[9] The essay concluded that there is ascientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

*STATS, 2007*
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50-100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science. [10] [11]

*Bray and von Storch, 2008*
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[12]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[12]

*Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009*
This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[15] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[16]

*Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010*



97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are very likely causing most global warming.[17] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[16]
Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America_ (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored less than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[17] [18]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[17]

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[19]Anderegg _et al._ replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[20]

Another criticism of the Anderegg et al. study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote. Co-author Prall said that "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," but added that the paper provides a measure of the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.[18]

*Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011*
In an October 2011 paper published in the _International Journal of Public Opinion Research_, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]

*Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012*
Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industryin Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[23]Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[24]

*John Cook et al., 2013*
Cook _et al._ examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[26] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[25]

In _Science & Education_ in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:


The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’
Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [27]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a _Wall Street Journal_ article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[28]

Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along." [29] Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not." [30]

A new paper [31] by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".

*Powell, 2013*
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> A lot more than a couple
> 
> *1990s*
> 
> ...



Flat Earth Society agrees the Earth is Flat


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!



The Oregon petition is worthless crap.

Show us a SURVEY or POLL demonstrating that anything less than an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

I've made this request of you all a dozen times.  You have no response because you have no such poll or survey.  You have no such poll or survey because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

Read it and weep, bitches.


----------



## westwall (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!
> ...







So is everything you posted.  Cook?  Get real.  The guys a clown who cooked his numbers so bad an infant can see it.  So....why can't you?  Oh, yeah.  You're a propagandist, you'll spew whatever you masters tell you too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!
> ...



Climate science is a defacto misnomer. Pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIER!! OFF THE DENIERS!!!" is not science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

We all know that Climate "Science" is EnviroMarism and a scheme to redistribute wealth.  The IPCC said so right out in the open and that's one of the few AGW statement where I can concur

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."- See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

Westwall,
I understand you don't think much of Cook.  You've told us so repeatedly.  What I don't hear are your opinions regarding:

Oreskes, 2004
STATS, 2007
Bray and von Storch, 2008
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Powell, 2013

All of whom found very similar results.


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Climate science is a defacto misnomer. Pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIER!! OFF THE DENIERS!!!" is not science



The work referenced in AR5 IS science.  You're the one spouting crap Frank.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 7, 2015)

if it gets that hot in one mile 

i hate to see how hot it is going to get in two miles


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Climate science is a defacto misnomer. Pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIER!! OFF THE DENIERS!!!" is not science
> ...



You can't even explain the concept of "Excess heat!!!!" you called it 2 random words strung together...LOL!!

That's "science"?!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!
> ...



Right now, there's a lot of funding for EnviroMarxism. President Trump will remedy that and cut all Funding for it


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

Back to the OP......

This year is the hottest using land surface stations and methodologies that have added tenths of a degree C to recent era data and subtract tenths from data pre-WWII. 

Satellite data measures the majority of the surface, land and ocean, and says this year is not the warmest evahhhhh.

Which is likely to be more correct? One method treats all the measurements in the same fashion, the other adjusts its adjustments according to 'expectations'. 

Are there independent references? Millions of weather balloons released over land are in good agreement with the satellites. Land station data is collected in HCN and what you see is what you get although not all of the data is used in every dataset product. World politics led to shrinking of reporting stations in the 90's, coinciding with the large jump in 'global ' temps.

2011-12 saw major revisions in most of the land station based datasets, incurring criticisms from many countries watchdogs. The warming seems to be exaggerated by the adjustments. Last year the record was set by hundredths of a degree, less than the change due to adjustments in just the last few years. I have looked at the ever changing figures over the last decade and you should too. It may not be comparing apples to oranges but it is certainly apples to crabapples.


----------



## gipper (Sep 7, 2015)

It is only a matter of time before the radical left warmers start rounding up deniers and shipping them to the gulag...the radical left loves gulags.  

I am sure we have posters here that would be fine with it.  Hell those damn deniers are so stupid they deserve to be imprisoned...right?


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Back to the OP......
> Which is likely to be more correct? One method treats all the measurements in the same fashion, the other adjusts its adjustments according to 'expectations'.



The one making adjustments for errors.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee  ---- and then 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion ---   Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...

All they did is read the abstracts of technical papers and "DIVINED" opinion in a place that SHOULD BE devoid of opinion.. Didn't read if their research PROVED any of the comments in the abstracts. It's absurd..

GO ASK THEM specific questions.   Like what percentage of the observed warming is due to man.. Or what the temperature anomaly will be in 2100... Or if they can PROJECT THAT?  And do it now or in the past few years.

Don't give me any of these Karnack INTERPRETATION of opinions from 8 years ago.. Is that HARD? Can't FIND any? Why is that???


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee and the 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion ---   Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...
> 
> All they did is read the abstracts of technical papers and "DIVINED" opinion in a place that SHOULD BE devoid of opinion.. Didn't read if their research PROVED any of the comments in the abstracts. It's absurd..
> 
> ...


If this was written with coherent syntax, maybe I could respond.

Either way, only a fool or someone who denies reality thinks there is not a firm consensus on AGW, as outlined in the IPCC reports.

Just spending a little but of time reading scientific journals is all it takes to establish that fact.

If you actually interact with scientists in the field, as I often have, it's about as clear as the acceptance that microorganisms cause disease.

Even the deniers in science accept that they are out on the fringe.  Because any idiot can see that.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee and the 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion ---   Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...
> ...



IPCC predictions have failed.. In less than 20 years since they were run. IPCC cops to this. All of the hysteria has been toned waaay the hell down. 

So what "agreement" are you referring to? The ORIGINAL HYSTERIA that labeled Global Warming as a sure thing Crisis of Biblical proportions? Or the continuous walk-back of the predictions and the mistakes that we have been seeing over the past 10 years?? 

*Just answer me ONE QUESTION -- What is the temperature anomaly going to be 2100??*

You seem to wanna simplify this proposition to a juvenile level -- so let's find out YOUR VERSION of what this Global Warming IS.. Go ahead --- in your OWN WORDS.. Explain the coming crisis using specific SCIENTIFIC proven facts.... 

Shouldn't be hard since you're a scientist and all and have reviewed so much of the available literature..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the OP......
> ...



and by 'errors' you mean data that refuses to acknowledge Manmade Global Climate warming change


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


*Bray and von Storch, 2008*
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll.. 

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small.. 

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result".. 

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science.. 

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence..    For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..


----------



## westwall (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Westwall,
> I understand you don't think much of Cook.  You've told us so repeatedly.  What I don't hear are your opinions regarding:
> 
> Oreskes, 2004
> ...







All of them use the same cooked up numbers and all of them are a driving part of the fraud so yeah, I think about as much of them as i do a turd in the toilet.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans  von Storch - Academia.edu



The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans  von Storch - Academia.edu



*11d. Current theory development for climate change is*


very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | ObsMeanStd. Dev.Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 |        372    3.967742      1.275535    1


You guys need to stop making LISTS and ripping off Wiki and actually STUDY a bit....
Nearly NONE of them said Very adequate......


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

And below it ---

11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate







Thanks CrickHam -- I had forgotten how good this material is to make you look ridiculous with your CONSENSUS claims..  Bunch of whining babies running around with scissors and whining...  Too bad you can't read graphs.. This shit is da bomb...

Not a single 7 response for the top question... 
Basically, the questions here are ---- "" Do we know what we what we're doing?"""
Answer is ---- "Kinda"


----------



## gipper (Sep 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > It is only a matter of time before the radical left warmers start rounding up deniers and shipping them to the gulag...the radical left loves gulags.
> ...


No.  Because AGW is NOT relevant.  It is a hoax...and you believe it.  

No doubt you would love to see me imprisoned in your beloved gulag.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

Just one more -- this is such fun.. 

9. How much do you think the direction of research in the climate change sciences has beeninfluenced by external politics in the last 10 years?

very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all

Variable | Obs   Mean   Std. Dev.Min Max
-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q11 |        373   2.983914   1.451643   1    7

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I lied -- one more --- PLEASE !!!!!    This one is for GoldiRocks -- AKA ChickenLittle.. 
Top Graph ONLY ...... (they come in pairs for some reason in the image views.. )


16. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:
16i. model extreme events for the next 10 years

very poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very good

Variable | Obs Mean   Std. Dev.Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q40 | 365  2.753425  1.300685  1    7







Loving it.. Think I'll read it all again...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I showed you already, the IPCC predictions have been reasonably close, and they are really less accurate in the short term than long term.  I even showed you this with YOUR posted data that you didn't understand.

The temperature anomaly in 2100 is not predictable without baseline assumptions about future emissions.

For the best estimates, look at the RCP projections from the IPCC- RCP pathway 6.9 is a conservative guess, which puts the temp anomaly between 2-4 degrees C, (86-06 baseline) with a sea level increase of about a half meter.


----------



## gipper (Sep 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > CrusadeldrFrank said:
> ...


no...just know my history, unlike you...and the Left has a long history of killing and enslaving.  When will you ever learn?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2015)

Flacaltenn

I lied -- one more --- PLEASE !!!!! This one is for GoldiRocks -- AKA ChickenLittle.. 
Top Graph ONLY ...... (they come in pairs for some reason in the image views.. )


16. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:
16i. model extreme events for the next 10 years

very poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very good

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.Min Max
........................................................................................................................

*Were I answering that question, I would have to put it at between 2 and 3. Weather events are chaotic, and very hard to predict as to type, how bad, and where. Had the question been "Is there going to be an increase in extreme weather events in the next 10 years?", then I think you would have seen the curve skewed to the right. Our present ability to model what those events will be, and where they will be at is pretty primitive.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2015)

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Yes, the extreme left wing has exactly that. As does the extreme right wing. Extremists of any political bent are dangerous. That is why the conservative and liberals of this nation routinely turn them out of office when they show their faces. Witness 'Tailgunner Joe'.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 7, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Flacaltenn
> 
> I lied -- one more --- PLEASE !!!!! This one is for GoldiRocks -- AKA ChickenLittle..
> Top Graph ONLY ...... (they come in pairs for some reason in the image views.. )
> ...




That's because there is no justification for observing effects today.  Most of the CREDIBLE predictions are for DECADES from now..  Other than maybe ice melt RATES... 

How would they KNOW there's gonna be an increase if they can't model it? Only thru the simplistic "heat is weather" studies by Hansen et al...


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2015)

Heat is weather.  How many thousands of square miles of the Northwest burned so far this year. Record heat, drought, and winds. You might have a problem convincing some of the hundreds of families that have lost their homes to those fires that heat is not a determining factor in weather.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
> And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for grinding away at the simplistic claims of crick et al. I don't have the interest or patience to repeat the same counter arguments over and over again. But crick and Old Rocks can be counted on to repeat the same bullshit claims every few months even after they have been rebutted.  

How does that saying go? Something like....an honest reasonable man can make a mistake but once it is pointed out to him and he still repeats it, then he is neither honest or reasonable.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
> ...




I agree with the last statement.

Anyone who pretends there is not a fairly solid consensus in science on this issue, as outlined by the IPCC, is neither honest or reasonable.  

Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement.  The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.

Although the alternative to being dishonest and unreasonable is to be totally stupid, which is clearly the case with some posters here.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

There are a lot of unreasonable posters here, on both sides. And mostly they just talk over each other with no effort made to understand the other side's points, or to examine the evidence, or to evaluate the conclusions drawn from that evidence.

I have done all three for many general positions and more than a few specific papers. The evidence is often equivocal, and the conclusions biased in a way that should make a scientist cringe. Worst of all is the exaggerated certainty in which it is presented.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> There are a lot of unreasonable posters here, on both sides. And mostly they just talk over each other with no effort made to understand the other side's points, or to examine the evidence, or to evaluate the conclusions drawn from that evidence.
> 
> I have done all three for many general positions and more than a few specific papers. The evidence is often equivocal, and the conclusions biased in a way that should make a scientist cringe. Worst of all is the exaggerated certainty in which it is presented.



Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement.  The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

I am not really interested in discussing the political policy decisions of publications that have already publicly announced their position. Give me the name of a paper that you consider important to your belief in AGW. Preferably non paywalled so we can examine the data.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> I am not really interested in discussing the political policy decisions of publications that have already publicly announced their position. Give me the name of a paper that you consider important to your belief in AGW. Preferably non paywalled so we can examine the data.


These aren't 'political policy decisions' anymore than plate tectonics or evolutionary biology or magnetism are political policy decisions.

They are established scientific organizations reflecting the broad consensus that the IPCC is generally correct, AGW is real, it's having environmental impacts now, and it is likely to be a serious problem in the future.

Wanting a single paper is like asking for a single paper to profess my belief in Gravity, or Evolution. It's a theory based upon a mass of evidence.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.



Except you don't have any expertise to determine the conclusions are correct.

It's like a guy examining an MRI with little training in radiology, and all the experts are telling you the spot on it is cancer, but you insist that it's just a shadow.

That's why you have to pretend there is no consensus.   Are you Dishonest, or naive?  You tell me.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.
> ...




Hahahahaha, more straw man analogies?

Scientific papers are not magic, needing a shaman to interpret them. They are collections of data, often put together in a novel way to highlight an idea or conclusion. When put in context of other similar types of papers they either reinforce existing ideas or point out inconsistencies. 

Climate science has had a recent history of failed statistical methodologies that anyone with a reasonable general knowledge can follow, especially when pointed out by someone with the requisite mathematical skill.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No. The stats are fine in the major papers in major journals. That's what good editorial staffs and peer review checks for.

The 'strawman' is an analogy, not a strawman.  You probsy should read a little about logical fallacies so you'll understand the difference- just another thing you seem to be unaware of.

Once again, the major scientific sources we all rely on for other science are pretty much in consensus.  Unless you have some special skill, the chances of you being correct is (and brace yourself for the illustrative analogy here...) like you calling a cancer diagnosis against expert opinion on an MRI film you have no training on.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?

Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2015)

Ian,

how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

Crick said:


> Ian,
> 
> how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?




Exactly as often as they call you, I presume.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 7, 2015)

After last winter, warm would be good.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?
> 
> Straw man analogy is a shorthand description that gets the point across quite nicely. Your analogy is false, and meant only demean.


No. Straw man arguments are logical fallacies.

Analogies are analogies.  And mine was spot on. It is only demeaning to you because it exposed a truth.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.


Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Dude! You're pretty full of yourself,eh?
> ...




Hahahahaha, what a colossal waste of time you are.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yeah. It sucks when someone pegs you for the know knotting fraud you are, doesn't it?

I wonder if you'll ever acknowledge that there is a clear consensus, instead of whining about 'strawmen' that...aren't.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
> ...





threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
> ...




I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Honestly, it's your loss. I like ideas, but they have to pass inspection. The 97% consensus is an obvious exaggeration that doesn't stand up.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

Without the sympathetic character of course. Mann has caused irreparable damage to the world, the Black Knight was just a self deluded joke.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.


----------



## IanC (Sep 7, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2015)

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Well, it's a losing battle.


But Mann is irrelevant.  Multiple studies have confirmed those findings with better and more comprehensive data, going back much farther.

But logic and reason don't seem to make a difference to some.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Mann is no more irrelevant than any other scientist expanding our knowledge base.  That he has been selected for untold heaps of completely unjustified vilification is clear proof of the moral and scientific bankruptcy of deniers.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


True.  But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified  
many times.

The simple fact is, the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we now know this is happening faster than we have ever seen in the history of civilization.

It's unclear whether the effects will be, but any fool can guess that they will not be good.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.



You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.
> ...



Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2015)

rigged data placed on a bogus graph is ghey


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> rigged data placed on a bogus graph is ghey



Behold the average deniers mental firepower!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

That's the last we'll see of threegoofs


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I understand exactly what I posted.   See the red line?  Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'?    Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Actually it's a winning battle. I don't think skeptics can take all the credit though. I think the alarmists are losing primarily because they continue to shoot themselves in the foot and other places with massive exaggerations and failed predictions.


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




The red line is temperature prediction out to 2100.

Yes, Mann's methodology produces hockey sticks with just about any data as long as it has any variation. Weighting any variance by up to 300X will do that. Eg the stripbark bristlecones are given so much preference that they swamp the other data. 

Mann then went on to use the upsidedown Tiljander cores in the same fashion, against the author's warning that the last few hundred years was contaminated by agriculture.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, you're busted and trying to right yourself

It's only 'the warmerererererst EVAH!!!!!" once you add in the imaginary excess heat absorbed, trapped and eaten by the deep oceans, so it's total BS.  Even the redline would be below the MVP had you guys not adjusted that downward

Basically, your chart blows and is based on a flawed model and altered data


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am not really interested in discussing the political policy decisions of publications that have already publicly announced their position. Give me the name of a paper that you consider important to your belief in AGW. Preferably non paywalled so we can examine the data.
> ...




Science is like building a brick wall. If you start interspacing dirt clods for bricks then the whole thing will eventually collapse. There are a lot of dirt clods in the climate science brick wall, that is why it is important to examine the pieces rather than just admire the wall from a distance.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You were just shown 3 examples that there is no real consensus..  Using the very "evidence" that you SUPPOSE stands for consensus. So now for the pop quiz ---

1) The AMS is a big endorser of Catastrophic Effects of Global Warming. Given the membership poll by George Mason commissioned by the AMS --* WHAT questions in that study do you believe reflect any kind of consensus WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP of that organization?? *

2) The Aussie Geophys,. Union put the question to their membership and a 5 year battle ensued on a "consensus statement" on GWarming.. Followed by a capitulation that there would be NO statement issued..* HOW many of the OTHER organizations you cite as consensus have involved their membership in the drafting or approval of these "policy positions"??
*
3) Warmers consistently throw Bray and von Storch out there as PROOF of the 97% consensus on Climate Science --- yet there is nothing resembling consensus in the responses except for the fact that the Earth has been slightly warming. IN FACT -- the questions were DESIGNED by a climate scientist and are the MOST DETAILED QUESTIONS ever polled to actual climate scientists.. The answers give a lukewarm appraisal of the confidence that these researchers have in their ability to model and predict climate change. *How can there be a consensus with such lukewarm appraisal of their own profession??? 
*
4) Just a reminder --- but you never answered my question pertinent to this Thread OP whether the UK Guardian "made up" that interview with the Chief of NASA GISS -- in which he walked back the claim of 2014 being the hottest year ever.. Story was carried in Forbes and WSJ as well. *Do you understand that a 38% confidence on that statistic is UNACCEPTABLE from a math/science point of view for scaring the public and propaganda purposes? Do you further understand that NASA GISS (the Space Sciences guys) NEVER MENTIONED that their satellite data did not find 2014 anywhere NEAR an exceptional year??? *


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.
> ...



Not true Bullwinkle... Many of us who work in science can read Scientific American on ANY TOPIC and understand where and how to look to learn more. There is NOTHING difficult about understanding the "hockey stick" historical studies of climate. It's history and methods and the same kind of Data preparation that I do every day.. Except that I don't SELECT from 12 trees in Siberia the ones who's tree rings match my thesis.. 

MANY folks can cross-train in science and technology. I've done that my entire career.. 
And MOST of the work in the Global Warming library is not that difficult at all...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
> ...



Let's skip the content of peer reviewed articles that you've never TRIED to read and go to actual scientific debate. 
The new Chief of GISS was defeated in an open debate carried on NPR and other media.. ADMITTED that his side lost the proposition "Global Warming is Not a Crisis"...  Why don't we see MORE of that ---  and less media propaganda about the ocean's boiling (CBS) and people dying (ABC)? Why have chief ACTIVIST SCIENTISTS like Mann and Schmidt consistently rejected sitting down to structured public debate on the topic?? 

They can't defend the outrageous claims and predictions of doom..  That's why.. Doesn't matter what the papers say.. As Ian said -- when you actually READ THEM -- they express all kinds of reasonable doubt and uncertainty and honesty in WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW.. But there are a cabal of activists that feed the political process and the public pure bullshit and NEVER even flinch.. That von Storch poll of climate folks ask the question. And the response was overwhelmingly that the science has been GREATLY poliiticized.. So if your opinion is based on mainstream media and National Geographic ---- you don't know shit on the topic... 

HERE is one of the leading Climate Scientists at work today in his "peer reviewed:" academic tower.. 






That guy needs to wake up in the 21st Century and get out of there and DEBATE his theories...


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2015)

Debate is supposed to be the life blood of science. Climate science doesn't allow it. The editor of Science journal made that perfectly clear. And now she will be the new president of one of the science organizations that Old Rocks loves to hold up as a virtuous beacon.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> True.  But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified
> many times.
> 
> The simple fact is, the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we now know this is happening faster than we have ever seen in the history of civilization.
> ...




That right there is an example of the GROSS misrepresentation of what the "science says".. If you READ anything about the process of preparing a proxy study like for the ENTIRE GLOBE over 10s of thousands of years --- you'd understand why that "unprecendented" qualifier is propaganda -- not science..

How about hearing it from Marcott --- and then if you DON'T UNDERSTAND what he says -- I'll help you figure it out....



> Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.
> 
> _*Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
> 
> A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.*_



When you try to find a 10,000 year record of the ENTIRE GLOBE with only 79 sample points of unrelated and vastly differing proxies --- you  WILL NOT SEE temperature events less than SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. And temperature events that are shorter than a 1000 years will have their mins and maxes GREATLY attenuated.. So to "tack on" a MODERN instrumentation record to a historical proxy study like Marcott --- you are GUARANTEED to see a hockey stick.. Marcott Says that in MANY interviews.. A lot of this "unprecedated" BULLCRAP came from the activists like Phil Jones (who I pictured above for you) Mann and Hansen..

The AUTHOR is far more honest about what his work shows when asked the proper technical questions..

Glad to help you out here 3goofs. You need to work at bit to bust through the hysteria and even approach the science..


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > True.  But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified
> ...




I don't imagine that even quotes from Marcott will discourage crick and his ilk from believing the correctness of grafting high variance modern data onto low resolution proxy data


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Your colorblindness apparently does not allow you to read the graph.  Sorry about that.

Again, you can skip Mann.  His work has been overwhelmingly upheld by other proxy studies that were global in scale and used many, many more proxies.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well, I'm sure you have scientific studies that refute this. 

Lets see them.

Oh wait.  You've never read one, I'm guessing.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Gish Gallop here.

Your whining on points 1-3 is simply counter to reality.  There is a clear consensus.  Pick up a journal someday.

I didnt reply to your point #4 because its absolutely stupid.   A 38% confidence level is totally appropriate for a variable dataset - it was the warmest year.  There is no other year that comes closer to it.  People who get their undies in a bunch about this are clueless about statistics or science or both, or just dishonest.   Gotta wonder where you are on the spectrum, dude.

The other reason its utterly stupid is that the same data shows that 14 out of the last 15 years (and looks like we will certainly be adding another year to that in January) are the warmest ever recorded in history.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

jc456 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Apparently you dont have the words.  Maybe if you read the graph, you'd see that the HADCRUT red line data only goes to the present time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



I keep forgetting that we can't di


threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



You are no scientist.. Doesn't matter how other years are ranked. In fact --- one other got something like a 25%. 
Fact is --- because of the uncertainty of 0.02 degrees in the big scheme of things -- the BEST HONEST statement would be that there's slight likelihood of it being the warmest.. 

And I'll take it as a capitulation that you cant or wont answer the SPECIFIC questions (easy) that I posed. After all -- science is rigorous about SPECIFICS and kinda frowns on arm-waving and unsupported generalizations. 

So --- we STILL need a couple rabid warmers that can actually get beyond the USA Today version of Global Warming. You KNOW any??


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

I'm sorry. I must have missed the scientific article you quoted.

As far as I know, both Mann and Marcott are being actively referenced in scientific literature today.

I don't see ianC or flacaltenn referenced there at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> I'm sorry. I must have missed the scientific article you quoted.
> 
> As far as I know, both Mann and Marcott are being actively referenced in scientific literature today.
> 
> I don't see ianC or flacaltenn referenced there at all.



I'll take that as --- you don't have a CLUE what Marcott said about the time resolution of his study. Same limitations in Mann and the other hockey sticks. Will NOT ever see 100 events like ours today in those records.. Because the data is INCAPABLE of seeing it... 

Cut the shit assclown...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.

I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.

Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there.    And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real.  And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Heat is weather.  How many thousands of square miles of the Northwest burned so far this year. Record heat, drought, and winds. You might have a problem convincing some of the hundreds of families that have lost their homes to those fires that heat is not a determining factor in weather.



Record bull shit!  That's all it is..  Historical record shows that this is not uncommon nor is it unprecedented..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
> 
> I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
> 
> Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there.    And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real.  And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.


Marcott's reconstructions are garbage!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> Ian,
> 
> how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?



I love these bull shit appeals to authority..  Are you implying that others are not capable of reviewing these works and showing them garbage?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap.  Its been show fraudulent and the data made up..  Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Wrong!  Mann's crap is garbage and those who have tried to "verify" have been laughed out the door because they make the same mistakes he did..   Improper methods and all..  Repeating epic failure is not verifying  the outcome...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



They dont seem to understand how adding 10 year plots on the end of a 300 year plot makes a problem..  just like mike..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 8, 2015)

There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work! 

God bless them all.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



How can i say this....??    

 BULL SHIT!

Mann's failed work has been shown a failure multiple times as have those who made his same mistakes...  

You sound like a parrot...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
> ...


Got a citation on that?   From a scientific journal?  (and the Journal of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass isnt acceptable).


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

Matthew said:


> There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
> 
> God bless them all.



So tell me, you think what they have done is good science?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Westwall already quoted Marcott's own words.. even Marcott knows their trash!


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Amazing how a guy can make up data and then have his findings verified independently multiple times by people using totally different methods.  I guess thats why he's a Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the #1 ranked school of earth science and you are...some guy who knows how to use emojis.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure getting your paper pubsihed as the lead paper in PNAS isnt being 'laughed out the door'.

But then again, you are probably someone who doesnt understand what that means, or what PNAS is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 8, 2015)

Funny how these things come back and bite alarmists in the ass..


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2015)

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science),  This will bite alarmists in the ass.  This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl.  This will make them shit a brick.  This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone.  This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2015)

Crick said:


> It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science),  This will bite alarmists in the ass.  This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl.  This will make them shit a brick.  This will make them foam at the mouth.
> 
> The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone.  This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.
> 
> Bad choice on your part.








It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science".  Couldn't be further from the truth.  AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.  

The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well.  Sorry for the length though.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science),  This will bite alarmists in the ass.  This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl.  This will make them shit a brick.  This will make them foam at the mouth.
> ...


Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.

If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.

Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







They are now.  The Journals have been corrupted.  Sad, but true.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 8, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.

You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...










No, that's factual.  Those emails were very illuminating.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
> 
> I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
> 
> Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there.    And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real.  And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.



They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work.. 

I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.

We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----

_*We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. *_

I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal..  He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
> ...



I'd stop somewhere short of garbage. It's a foolhardy endevour to divine a temperature history of 10,000  yrs for the entire Globe with just 76 proxy vectors. And you get what you get in accuracy and resolution. It's KINDA useful to see 2000 year trends -- but not at all useful to compare to blips like ours....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



The hockey sticks all match --- because they used similarly sparse data and heavy filtering. They show NO DETAIL of a temperature record back that far. They could never be used to make outrageous claims about rates of warming or peak reading today "being unprecendented".. But --- then there are other scientists who will take that leap for the cause because of dummies like you who are easily fooled by their "authority"..


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2015)

That's nonsense. You haven't one single shred of evidence to support that "similarly sparse data and heavy filtering" bullshit.  The 'hockey sticks' all match because that's what global temperatures have done.  And like the rest of the world, I'm talking about the sharp and UNPRECEDENTED upturn in the 20th century.  Why the fuck would anyone use the image of a hockey stick to indicate a straight data trend?  Fer crissakes.

How often have do you fail Ockham's Razor?


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
> 
> God bless them all.




Mann was a newly minted PhD when he created the hockey stick using novel methodologies that weren't vetted by statisticians. Climate science was very pleased to turn existing theory on its head, and ring the alarmist bell. 

Marcott13 came on the heels of the Gergis12 fiasco where the newest hockey stick was blown up in weeks instead of years, and withdrawn AFTER full acceptance but before actual publication in the journal. Marcott13 was essentially Marcott's PhD thesis with a hockey stick blade tacked on the end with help from Shakun and Mann.

Two new PhDs, trying to make reputations, using shoddy methods to overstate their findings so that they would get press time.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.

threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 9, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
> ...


i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about.  That reflects more upon you than me.

If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.

The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
> ...


'Blown up'.  By bloggers?

Mann went on to get a Distinguished Professor post at a very young age because of his impressive work, and his papers are well cited to this day.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.
> 
> threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.




So now you're crying about colors used.

Note the color key- and the fact that some bozo stated that HADCRUT went to 2100.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Who blew it up then?

Did the authors find their mistakes independently?


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




I bumped an old thread on PAGES2K for you.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I have no idea.  You're talking about a paper that isnt in the scientific literature, as far as I know.

In other words, gossip.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

Gergis2012 is used in almost the exact form in PAGES2K. 

Peer review doesn't catch mistakes when previously accepted papers are combined. Gergis2012 was an accepted paper at the time of its inclusion into PAGES2K.


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...








No, it reflect completely on you.  You're a propagandist.  Probably paid to spew your masters poo.  But poo it still is.


----------



## IanC (Sep 9, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Speaking of pooh, I have been trying to figure out who's sock puppet threegoofs is. The pooh flinging monkey is an obvious suspect.


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...












Indeed he is.  But this one has more control than the poo flinger.  Related perhaps...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 9, 2015)

Again


westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Again, I appreciate you think I'm a professional.  Considering your analysis is amateur, I understand your confusion.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ian,
> ...


the fact is, you don't need to be a scientist to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  It just doesn't.  Funny, they still can't ever produce a piece of fact.  Even their temperature sets are fudged.  It's hilarious these clowns.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I know Judith Curry did, and she agrees with us.  So what now?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Again
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> ...


bullshit artist, you bet we believe you are a professional for sure.  Other than that, you have no idea about science, you show that in every post.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


funny, it's been explained to everyone on this forum hundred's of times.  Go read, search on Mann and the upside down tree ring.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


getting someone who is your friend does not validate any document.  The good old boy club, come on in and have a drink and we'll publish your paper.  here's all you need to say.........global warming is man made and hottest eva......funny stuff, has zip on INTEGRITY.  Zero.......


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I guess the scientists don't read this site to get any scientific knowledge.

That's because, unlike you, they're smart.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I'll call you ricochet rabbit, you bounce off of everything to avoid a discussion. You wouldn't know science if it hit you in the face.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

Discussion?  I didn't realize telling me the point 'has been proven' in some other thread populated by scientific illiterates counts as a rational discussion.


----------



## imawhosure (Sep 10, 2015)

This is all you need to know about the enviros.  Wake up!  Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation

And this read!  http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf

And this is their manifesto, which many of the supporters of this thread are fully aware of. Degrowth Manifesto - P2P Foundation

If you believe ANY of these people who are telling you we are all in trouble because the earth is getting warm and it is all your fault, then you are GULLIBLE!  Read, just read-)


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

imawhosure said:


> This is all you need to know about the enviros.  Wake up!  Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation
> 
> And this read!  http://www.marklevinshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/301/2015/08/Plunder-Deceit-Chapter7.pdf
> 
> ...


Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> imawhosure said:
> 
> 
> > This is all you need to know about the enviros.  Wake up!  Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Movie Financed by Oil-Rich Arab Nation
> ...







Well......it is a blog that has caused two major AGW papers to be pulled.  And that within hours.  So, I guess that blog knows more about the science than the "scientists" who produced the crap.


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2015)

Which blog and which papers?


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2015)

Crick said:


> Which blog and which papers?







Here are five of them.  And you know who's blog it is.  I believe you refer to him as "he who must not be named"


climate change Archives - Retraction Watch


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2015)

I have reviewed that link.  I find no blog identified as being responsible for those retractions.  I also find those retractions to vary from irrelevant to supportive of AGW.  

What do YOU see when you go to that link?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.
> 
> threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.




The word DECEPTIVE comes to mind...  And then we have the statistical parlor trick in there as well with 10 year plots on the end of 300-500 year plots for the majority of the graph.. Considering the source this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > imawhosure said:
> ...



I guess they don't want to see papers in publication.  I can understand why.

The mark of an actual productive scientist isn't to nitpick unpublished papers, it's to produce new knowledge.  That's not done on blogs.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.
> ...


The parlor trick is good enough for PNAS. It's good enough for most learned scientists.

I'm sure they aren't concerned it's not good enough for some idiot named billy Bob on the Internet.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I knew you would be OK with deception...  Real scientists are not!


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Great. Maybe you'll show us some of their work.  Instead of blogs and newspaper stories.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...










Bullshit.  The mark of an accomplished scientist is to produce GOOD work.  The only people who try and prevent discourse are those who have something to hide.  No legitimate scientist is ever afraid to defend his work.


Period.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site.  Or a homeopathic site.  Blogs.  Blargh.


----------



## IanC (Sep 11, 2015)

very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.

so where do most of us get our information from? internet news aggregators, like WUWT or SkS. even if we try to check the original sources, someone else was giving us the idea where to look. 

and of course there is Google or any other search engine. I find that googling images of charts and graphs sends you in many directions because the same image is often used by people with very different viewpoints.

eg. 'global temp graph' lead me to a Lomborg article from this image-






which lead me to Nature article which inspired it. paywalled but a search of the title lead to an Arizona.edu course with a free copy ( http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated Warming.pdf ) but because my browser doesnt like pulling out pdf images, I googled the first part of the caption.






pretty strong evidence that global models are overestimating warming. from a respected journal.

the google image search from the caption only brought this image up once. to an article at Whats Up With That.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.
> 
> so where do most of us get our information from? internet news aggregators, like WUWT or SkS. even if we try to check the original sources, someone else was giving us the idea where to look.
> 
> ...




So what you are saying is that not only do you not have the expertise and ability to interpret these articles correctly, but you don't even have the simple access to the journals that allow you to obtain some of that expertise and ability.

But then you say that the people who are doing this research are wrong!

Do you see why that's absurd?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.
> ...


no, that isn't what he said.  It's what you said.  You should actually stick to what was actually written.  You'd have more credibility.  Makes all other posts disingenuous since now we are left with your interpretation or perception  and that sucks.

So a question from me, do you have access to journals?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Depends on which ones.  My field is not earth science, so my access is generally the medical literature and related bio and chem sources.

And you should note that MY interpretation hews to the general scientific consensus- which is rational.  It's YOUR interpretation that said you know more than the guts who obtain, analyze and interpret their own data.

An absurd position, again.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


well sir no, I don't believe I know more than anyone.  I use my head and I process input.  If something smells, it smells.  I live in a region of the country that is unaffected by your global warming and in 30 years climate is still the same in summer winter fall and spring.  So I formulate questions to understand why it is that people hop on a forum like this and state doom and gloom to warming when none has been seen in my region of the globe.  If it is global, then it should be here.  It isn't. 

Are you aware of any area of the globe where climate actually changed, i.e., summer is no longer summer and winter is no longer winter?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I asked where climate changed?  Isn't that the argument 'climate change'?  So now you're saying climate didn't change?  so backing up are you?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Keep fighting your strawmen.

It's a lot easier than understanding the science, isn't it?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I'm sorry, are you talking to me?  Because if you are, then I supposed you answered my question, but since you didn't then you're not.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your question is stupid and puerile.

I didn't think you actually wanted an answer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing  --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work...  Or have you forgotten? 

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV.. 
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > very few of us have subscriptions that allow us to peruse many scientific journals, although some have access via work or even the library. the more general journals like Science or Nature only have a few articles per issue on climate related subjects.
> ...



What's absurd is that you think you need more than a capability to read Sci Amer. to interpret TEMPERATURE graphs.... And watch and observe the DWINDLING projections for Global Warming being revised downwards consistently. All the while -- the surface temperature curves are being "adjusted" up in every way possible.

Skeptics have already won here. It's not the most complicated science I've run into in my career. A LOT of scientists swing between disciplines ALL THE FREAKING TIME.. My buds at govt labs and elsewhere always had to survive on commercial/medical projects when the US wasn't paying for fusion or bomb-making or signal cracking. I've been deeply into biometrics, signal/image processing, artificial intelligence, optical computing, radar/sonar/SLR, star wars, biochem/DNA analysis,  orthopedic fixtures and earth resources. Along with a decade in the intelligence areas, a lot of time in hospitals and some time at Kennedy Space Center.

Think I'm daunted by the data preparation or interpretation of a temperature graph???  Think I didn't have to learn and transition to the terminology and context of those different app areas?  You have a very stinted concept of fungibility of scientific knowledge..


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









You have to remember flac, these people are religious fruitcakes.  They don't understand science.  That's why they defer to these climatologists as if they are some sort of high priest.  

threeturds is yet another in a long line of anti science deniers who insist that we still need to sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What's absurd is that you think you need more than a capability to read Sci Amer. to interpret TEMPERATURE graphs.... And watch and observe the DWINDLING projections for Global Warming being revised downwards consistently. All the while -- the surface temperature curves are being "adjusted" up in every way possible.
> ...



It's disturbing that they think of science as untouchable by the unannointed. Probably why we're in the messes we're in with our stalled leadership in American technology and science.

There certainly SHOULD be more open debate,, more media vetting and less of this fundamentalist religious "belief" .... 

 The only reason I bother with the newbie is his/her/its claim to be in a field of science. Somehow --- because of my long lasting sigline -- I HAVE to  try to believe him/her/it...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

Anyway -- we now know from the title of the OP --- That "a mile" = 0.04degC.. 

Fact for the day from the church of Globaloney..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Which claims do you speak of?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I know the questions are stupid because you can't answer them.  I wouldn't want to answer a question of something I know doesn't exist. But you think climate changed.  So where did it change?  Why can't you answer that ?  It is your life blood.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Wasn't it you who posted the IPCC predictions with the error bars CLEARLY within the predicted range and said 'they totally missed their predictions'?

I don't think your daunted at all.

That's a characteristic of those on the left side of the dunning-Kruger line.  When you're on Mt Stupid, you think you know more than the experts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference  here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now --  IF You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises.   True story der 'derp....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Well there -- you fell for the fact that the ACTUALS only went thru 2010 and that the cones of predictions from the ORIGINAL IPCC model predictions had been sliced off at about 2020 to avoid the embarrassing observation that they were clearly NOT USEFUL 40 years out from the dates they were run. 

That and you don't understand that a statistical statement MUST be accompanied by a confidence qualification as in the 2014 NASA temperature propaganda that was essentially RETRACTED when Schmidt fessed up that they oversold the concept to the press. 

Same deal in the failure of those IPCC predictions. Barely hanging into the margins of a probability cone isn't genius.. It's scored the same way in throwing darts or horseshoes as it in science.. 

They get a "D" today and an "F" for 20 years out... Your turn.....


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.  

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.  


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed.  The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


LOL.

You posted it. No rationalizations then. 

You remind me of an undergraduate trying to defend a point he really doesn't have a grasp of at all.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

So multigoofs..  Where are YOU on this chart??  







   Just by eyeball -- I'd say somewhere on the Western slopes of Mt Stupid.. 
But those robes and pope hats look just FABULOUS on you.. 

Have you EVER read ANY papers on this topic? Where does YOUR "knowledge" come from? If you read IPCC reports --- did you EVER check any dissenting opinions? What makes you "less Mt Stupid" than the rest of us? 

Never answered my question about the mission statement of the IPCC.. See any bias in that? And you're certainly aware that the science for that institution is only secondary to the periodic climate conferences of global beggars and whiners waiting for their redistribution checks to be cut.  Long of list of VERY reputable scientists RESIGNED or walked out of that socio/political circus.. 

Remember posting at least a couple THIS MONTH.. .


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it..  PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period.  Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

*Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.*








Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> So multigoofs..  Where are YOU on this chart??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've read.  And I accept the authors conclusions on the papers.  You seem to not accept them...when they dont fit your prespecified agenda.  Thats not science, thats hackery.  And thats why I am not on Mt Stupid like you are - because you think you know more than the experts, to the point that you cant even accept the fact that the experts agree (which is pretty damn obvious if you pick up a scientific journal - which you dont because you dont have access).

Answer your question on the mission statement?  All I remember was another homework assignment followed up by some unreferenced blargle.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




*sigh*  You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that *recent warming is unprecedented* in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
*
This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion.  Its the abstract - the conclusion. 

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be?  Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study." 

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not..   As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...

You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..


*. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study. - See more at: Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.*

So again --- you're comparing a century MAX to the entire Holencene AVERAGE.. And we might know approximately what each of those is ---- But we will probably never know what the 100 yr VARIANCES in temperature were during that Holocene "average".. As I just showed you --- Even well into the transistion from ice age to interglacial -- HI resolution SINGLE proxies do show AT LEAST 2 to 3degC of variance on time scales shorter than 300 years.

You cannot preserve that variance in the proxies when you shoot for a GLOBAL reconstruction of temperature from only 76 proxies worldwide.. Think for a moment there. Covering the ENTIRE world for 10,000 yrs with a HANDFUL of ice cores, tree rings and mudbug shells. With MONGO gaps in the areas represented and trees that only live for 200 yrs at a time..  And you want to assert that would result in seeing a GLOBAL change of about 1degC in the 30 to 60 years of YOUR lifetime??

They don't...  Put that appended thermometer data on the right side of the hockey sticks thru a 300 year average  with the REST of study --- and see what comes out.. Or --- maybe you can't fathom that math concept..

The hard part is --- the "Grease" that goes into these studies to make them acceptable to peer review and sponsors,. That's why the authors put in that "suggests" word and allowed it to be TOTALLY misrepresented in the media and in politics.. It's hard because you think the work ACTUALLY PROVES that point..            

But it doesn't..

You'll  just have to understand the funding, peer, and political scrutiny these guys are under to be the Prophets of Doom for the cause...


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...


I like watching inexperience at work.  It's so funny!!!


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 11, 2015)

.
Dang...I was looking for the 'Conspiracy Theories' thread ... and this is where I ended up....

.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So multigoofs..  Where are YOU on this chart??
> ...



Well now hold up right thar Mr Scientist --- You're asserting opinions on the topic and you have some order of knowledge of the topic ---- so you fall into the data set of this graph... 






You can't excuse yourself from a data set that contains you. That would be bias and cherry picking.. So WHERE ARE YOU on this thing you pitched to me?? 

And don't worry your soul child. I have access to the entire WORLD of science. I even occasionally go sit in a college library like the old days. Just for fun.. But my work connects me thru Vanderbilt and SJSU and I've done a lot of volunteer  "tech development" projects with them to gain that access in recent years..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not..   As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...
> 
> You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..
> 
> ...



Dude - nobody thinks that the current warming is a 'variance' that will go back down to 19th century temps soon.  Nobody.   

And thats the scenario that would have to happen to make your speculations true.

Its unprecedented.   

And we are comparing present temperatures to the maximum in the holocene, assuming we didnt get 2 degree spikes that lasted a couple decades for no reason except you wish it could happen.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 11, 2015)

percysunshine said:


> .
> Dang...I was looking for the 'Conspiracy Theories' thread ... and this is where I ended up....
> 
> .



No this forum is o


threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not..   As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...
> ...



Just showed you 2 degC spikes after the majority of the Holocene meltdown. They exist in certain INDIVIDUAL high resolution proxies. They DON'T show on the crappy resolution GLOBAL studies.. I've got a bunch more examples of what "normal Holocene" variance looks like... I have no funking idea why and how they happened and most climate scientists don't either.. Because climate science has spent their whole wad looking for MAN MADE effects and not figuring the basic thermodynamics of the climate system. 

We had a mini ice age about 200 years ago.. MANY say that solar cycles *"SUGGEST" *the next 30 or so there will be another. We don't know CRAP about many important things. Only had useful satellites up for 30 years or so.. It's brand new insight...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




I'm sorry.  

"You showed me" ???

You said it, I'll give you that.  And I will give you as much credit for that analysis as any dipshit on the internet.   But you telling me something is not the same as you 'showing' me something.

  If thats the case, I just showed  that you were clinging to the summit of Mt, Stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


Hahahaha, loserville. I love it.  How about you tell us how warm 100ppm of co2 is?


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...








Ummm, that's a blog.  Didn't you claim to not use blogs?

WHHHOOOOOPSIES!


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I guess you're about as good at science as you are at reading comprehension.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



1)  Do you even have even the smallest amount of comprehension of the English language? Given that you can not discern what the word "Suggests" means, probably not.

2)  You have been shown over and over that the RESOLUTION of proxies CAN NOT SHOW periods of time less than about 300 years. So your Michael Mann parlor trick is still crap.

3) You will not even acknowledge what Marcott himself has stated. 

Conclusion: You are either a troll, a fool, Or Both...  My money is on Paid shill so its BOTH!


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...







Yes, and I am considerably better at it than you it appears.  Thanks for playing!


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Again, thanks for acknowledging my professionalism.

1) suggests?  You obviously don't read science often. It means what it says, but it doesn't overstate, like you are doing.
2) you said it. Showing usually means citing papers in the real world.

3) he stated it. Yer even though he said that, he still says the warming expected will be higher than anything ever seen in huge holocene. You seem to ignore that.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...









What is "huge" holocene?


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




Foster's idea doesnt work. he is altering the reconstruction, not the proxies.

here are the first 25 Marcott proxies -






these proxies are wildly different from each other, in magnitude, direction and timing. Foster didnt go back and alter the proxies and rerun the construction, he added spikes to the existing reconstruction and found that smoothing could attenuate the results but not remove them. duh!!!!

an actual spike would show up in the proxies as......different in magnitude, direction and timing.

are any of you global warming alarmists capable of actually digesting what a proxy reconstruction is?


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2015)

let's take this farther. pretend that the first 25 Marcott poxies gave a reconstruction that was flat, no temp increase or decrease.






if we changed the selection criteria in a way that excluded proxies 19 and 20 the reconstruction would show declining temps. if we excluded 18 and 23 then it would show increasing temps.

there were other issues in Marcott. he changed the dating in some of the proxies from the original presentation by the authors. this had a large impact.






who's dating is right? I dont know. but I am getting tired of 'reanalysis' that gets rid of inconvenient data and substitutes good news for the 'Noble Cause'.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


A typo/autocorrect. I'm on my phone. You can guess that I meant 'whole'.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

IanC said:


> let's take this farther. pretend that the first 25 Marcott poxies gave a reconstruction that was flat, no temp increase or decrease.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, why don't you show us a paper that says the opposite of what Marcott, pages 2k, Mann, etc etc showed?

Oh yeah. You can't find one. All you can find are blog critiques from unqualified people that you reproduce here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 12, 2015)

Yeah, it'll be the "HOTTERERERERERERST EVAH!!!!!!!!" but only if you live 1,500m down in the ocean

So how much warming do we need for the record, Mikey?

About .4C plus or minus 2C

Hmm, no problem, I'll add in the imaginary warming from this heat vent in the deep Atlantic


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > let's take this farther. pretend that the first 25 Marcott poxies gave a reconstruction that was flat, no temp increase or decrease.
> ...














Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



You really do have a reading comprehensions problem!

The Holocene is the current interglacial period, Was there more Holocene's that history was unaware of?  Marcott admitted that we are NOT WARMER than the MEWP or the RWP.  Even the idiot Obama visited a glacier this last week where the tree stumps that were uncovered in Alaska were dated to the MEWP.  So this is cyclical and *not* unprecedented.  Obama in his lust for power showed himself and you fools... Priceless!!


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

IanC said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



As a meteorologist I have a degree in atmospheric physics.  I STUDY THE EARTHS SYSTEMS AND CYCLES...

Funny that alarmist morons cant figure that out!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 12, 2015)

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA BY FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST Department of History, Stockholm University, Sweden

ABSTRACT. A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeotemperature proxy records never previously included in any largescale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology. Key words: Temperature reconstructions, temperature variability, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, global warming, climate change

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

*Ian, you dissapoint me, that post is a form of lying. The way you wrote it up seemed to state that the MWP was warmer than the present, when, in fact, the article stated exactly the opposite. *


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




bla, bla, bla,    

FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST.... this paper has been shredded for many of the same mistakes others have made.

And the level of certainty is...  less than 10%


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> ...The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century.... Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself....
> *
> *





Thanks for posting that.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...









My phone has never substituted huge for whole, but however stupid your phone seems to be you are even more moronic.  The HTM witnessed many occasions where the warming was both more extreme and FASTER than that which is occurring today.

The image below is from your favorite wiki, the rest of the discussion is pertinent to your particular vacuous area of understanding.








During the following one thousand years the temperature increased, so that climate became several degrees warmer than today. About 8,000 years before present, in Hunter Stone Age, occurred the hottest period throughout the Holocene. This initiated the warm period called the Holocene Optimum, which lasted almost until about 4,500 years before present, whereafter the temperature continued to drop through bronze age, iron age and historical time until it reached a low point in "The Little Ice Age" in the years 1600- 1700. Within the last few hundred years the temperature has again increased, but not to such heights as in Hunter Stone Age. 

Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Your outdated reference omits the most current research.

But then again, I think you like living in the past in ignorance.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2015)

Not warmer?  Try again





Climate Change Data » Pirate's Cove  (A denier site)


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?
> 
> http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf



My god child --- you are devious and seriously learning challenged.

Besides the CRS problem -- you have a reading comp issue.. 

*The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself*

Blew that up for you in case visual acuity is primary to your reading issue.... Note again the "possiblyhigher" because of limitations in the proxy study. And TO BE FAIR --- this doesn't compare to the GLOBAL study by Marcott because it's N.Hemi only.. 

But this is what I told you.. The more you approach INDIVIDUAL proxies and shit can the attempts to do GLOBAL reconstructions -- the better they match the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of past climates...  

Thanks Ian...


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?
> ...








I keep telling you, facts don't matter to religious fruitcakes.  They have "faith" man!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA BY FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST Department of History, Stockholm University, Sweden
> 
> ABSTRACT. A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeotemperature proxy records never previously included in any largescale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology. Key words: Temperature reconstructions, temperature variability, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, global warming, climate change
> 
> ...



That IS the peak of the MWP Rocks.. And the line following your hilight just says what the reconstruction shows. 

That the MWP met or exceeded the period from 1961 --- 1990...  The reconstruction ENDS in about 1935.. The rest is INSTRUMENTED data. And the observation is that with BETTER PROXIES than Mann, Marcott, etc -- used ---- You can easily see 0.6C variability in the natural cycles...


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?
> ...



No. Individual proxies contain lots of noise. They are limited- may be more or less sensitive to s million different variables, most of them unknown. 

You minimize that noise with use of multiple proxies.

It's like doing a medical study- individual patient data is notoriously variable, but large groups tends to show the truth much more accurately.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...




You're talking about the National Academy of Sciences, I presume?

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Do you see how absurd you look yet?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

SOME individual proxies have lots of noise. OTHERS --- not so much. And MOST have accuracy issues because they are NOT thermometers and are responsive to corrupting variables... Like tree rings for instance. ]

I've seen proxies for CO2 concentrations that are remarkably free of "noise". In that you look at 10 of them and don't resemble the Marcott Proxy mess. 

BUT --- remember for these GLOBAL proxies --- that there are no corals in the temperate zones, No 10,000 year ice at the equator.. And the OLDEST tree rings don't come from Africa. So you would be attempting to use DIFFERENT proxies for different places on the planet. How MANY in a study like Marcott? ----- Less than a hundred for the whole f-ing surface.. How accurate can that be? Think 76 randomly placed thermometers would be enough to distinguish a GWarming signal with any confidence?? 


LOCAL INDIVIDUAL proxies can be quite good.. Like those Hi Res Ice cores from Greenland. Or even better, CO2 proxies from isotope content of leaves.. You can move to another location and get similiar results. 

And of course averaging a bunch of them CAN make it better -- if they have coherent temperature signatures. Can also leave you with nothing but a rough mean value without any variance in it at all..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

Before the CRS kicks in for our warmer buds. I'd like to back-up the regular claims that I make with a quote
further into the LJUNGQVIST paper..

_*Despite significant improvement in our understanding
of the temperature variability during the
past one or two millennia, especially for the Northern
Hemisphere, the controversial question whether
Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures exceeded
present temperatures remains unanswered.
IPCC (2007) and NRC (2006) concluded that the
data coverage still is too limited and unevenly distributed
around the globe to say anything with reasonable
certainty about temperatures on a global or
hemispheric scale prior to c. AD 1600. The amplitude
of the multi-decadal to centennial preindustrial
temperature variability constitutes a major
uncertainty. The estimate of this variability
ranges from c. 0.2 to 1°C in the different reconstructions.
Those divergences are to some extent a
result of the use of different methodological
approaches, but the number and choice of proxy
data seem to be of greater importance. Apart from
the general limitations set by the overall scarcity of
long quantitative palaeoclimate records, all largescale
reconstructions have furthermore been hampered
to some degree by the dominance of proxy
records from high latitudes. Many available proxy
records also end sometime during the twentieth
century and thus cannot be calibrated to the high
temperatures during the last decades of the twentieth
century. This may result in an underestimation
of the true temperatures in earlier warm periods.*_


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

*The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.
*
_*If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies. 

*_
Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit.. 

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus.. 
How do you think this paper would have been scored? 

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science.. 
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> *The amplitude of the temperature variability on
> multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
> here should presumably be considered to be the
> minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.
> ...




Again. The consensus is so obvious that any idiot can see it.  

And if you can't see it, you're delusional or a liar.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.

Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *The amplitude of the temperature variability on
> ...



Your the delusional LIAR..  YOU REALLY SHOULD STOP PROJECTING YOUR OWN SHORT COMINGS.  

Trying to teach you basic statistical science techniques is pointless as you would rather spout the lies than embrace the science.   It's like trying to educate a brick or a rock... and they both have the same lack of any intelligence.

Tell me, If i average the last 300 years to match the proxy data you so love to quote what happens to the 'hottest ev'a' rise you all are screaming about?


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *The amplitude of the temperature variability on
> ...









Please let us know when "consensus" is a term used in the scientific method.  I can't seem to find it anywhere.  I find the term used extensively in politics however.  Maybe you should be talking about political science instead.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



It's not.

Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.

But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...






It is?  Please show me.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 12, 2015)

westwall said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Im not sure I should bother.

I mean, if I show you a parade of the most respected scientists in the world telling you something that is against your religion, you'll dismiss it outright.

But I guess I can try. Again.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *The amplitude of the temperature variability on
> ...



Didn't address the question. Or comment on the statements of uncertainties in this work.  When CONFRONTED with actual climate science -- are you pretending to be incapable of discussing it? Or ACTUALLY incapable of discussing it --- without all the juvenile ad homs and deference to your "beliefs"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



I notice you don't really pick up on things too easily. That list of "consensus" organizations INCLUDES the AMS..Given what you were recently shown about the actual LACK of consensus on anything truly important to the planet within the AMS -- how much do you think I or reasonable folks should value that govt propaganda as "consensus"??


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.
> 
> Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team



How do you feel about folks quoting "blogs"?? Should I retrieve your insults and recycle them?
You are a piece of work. Actually -- I love blogs. Especially in science. In the old days, we used to have academic and corporate librarians who would work on your questions and tell you WHERE to find relevant material. I couldn't have survived without them.. I think blogs are just the 21st century librarians. You don't expect them to be right or experts on the topics -- but they ALWAYS seek out and find material that is relevant to your interest..

Go ahead -- be a blog head --- but follow thru with the disciplined learning that should result.. .


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.
> 
> Seeing the environmental forest: Enough hockey sticks for a team



Took a look at couple of those at random.. Let me show you how stupid you are to cut and paste  WITHOUT reading any of the paper details.. Let's take THIS ONE....  

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Croninetal-GlobPlanChng03.pdf

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay T.M. Cronin a,*, G.S. Dwyer b , T. Kamiya c , S. Schwede a , D.A. Willard a a National Center, MS 926A, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA b Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA c Department of Geology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

*Abstract
We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid ( < 100 years) shifts of f 2–4 jC in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature from 2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (years BP) reconstructed from magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) paleothermometry. These include large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (f1400 – 1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (f800 – 1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). Evidence is presented for a long period of sustained regional and North Atlantic-wide warmth with low-amplitude temperature variability between f450 and 1000 AD. In addition to centennial-scale temperature shifts, the existence of numerous temperature maxima between 2200 and 250 years BP (average f70 years) suggests that multi-decadal processes typical of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are an inherent feature of late Holocene climate. However, late 19th and 20th century temperature extremes in Chesapeake Bay associated with NAO climate variability exceeded those of the prior 2000 years,
including the interval 450 – 1000 AD, by 2 – 3 jC, suggesting anomalous recent behavior of the climate system.
*
Which AGAIN bolsters every assertion I've made about LOCAL versus GLOBAL proxy studies.. 
They found NATURAL VARIABILITY in shallow WATER temperature of 2 to 4 degC.. In less than 100 YEARS !!!!

 Now that's NOT the same as ATMOS temperature. In fact, it's harder to affect those those insulated little mudbugs they study several tens of METERS below the surface of Cheasapeake Bay.. 

AND those 2 to 3 degC water temperature shifts?? Not fully resolved. Could have been higher. Doubtfully lower. And you're still convinced that the 0.6degC shift in GLOBAL air temperature in your lifetime is COMPLETELY man made and unnatural?? 

Several probs with this paper. One is fairly obvious and I'll leave it to you to explore and find it.. But THANKS for calling it to my attention and I will certainly add this to my files to contradict the TRUE hockey sticks of Mann and the others that give the impression that there is VIRTUALLY NO natural variability in the climate history before the 20th century.. 

Again -- LOCAL individual proxies show MORE resolution and MORE natural variation than found in the juvenile attempts to extend 70 or 80 proxies to a GLOBAL reconstruction..


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2015)

IPCC 1990 graph estimating the historical temps of the last thousand years. 

by 2001 the IPCC had changed its mind and gone with -






no more MWP, no more LIA. Skeptics think there is a lot of historical information that supports both the MWP and LIA, that simply removing them just doesnt make sense with out extraordinary evidence. so what was Mann's evidence? proxies.




*Fig. 4.2 *_Top panel: _The simple average of the 415 proxy series in Mann’s dataset looks nothing like a hockey stick, and doesn’t even slope upward in the 20th century. _Bottom panel: _The hockey-stick shape emerged solely as a result of the way the data were averaged. Mann overweighted a small set of tree-ring data from bristlecone pines in the western USA, which had long been viewed as unreliable indicators of historical temperature. (McKitrick, 2007b)

I consider his evidence unconvincing.

let's consider another avenue. the borehole proxies. in 1998 Huang produced a borehole graph using many thousands of borehole data -






after MBH98,99 were criticized, the climate science field mobilized to support Mann. Huang came up with a new graph using only a few hundred boreholes which was part of many new spaghetti graphs that 'confirmed' the hockeystick.






by 2008 Huang decided he better get back to doing science so he drafted a new graph, not using as much data as the first but more than the second.






it is amazing how different the results are depending on which proxy data is included, and what the goal is.


----------



## Crick (Sep 13, 2015)

You seem to think it impossible for data to be improved. Older is better.  Got it.

And what NON-PROXY method do you have for temperature data prior to the widespread use of thermometers Ian.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> You seem to think it impossible for data to be improved. Older is better.  Got it.
> 
> And what NON-PROXY method do you have for temperature data prior to the widespread use of thermometers Ian.




as usual, you dont seem to get my point. Huang in particular wasnt using 'new and improved' data. he was using a subset of the available data to produce a desired outcome. Mann used novel and untested methods to coax residuals out that he could claim supported his new paradigm of no MWP or LIA.

proxy reconstructions work best when the person doing the experiment doesnt know what is in the proxies. that is an unreasonable assumption in the narrow field of climate science. the authors know which proxies are available, what they show, and which versions are convenient. quite often proxies are updated with more samples but it has certainly happened that the new version has less valued attributes than the older, less complete versions. eg Briffa sat on new samples in 2007 because he knew they would ruin his dataset for proxy reconstructions. he finally updated them in 2012, and sure enough, they are no longer a prized addition used in hockeystick graphs. Hughes (or maybe it was Bradley) of MBH98, 99 had a grad student that updated one of the bristlecone series, showing little of the previous hockeystick shape. it has never been released, the old vwersion is used. 

there are few scientists that lack integrity to the extent that Mann was willing to knowingly use upsidedown proxies, but there are more than a few that will tweak their inclusion criteria so that known hockeystick proxies will be preferentially included. As d'Arrago said," you have to pick cherries if you want cherry pie".


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 13, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This is what the AMS says:


"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability."

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

So... Delusional?  Or liar?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 13, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Here. This should piss you guys off for a while.
> ...



Didja stop reading before the last sentence?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me, If i average the last 300 years to match the proxy data you so love to quote what happens to the 'hottest ev'a' rise you all are screaming about?



And still no answer to this very basic question...  Threefools where did you go?


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 13, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, If i average the last 300 years to match the proxy data you so love to quote what happens to the 'hottest ev'a' rise you all are screaming about?
> ...


Answered. Read.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 13, 2015)

Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



You've already forgotten what the POLL of AMS said --- as opposed to this political front office statement says. 
Poll show MUCH uncertainty among AMS members and no general consensus on the DETAILS of the GW theory.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 13, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.

The more you are a TV weatherman with little scientific background, the less you see it as a problem.

I think your heroic championing of the ignorant is getting a little old.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 21, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.




You warmer wackos just gobble up whatever pap you are fed and regurgitate it all over.  You are all so careless about what you consume that it is a miracle that you all aren't dead from food poisoning.  Here is the cartoon that they use to "say" that august was the hottest evah...






Here is the actual data that they don't bother to show you...it demonstrates how much infilling was necessary to provide you with that cartoon that you so love to bandy about.






And when they went about infilling all that land area...did they use other sources of data to check for accuracy?  Of course not.  The satellite picture shows an entirely different picture for August with Much of Australia and Africa being cold as well as much of Russia and Asia.






Particularly notice that cold spot in the South Pacific that the Sat picture shows that is a bold hot spot in the surface adjustments.  Climate science has become a giant joke...I hope that those wackos get their wish and have a RICO case pressed in court....the climate science community will be torn to shreds with just this sort of data that demonstrates the degree to which they are manipulating data....mann's joke of a case will be nothing more than an inconsequential footnote to the fall of mainstream climate pseudoscience.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 21, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.
> 
> The more you are a TV weatherman with little scientific background, the less you see it as a problem.
> 
> I think your heroic championing of the ignorant is getting a little old.



Guess you never looked at the curricula for meteorologists vs climate scientists.  Meteorology is a hard science requiring much more education in the maths and physics than climate science which is a soft science.  "characteristics of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method"

Climate science abandoned the scientific method quite some time ago in favor of cherry picking and manipulating data to achieve a preconceived, predetermined outcome.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.
> ...



warmer wackos =useful idiots 

not trained to think -trained to parrot


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.
> ...



LOL.  Yeah, sure.  'soft science'.

Read some Nature Climate Change sometime.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.
> ...


Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 21, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> LOL.  Yeah, sure.  'soft science'.
> 
> Read some Nature Climate Change sometime.



Soft science...yeah...try reading a college catalog sometime...paying particular attention to the mathematics, chemistry, and physics requirements for a degree in meterology vs a degree in climatology....you might come across as if you had a clue.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 21, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?




Nothing smart about obeying the laws of nature...photons that don't move towards warmer objects are no more smart than rocks that fall down rather than up....just following the rules.  To bad you believe there must be some sort of intelligence...or maybe magic involved.

Not that it matters much insofar as the myth of CO2 warming goes.  

Tell me rocks do you have any idea what the mean time between molecular collisions through which a CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) is in the open atmosphere?

Now can you tell me what the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is?

Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

Now can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

You claim to be educated...so prove it.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 21, 2015)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.
> ...


looking at those graphs, got to keep crayola in business you know.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?
> ...



Thanks for being so predictable rocks....you never disappoint.  Since you clearly don't have any idea of what I was talking about let me give you the answers and then see if you can draw any conclusions from them...my bet is that you will be able to muster much more than an ad hominem or two, but what the hell, I'll give you a chance anyway.

Q:  What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A:   About 1 nanosecond

Q:  Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A:  The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Ccan you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A:  Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time...  This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times.  In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.

So here's your big change rocks...What conclusions do you draw from those facts regarding the AGW hypothesis as described by climate science?


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2015)

That you're a fooking idiot.But I digress.  

How about you explain how the coils on my stove manage to radiate heat despite being in full time contact with many many times as many molecules as is that single hot CO2 molecule will bump into?

Where do you get the idea, Sid, that in every one of those billion collisions, your chosen CO2 will give up energy?  I think it's about 2^500,000,000 more likely that the net effect of all those collisions will be ZERO.  Thus, the effect of the spontaneously emitted photon is precisely what it would have been if NO collisions had taken place.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> That you're a fooking idiot.But I digress.
> 
> How about you explain how the coils on my stove manage to radiate heat despite being in full time contact with many many times as many molecules as is that single hot CO2 molecule will bump into?



Are you saying you can distinguish between radiated and convected heat?   Interesting...How do you do it?  How does the feel of radiated heat differ from that of convected heat?  



Crick said:


> Where do you get the idea, Sid, that in every one of those billion collisions, your chosen CO2 will give up energy?



Where do you get the idea that they don't.  Energy is eager to move to a state of greater entropy...if convection is the easiest route, what makes you think the CO2 molecule would hold on to said energy a billion times longer just to radiate a photon?



Crick said:


> I think it's about 2^500,000,000 more likely that the net effect of all those collisions will be ZERO.



You have demonstrated over and over that you don't "think" much at all.  You parrot and you regurgitate..that's about it.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That you're a fooking idiot.But I digress.
> ...




You've ignored the point that in a billion collisions of a single molecule, the vast, vast, vast likelihood is that the net change is ZERO.  Address that.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 22, 2015)

SSDD said:


> This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis



Popular with who? Your voices?

AGW theory doesn't care about which molecule eventually re-radiates the photon. All that matters is that the CO2 initially absorbed the IR photon.



> So here's your big change rocks...What conclusions do you draw from those facts regarding the AGW hypothesis as described by climate science?



The hypothesis is completely unaffected by your strawman.

So, who feeds you this nonsense?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.


What you are saying is well understood. What is not well understood is why you think that shows that radiation is such a small part of the physics of atmospheric gasses. Your conclusion is very myopic.

Yes, direct energy exchange is predominant. However you must remember that in that energy exchange, while non-greenhouse gasses are continually absorbing the vibrational energy of CO2, the non-greenhouse gasses are also imparting energy to excite vibrational modes of CO2. A mixed gas in equilibrium at some temperature will have a given budget of energy in the various modes – kinetic, rotational, and vibrational. Read up on the Equipartition Theorem for more details. 

The fact that vibrational energy of a single CO2 is mechanically damped ignores the equilibrium state of the full ensemble, which is covered in the Equipartition Theorm. There are plenty of CO2 molecules that will absorb and radiate IR and act as a sort of “greenhouse” “blanket”, even though absorption and immediate re-radiation of a single CO2 molecule is very rare.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> You've ignored the point that in a billion collisions of a single molecule, the vast, vast, vast likelihood is that the net change is ZERO.  Address that.



So you are saying that only one molecule is important?.....and that it is the only one colliding with N2 or O2 or any of the other gasses?  The fact is, crick, that any given CO2 molecule is far more likely to give up any energy it has absorbed via a collision with another molecule (not CO2) than to hold on to that energy and wait for the decay process in order to emit a photon....energy is eager to move to a state of higher entropy and waiting around when there is a ready path to that state of higher entropy simply makes no sense.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Popular with who? Your voices?



So you have a hypothesis for manmade warming that doesn't involve CO2 absorbing and emitting IR radiation?  Lets hear it.



mamooth said:


> AGW theory doesn't care about which molecule eventually re-radiates the photon. All that matters is that the CO2 initially absorbed the IR photon.



Absorption and emission do not equal warming.  We all know (except perhaps for you) that CO2 molecules have no mechanism for holding on to the energy they absorb...they either transfer it immediately via a collision with another molecule or emit a photon....in either event, simple absorption and emission do not equal warming.



mamooth said:


> The hypothesis is completely unaffected by your straw man.



Really?  If energy moves to the upper atmosphere via convection at a rate of about a billion to 1 when compared to radiation....that doesn't effect the AGW hypothesis?....so the hypothesis is magic...that's what you are saying and is completely unaffected by physical realities?



mamooth said:


> So, who feeds you this nonsense?



I haven't seen you contradict a single thing I have said.   Are you agreeing that a CO2 molecule is a billion times more likely to transfer its energy via a collision with another molecule than it is to radiate an IR photon?  Interesting that you would agree to that, but remain unable to see the ramifications of that fact on the AGW hypothesis....except , I suppose for the fact that you believe that simple absorption and emission equals warming, the whole topic is over your head....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> What you are saying is well understood. What is not well understood is why you think that shows that radiation is such a small part of the physics of atmospheric gasses. Your conclusion is very myopic.



It is well known that radiation plays a very small part in the movement of energy from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere.



Wuwei said:


> The fact that vibrational energy of a single CO2 is mechanically damped ignores the equilibrium state of the full ensemble, which is covered in the Equipartition Theorm. There are plenty of CO2 molecules that will absorb and radiate IR and act as a sort of “greenhouse” “blanket”, even though absorption and immediate re-radiation of a single CO2 molecule is very rare.



So where is the hot spot in the lower troposphere which would necessarily exist if the "blanket" effect you claim were actually in operation? A million plus direct measurements say that it does not exist. The hot spot is predicted by the hypothesis and it would supposedly be the smoking gun proving the AGW hypothesis...except it doesn't exist...the lack of said hot spot should be enough to falsify the AGW hypothesis if the scientific method were actually in practice in climate science.


----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2015)

You have a knack, either intentionally or through some bizarre variation of acute ignorance, of coming up with insane interpretations of facts which you try to use to reject widely accepted and scientific processes (see SSDD and radiative heat transfer, photons and quantum mechanics).  Heat transfer off the planet depends on radiative transfer, particularly in the thinner upper atmosphere where your collisions fall to a rarity and where the radiation has its first chance at actually departing.  A little tricky to do a convective transfer to a vacuum, isn't it Sid.  

The Greenhouse effect is quite real.  It is universally accepted among anyone that's passed 7th grade science.  Your arguments against it are a waste of time for all and indicative only that you have no valid argument.  That's what happens when you choose to argue for a falsehood.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> You have a knack, either intentionally or through some bizarre variation of acute ignorance, of coming up with insane interpretations of facts which you try to use to reject widely accepted and scientific processes (see SSDD and radiative heat transfer, photons and quantum mechanics).  Heat transfer off the planet depends on radiative transfer, particularly in the thinner upper atmosphere where your collisions fall to a rarity and where the radiation has its first chance at actually departing.  A little tricky to do a convective transfer to a vacuum, isn't it Sid.



I am afraid that it is you, crick, who seems sadly unable to grasp the obvious.  AGW isn't concerned with what happens in the upper atmosphere....AGW is concerned with CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons either back to the surface to actually warm it, or simply to delay the escape of the energy to the upper atmosphere and subsequently out into space, depending on which hypothesis you believe...the IPCC says it radiates back to the surface and actually warms the surface...

If the vast vast vast majority of energy is convecting to the upper atmosphere, and those IR photons being radiated by CO2 molecules (so important to all versions of the AGW hypothesis) are, in fact, a rarity, it is certainly just one more thing that calls the validity of the hypothesis into question.....as if the lack of a hot spot weren't enough.



Wuwei said:


> The Greenhouse effect is quite real.  It is universally accepted among anyone that's passed 7th grade science.  Your arguments against it are a waste of time for all and indicative only that you have no valid argument.  That's what happens when you choose to argue for a falsehood.



An atmospheric thermal effect is real.  It is interesting that the temperature was predicted quite well by the Standard Atmosphere way back in 1976 with no radiative effect at all....


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You have a knack, either intentionally or through some bizarre variation of acute ignorance, of coming up with insane interpretations of facts which you try to use to reject widely accepted and scientific processes (see SSDD and radiative heat transfer, photons and quantum mechanics).  Heat transfer off the planet depends on radiative transfer, particularly in the thinner upper atmosphere where your collisions fall to a rarity and where the radiation has its first chance at actually departing.  A little tricky to do a convective transfer to a vacuum, isn't it Sid.
> ...


Takes physics class.

Pretends he understands more than his teachers. Or his teacher's teachers.

Classic Dunning Kruger.


----------



## IanC (Sep 23, 2015)

You guys are finally getting to the crux of the matter. GHGs do have an effect, especially at the surface and for the first few tens of meters. But that retarded energy is shunted into convection mostly via the water cycle. A small change in evaporation and cloud formation easily overwhelms the radiative effect, although some small portion must go into warming the surface otherwise it would already be happening.

SSDD is wrong about the relative numbers of collisions versus emissions. It is only around one order of magnitude rather than the approximately ten he is claiming. W is wrong about the partition theory because the assumptions made for the general principle ignores the fact that energy is in fact moving through atmosphere even though at any one point it is very close to equilibrium.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > What you are saying is well understood. What is not well understood is why you think that shows that radiation is such a small part of the physics of atmospheric gasses. Your conclusion is very myopic.
> ...



That response has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was talking about radiation physics, not atmospherics.


SSDD said:


> So where is the hot spot in the lower troposphere which would necessarily exist if the "blanket" effect you claim were actually in operation? A million plus direct measurements say that it does not exist. The hot spot is predicted by the hypothesis and it would supposedly be the smoking gun proving the AGW hypothesis...except it doesn't exist...the lack of said hot spot should be enough to falsify the AGW hypothesis if the scientific method were actually in practice in climate science.


Again you misunderstood my point: your statement about the quick extinction of vibratory energy has absolutely no impact on the ability of CO2 to back-radiate LW energy. I was not saying it is important in AGW.

Again back-radiation does not mean that the CO2 molecule that absorbs IR is the same one that emits it. It is the entire ensemble of CO2 molecules that absorbs IR and the ensemble also emits IR. That emitted radiation is isotropic, meaning it includes back-radiation.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD is wrong about the relative numbers of collisions versus emissions. It is only around one order of magnitude rather than the approximately ten he is claiming. W is wrong about the partition theory because the assumptions made for the general principle ignores the fact that energy is in fact moving through atmosphere even though at any one point it is very close to equilibrium.


As I told SSDD, I wasn't referring to atmospherics. I was referring to the physics where there is equilibrium. Of course that would be local. Although each locality as you move around in the atmosphere has different equilibrium conditions, the equipartition concepts still hold for each small locality when it comes to the radiation aspects of energy flow. For the lifetime of radiation events quasi-equilibrium would generally exist.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Takes physics class.
> 
> Pretends he understands more than his teachers. Or his teacher's teachers.
> 
> Classic Dunning Kruger.



This may come as a surprise to you, but much of the physics used to explain the so called greenhouse effect are not taught in classical physics courses...One must take physics for the soft sciences to be taught back radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD is wrong about the relative numbers of collisions versus emissions.



I am correct about the numbers of collisions....sorry.  Make whatever your faith demands that you make of it, but I am correct.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Again you misunderstood my point: your statement about the quick extinction of vibratory energy has absolutely no impact on the ability of CO2 to back-radiate LW energy. I was not saying it is important in AGW.



If the vast majority of energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is transferred via collisions with other molecules....exactly how important do you think so called back radiation is?



Wuwei said:


> Again back-radiation does not mean that the CO2 molecule that absorbs IR is the same one that emits it. It is the entire ensemble of CO2 molecules that absorbs IR and the ensemble also emits IR. That emitted radiation is isotropic, meaning it includes back-radiation.



How often do you think that a CO2 molecule collides with another CO2 molecule?  It is, after all, merely a trace gas in the atmosphere.  The energy is most often transferred to an N2 molecule.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> If the vast majority of energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is transferred via collisions with other molecules....exactly how important do you think so called back radiation is?


The fact that the vast majority of energy is transferred via collisions has nothing to do with the amount of back-radiation. It is only a small piece of the picture. It's the total population of CO2 in an excited state that matters.



SSDD said:


> How often do you think that a CO2 molecule collides with another CO2 molecule? It is, after all, merely a trace gas in the atmosphere. The energy is most often transferred to an N2 molecule.


Exactly. Also equally important is that the N2 molecule is transferring energy to the vibratory states of CO2 to replenish the population of vibratory energy. As long as the total population of vibratory excitation is high (which it is via equipartition) then there will be significant isotropic IR radiation from the ensemble of vibratory excited states.


----------



## IanC (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




SSDD-  your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.


----------



## IanC (Sep 23, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If the vast majority of energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is transferred via collisions with other molecules....exactly how important do you think so called back radiation is?
> ...




Exactly. It is not so much that CO2 absorbs and re-emits a photon back to earth half the time. The CO2 absorbs the energy which then becomes part of the atmospheric cohort, and the atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which returns to the earth half the time.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD-  your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.


I agree "his" estimates are high but they are not his estimates. There is a blog where posters are reinforcing each other in believing in that one in a gazillion probability. To me it was immaterial to the other unsupportable ideas he was posing.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD-  your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.



The key is that the CO2 is storing absorbed energy as internal vibrational energy, not as kinetic energy. While molecules bumping each other will freely transfer kinetic energy, only a tiny fraction of such collisions will manage to transfer the vibrational energy.

On top of that, the path length of the emitted IR photon is much longer than the path length of a molecule has before it hits another molecule, so the photon can carry energy further.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> SSDD-  your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.



Sorry Ian, but again, I am not wrong.  My numbers come from Dr William Happer...
Cyrus Fogg Brackett  Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

Here is a link to an exchange between himself and Dr David Burton.

Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave

Note the last comment on the page from Dr Happer where he corrects his statement of the time between collisions from about a nanosecond to .05 nanoseconds making the emission of a photon by a CO2 molecule all the more rare.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The key is that the CO2 is storing absorbed energy as internal vibrational energy, not as kinetic energy. While molecules bumping each other will freely transfer kinetic energy, only a tiny fraction of such collisions will manage to transfer the vibrational energy.



CO2 has no mechanism by which to store energy....of any type.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD-  your estimates for the number of molecular collisions at STP is markedly high and reemission time for excited CO2 is markedly longer. More realistic estimates put the emission time as about ten times longer than the time between collisions. It is still more likely that the energy will be transferred by kinetics than emission but not the unbelievably rare event that you are claiming.
> ...




Interesting.. There was never a doubt in MY mind that CO2 or any molecule is NOT OBLIGATED to immediately re-radiate an equal photon. But your interpretation of what this MEANS is wrong.  Here's the pertinent quote.. 

[YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON,* IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY*.  IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S  WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.  A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK.  I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]

That bolded part is where you went off the rails. That's the EXACT description of a CO2 "storing and distributing heat" thru acquired kinetic energy between each other and to other gases in the mix...  

Not NECESSARY that the entire GreenHouse "insulation" is done by Radiative transfer. The GHouse gases merely have to intercept and absorb the Earth blackbody radiation and reduce the loss to space. When the atmos layer WARMS -- the overall radiative transfer back to the surface will increase by a tad. There is always shown in Radiative balance diagrams a component of the Earth's surface IR leaking to space. It's ALWAYS a net loss of surface heat. 

If you've heated the lower troposphere by restraining IR emissions -- you've heated it. 
How the SURFACE is warmed by that action is another matter. The radiative balance was never looked at as tho it is a mirror with a certain reflectivity. It was ALWAYS a thermal transfer in the first place.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Interesting.. There was never a doubt in MY mind that CO2 or any molecule is NOT OBLIGATED to immediately re-radiate an equal photon. But your interpretation of what this MEANS is wrong.  Here's the pertinent quote..
> 
> [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON,* IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY*.  IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S  WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.  A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK.  I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]
> 
> ...



What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all,  not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Sorry Ian, but again, I am not wrong.  My numbers come from Dr William Happer... Cyrus Fogg Brackett  Professor of Physics at Princeton University.



No wonder you screwed up. You're listening to “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler” William Happer, one of Exxon's most prized paid shills.

So, SSDD doesn't believe in vibrational modes. We can add that to the long list of mainstream physics which he denies.

Vibrational Modes - Chemwiki


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Takes physics class.
> ...


Not surprised, however, that you ignored the Dunning Kruger reference.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting.. There was never a doubt in MY mind that CO2 or any molecule is NOT OBLIGATED to immediately re-radiate an equal photon. But your interpretation of what this MEANS is wrong.  Here's the pertinent quote..
> ...



That's right -- all that energy from the sun?? Doesn't matter if or how IT balances --- because it's all gravito-thermal.. 


This physicist you found is playing loose and fast with some factoids. The fact that CO2 molecule doesn't chuck out a photon for a full second -- really doesn't have anything to do with predicting the GAIN or LOSS of heat energy during kinetic interactions. Doesn't mean "one bump" relieves all the heat energy ACQUIRED from the last incoming photon. So comparing the RAW statistic of one photon every Billion collisions tells you NOTHING about heat gain or loss. He's toying with people.. Because he can. Very common amongst the primadonna crowd in academe..


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 23, 2015)

SSDD said:


> What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.


I have never heard of the gravito-thermal effect. A web search largely shows a bunch of blogs.

One summary says that,
“_Loschmidt [in 1870's] claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base.”_​
However Feynman says,
“_Let us begin with an example: the distribution of the molecules in an atmosphere like our own, but without the winds and other kinds of disturbance. Suppose that we have a column of gas extending to a great height, and at thermal equilibrium—unlike our atmosphere, which as we know gets colder as we go up. We could remark that if the temperature differed at different heights, we could demonstrate lack of equilibrium. So, ultimately, of course, the temperature becomes the same at all heights in a gravitational field.“_​
They disagree with each other on temperature, but both do require equilibrium conditions. However the atmosphere is hardly in equilibrium with the sun pumping energy in, etc. So I don't see how any of this is relevant to atmospheric physics.

What is your take on this?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



Not surprised that you failed to read the response to your reference that was posted.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What we are talking about here is an actual gravito-thermal effect as described by Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzman, Feynman, Hemboltz, et all, not a hypothetical radiative greenhouse effect as described by Arrhenius, the IPCC and modern climate science.
> ...



They are saying the same thing....Loschmidt rightly says that there will be a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column....Feynman acknowledges that the chaotic nature of the atmosphere there will be a variance from the top to the bottom of the column.  Repeatable, experimental work in the lab has confirmed a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> That's right -- all that energy from the sun?? Doesn't matter if or how IT balances --- because it's all gravito-thermal..



We are talking about the movement of energy from the surface of the earth to space...are you arguing that gravity, and the weight of the atmosphere does not "crowd" molecules closer together the deeper you go in the atmosphere....resulting in energy being more likely to be convected out of the atmosphere and rendering radiation to the status of a very minor bit player till the energy is exiting the atmosphere?




flacaltenn said:


> This physicist you found is playing loose and fast with some factoids. ..



That physicist is simply stating fact...phyisicists promoting the AGW hoax are the ones playing fast and loose with factoids....making claims that can not be observed, measured, or tested....making claims of physical reactions that, in reality, only exist in computer models....making claims that observation flatly prove wrong.

You seem to have acknowledged that energy is more likely to be convected to the upper atmosphere and still you are arguing for a radiative greenhouse effect.

By the way, I seriously doubt that energy from a CO2 molecule could be absorbed by another CO2 molecule due to its very narrow absorption bands....when energy is absorbed by a CO2 molecule it becomes excited...achieving that excited state requires some energy...therefore the energy that is transferred, either by collision with another molecule or a "photon" must be released at a slightly lower frequency than at which it was absorbed...because the absorption bands of CO2 are so narrow, another CO2 molecule would not be able to absorb that energy released at a lower frequency...and if, as you say it is not necessarily transferred in one collision, each successive collision would lower the frequency even further from the absorption frequency of other CO2 molecules.

Like it or not....CO2 is not a factor in global temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.  There is no radiative greenhouse effect.  If there were, there wold necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot...which simply does not exist.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> .resulting in energy being more likely to be convected out of the atmosphere and rendering radiation to the status of a very minor bit player till the energy is exiting the atmosphere?



Energy can only exit from the top.  To get there, it has to pass through a hundred miles of atmosphere in which density drops continuously and thus radiative  transfer becomes more and more predominant.  And you think this REFUTES the greenhouse effect?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .resulting in energy being more likely to be convected out of the atmosphere and rendering radiation to the status of a very minor bit player till the energy is exiting the atmosphere?
> ...




The greenhouse effect is all about what happens from the surface to the top of the troposphere...if radiation is a very minor bit player in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist....if it did, then there would necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot.

If radiation is not the primary driver in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis is rendered falsified.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> They are saying the same thing....Loschmidt rightly says that there will be a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column....Feynman acknowledges that the chaotic nature of the atmosphere there will be a variance from the top to the bottom of the column. Repeatable, experimental work in the lab has confirmed a variance in temperature from the top to the bottom of the column.


I don't understand what you are getting at. The theoretical work of those two are for *equilibrium* conditions - i.e. no external work nor energy input and enough time for the state to stabilize. But the atmosphere is far from stable, it has external energy input. How can the concepts of those two have any bearing on the real world atmosphere.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The greenhouse effect is all about what happens from the surface to the top of the troposphere...if radiation is a very minor bit player in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist....if it did, then there would necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot.
> 
> If radiation is not the primary driver in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis is rendered falsified.


Again I don't understand what you are getting at. I would say that if radiation is a very minor bit player, then a radiative greenhouse effect does exist, but it is a minor effect and would have negligible influence on the hot spot.  That is not a reason to say the greenhouse effect does not exist at all.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect is all about what happens from the surface to the top of the troposphere...if radiation is a very minor bit player in the troposphere, then a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist....if it did, then there would necessarily be a tropospheric hot spot.
> ...



Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.


I understand that most skeptics believe that the radiative greenhouse effect is real, but a very minor forcing. Do I understand you to also say the same thing, that the CO2 radiative greenhouse effect is actually real but minimal? How does this relate to the gravito-thermo effect that you mentioned earlier? It seems that was abandon in this follow-on discussion.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Climate science claims a radiative greenhouse effect....clearly radiation is not the main force at work moving energy from the surface to beyond the troposphere...therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect...there is an atmospheric thermal effect, but CO2 is irrelevant to it.
> ...




Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that _Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming_. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.

Climate Change Statement Review


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that _Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming_. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..


Yes, I understand that "skeptic" view, and it's a very simple argument. But what puzzles me is why there are skeptics who torture the laws of physics to try to prove their point. There are a whole slew of them who pontificate in blogs, etc. I see no need for them to do that. So I think it is an obsessive game with them to argue amateur physics.

I don't take any strong stance on AGW. Neither the warmers, nor deniers have made a strong point. 

There are some problems that I have not seen discussed enough: 
Yes water vapor is predominant, but CO2 and CH4 absorb IR in some gaps in the H2O spectrum. This will increase energy entrapment and cause warming. Those two GHG's exist only as gasses (except semisolid CH4 that occurs in the depths of cold water.) However there is an endless supply of H2O which exists in three phases and is continually changing between water, vapor, and ice. That complicates the radiation dynamics because H2O has such different properties than the other two.

So, just how strong is the CO2 in GW? Are scientists on a bandwagon or are there really calculations which are robust. Most of the skeptics simply say CO2 doubling doesn't do much. What are they basing that on? If the calculations are not robust, do the skeptic scientists have better calculations? It's hard to go to the original research unless you pay several hundred dollars for journal subscriptions. If there is a solid reason to believe one way or another about AGW, I have not seen it.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.
> 
> Climate Change Statement Review


I looked at the IPCC report a year ago until I got impatient with the huge volume of stuff. I will take a look at the APS to see what they have.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > Except the physicists who taught you all this stuff say there is no question AGW is real and will become a major problem in the future.
> ...


LOL.

Yeah. Science is hard.

Imagine the effort of the people who actually wrote and edited it!

It's funny how you said it's hard to go to the original science because it's paywalled, but a whole lot of it is compiled in that long report.  Not only that, but it's collected and contextual iced and reviewed for completeness and accuracy by the very scientists who participated in the research.

So the IPCC does give one a solid reason to believe AGW is a serious issue.  You say you haven't seen a reason....and you also state you couldn't read the IPCC because of the volume of material.

I think we can conclude you haven't seen the reason because you didn't bother to read it!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that _Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming_. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..
> ...


It's very simple it's never been proven


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



WHEN 66% OF ALL DATA IS MANUFACTURED.....There really isn't much left that is empirical evidence or proof of your hottest ever line of crap...

*Approximately 66% of global surface temperature data consists of estimated values*



> The adjustments are somewhat controversial, because they take presumably raw and accurate data, run it through one or more mathematical models, and produce an estimate of what the temperature might have been given a set of conditions. For example, the time of observation adjustment (TOB) takes a raw data point at, say 7 AM, and produces an estimate of what the temperature might have been at midnight. The skill of that model is nearly impossible to determine on a monthly basis, but it is unlikely to be consistently producing a result that is accurate to the 1/100th degree that is stored in the record.



When one actually researches the data you find things that should never be allowed to happen in science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2015)

Worse still is the BEST pile of crap..  if we simply take the unadjusted numbers the lie is easily exposed... The upwards adjustments to present day and the downward adjustments to the past...  The model they use to make adjustments and make up data is crap..


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> LOL.
> 
> Yeah. Science is hard.
> 
> ...


If you are going to be so snippy, I will lump you in with the usual idiots on this board who think scoffing is the way to make a point.

A lot of the IPCC report references articles that are $20 a pop. I mostly saw summaries and generalities of the articles references in that report. Trenbreth's famous diagram shows an energy balance with a 0.9 watts/m^2 excess hitting the earth. You simply can't subtract large numbers with large error bars and rely on a small residual. So where did he get that number? Simply from the current rate of GW? How do they handle the issues that I outlined in post 513 above.

There are 5 full reports in the Fifth Assessment Report. I'm not interested in the summary reports. Since you read the IPCC report let me know, if you remember, where you found the physics background behind the energy budget. I am trying to download Working group II Full Report but is taking 10 minutes so far. Their server might be down.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2015)

With an interest in Geology, I come at the argument from a different standpoint. That of present changes in drought patterns, glaciers and ice caps, and effects on permafrost. That of the past paleoclimatic record. Such as a differance of 20 ppm of CO2 between the interglacial and the last interglacial created about a 20 foot increase in sea level then. Here are some resources;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is an American Institute of Physics site.

USGS: Science Topics: effects of climate change

Investigating Climate Change of Western North America - USGS Fact Sheet

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20130096

The Weekend Wonk: Richard Alley on Climate History and CO2


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2015)

The AGU put their annual lectures at the yearly San Francisco meeting on video for free public viewing. And those videos are easy to get to.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Worse still is the BEST pile of crap.. if we simply take the unadjusted numbers the lie is easily exposed... The upwards adjustments to present day and the downward adjustments to the past... The model they use to make adjustments and make up data is crap..


Billy Bob. Quit your whining. Nobody is interested in the crap you get from blogs.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Perhaps you haven't followed this topic for 20+ years as i have. But if you did --- you'd know that all of the initial hysterical projections regarding "climate sensitity" and those "magical multipliers" for the ACTUAL warming power of CO2 have been scaled WAAAAAY back since this party started. 

The recent science is rapidly approaching what the basic Physics ALWAYS said. And that is that the warming power of CO2 in the Atmos is about 1.1degC/ doubling of concentration. At that rate -- projections out to 2100 don't indicate an apocalypse. And strangely enough -- means that skeptics like me have ALREADY won over public hysteria and ulterior political motives. 

IN FACT --- the observed warming since the Industrial Age has pretty much followed the 1.1degC / doubling. And THAT MEASURED evidence is worth more than models that can barely keep 20 year credible estimates.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Very accurate statement on "skeptic" view with the caveat that _Man-Made CO2 emissions have a minimal effect on GreenHouse warming_. Certainly water vapor is a DOMINANT player. And the actual power of CO2 to warm the planet has been given powers above and beyond what Physics says a doubling of the gas alone can do.. Because of the theoretical "multipliers" and "accelerations" that are the CRUX of the GW theory..
> ...



Wuwei ---- my belief is that they don't want to win arguments the hard way. They want to invent "secret weapons" to try and impeach basic accepted science. One of the ugliest things I've ever seen was when Dr Roy Spencer was viciously attacked by the skeptic community for simply acknowledging that Radiative transfer from the atmos was "flowing from a colder source to a warmer surface" . In fact, the net transfer ALWAYS obeyed the 2nd law Thermo, but trying to explain that to them was a fool's errand..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.
> ...



  Anyone working in a science endevour knows that balancing HUGE uncertain numbers as Trenberth did and coming to a tiny answer that fulfills the requirement to show an imbalance as it WAS THEORIZED --- is likely not believable. And this happens REPEATEDLY throughout the barrage of spiced up Abstracts and Conclusions that are not supported by what's in the papers on GW.

Such unlikely probabilities of outcomes is illustrated in the constant massaging of the land based temperature records. A long 20 year chain of "corrections and adjustments" are certainly not bloody likely to leave the 1960s virtually unadjusted and result in pushing down the 40's temps and raising the recent readings in order to set more monthly/yearly records.

This tendency to detach the Abstract and Conclusions and the ALL MIGHTY Press Release from the ACTUAL work  done in study -- has given us some of the biggest lies in science that I can remember. Like the numerous Global Hockey Stick studies that released headlines that our RATE of warming was the highest in 2,000 or 10,000 years. Except that -- those studies would never SEE any coherent data that had time resolution better than 400 or 500 years and CERTAINLY couldn't project Mins or Maxes for these periods. 

BTW --- Trenberth's "Energy" Diagram is NOT measured in energy units. Something the Physics Dept probably chided him about. In fact, Trenberth hardly took account of ocean storage -- which is NOW HIS EXCUSE for the slowing of the temperature climb. His "result" missed what he now calls --- the 90% of "excess heat" ends up in the water.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2015)

Even if I WANTED to switch sides --- the "stench" of the surrounding hype and propaganda would keep me frrom doing so.. I NEVER want to be "one of them"....


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Anyone working in a science endevour knows that balancing HUGE uncertain numbers as Trenberth did and coming to a tiny answer that fulfills the requirement to show an imbalance as it WAS THEORIZED --- is likely not believable. And this happens REPEATEDLY throughout the barrage of spiced up Abstracts and Conclusions that are not supported by what's in the papers on GW.
> 
> Such unlikely probabilities of outcomes is illustrated in the constant massaging of the land based temperature records. A long 20 year chain of "corrections and adjustments" are certainly not bloody likely to leave the 1960s virtually unadjusted and result in pushing down the 40's temps and raising the recent readings in order to set more monthly/yearly records.
> 
> ...


Well, I certainly take more of a middle ground than you. I look at the skeptics as creating a stench. With the screw-ball theories, and posts with constant inane yelling with no information content.

As I think about it, Trenberth may be just trying to make sense of things, and showing estimates to illustrate the degree of energy flow, using more solid numbers where available, like the sun input, and the earth's IR output. (I checked the IR output using Stefan-Boltzmann law on the average 15 C temperature. It agrees with Trenberth.) The less secure numbers are no doubt adjusted for conservation of energy. So it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I don't condemn Trenberth for now using the water as part of the energy budget, but I do think it was negligent not to include it in the first place. Also I think the phrase "global warming" misses the mark. The field should not use temperature as a measure. Energy as a measure would overcome the wild difference in specific heat between air and water. But the public doesn't relate to energy as it does to temperature. Energy flow (Watts per m^2) doesn't bother me because it is a closer measure of energy than temperature.

As far as the long chain of data adjustments, you can view it as fraudulent manipulation, or a simple updating as methods are refined. Your view depends on your bias.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> threegoofs said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.
> ...


WG1, obviously.

So you doubt the physics behind what the physicists are writing in the report?

Newsflash: if it was wrong, the APS would probably know. After all, those guys were the one that taught YOU physics.


----------



## threegoofs (Sep 24, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Even if I WANTED to switch sides --- the "stench" of the surrounding hype and propaganda would keep me frrom doing so.. I NEVER want to be "one of them"....


Thanks for letting us know your thinking comes more from your gut than your brain.

We kinda figured it out anyway, but it's nice of you to tell us you are unmoved by reason.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 24, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone working in a science endevour knows that balancing HUGE uncertain numbers as Trenberth did and coming to a tiny answer that fulfills the requirement to show an imbalance as it WAS THEORIZED --- is likely not believable. And this happens REPEATEDLY throughout the barrage of spiced up Abstracts and Conclusions that are not supported by what's in the papers on GW.
> ...



But that's the point WuWei -- to MODEL the earth as an ideal 15degC Black Body would NEVER give you an answer with acceptable tolerances to FIND that 9W/m2. Problem with an "energy" budget a la Trenberth is that it virtually ignores temporal effects of storage. Which climate science has only seemed to discovered lately. NOW there is more of a recognition that the Climate System includes some rather time constants on thermal transfer. A concept that was sickly missing from the early hysteria...

You're right about reducing the "master metric" to a Mean Annual Surface Temperature". Like ONE NUMBER is supposed to represent the sum total change in Climate. Climate science tends to make a lot of things GLOBAL -- when they should be understanding the local and regional thermal energy flow. Biggest example of reduction to absurdity is this global "climate sensitivity" number that magically multiplies the power of CO2 for the entire planet. Not only insufficient as a single number topographically -- but it ignores the different temporal time constants involved..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Even if I WANTED to switch sides --- the "stench" of the surrounding hype and propaganda would keep me frrom doing so.. I NEVER want to be "one of them"....
> ...



Folks who operate from logic, reason and science have NO NEED for hype and propaganda. That's the point you predictably are missing. And that shameless promotion of a cause is a clear tip-off -- that everything needs to be questioned.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 25, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > threegoofs said:
> ...



I think you represent more than just three.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2015)

threegoofs said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Another one who doesn't grasp that there is a difference between the political head of an organization and the membership of said organization.  One is concerned with funding....one is concerned with science.  The APS actually held a council to determine what their statement on climate change would say...they brought in skeptics as well as those on the bandwagon and promptly ignored everything that came out of the council in favor of a politically correct and expedient statement....typical politics.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Yes water vapor is predominant, but CO2 and CH4 absorb IR in some gaps in the H2O spectrum. This will increase energy entrapment and cause warming.



So where is the tropospheric hot spot that would necessarily exist if that hypothesis were correct....it is the "smoking gun"  the proof that the hypothesis is correct...and yet, it doesn't exist.  With any other hypothesis failure of predicted phenomena to materialize is grounds to scrap it and look for one that can actually make sound predictions...but the radiative greenhouse hypothesis isn't held to such standards.   It has apologists who incessantly talk around its many blatant failures.  How many failures must a hypothesis experience in your opinion before it's falsified?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Wuwei ---- my belief is that they don't want to win arguments the hard way. They want to invent "secret weapons" to try and impeach basic accepted science. One of the ugliest things I've ever seen was when Dr Roy Spencer was viciously attacked by the skeptic community for simply acknowledging that Radiative transfer from the atmos was "flowing from a colder source to a warmer surface" . In fact, the net transfer ALWAYS obeyed the 2nd law Thermo, but trying to explain that to them was a fool's errand..



And yet that flow from cool to warm has never been observed....it is a mathematical construct....unobservable....untestable.....unmeasurable.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 25, 2015)

In other news...

*Another Climate Prediction Fizzles: DC Climate Rally for Pope shrinks from expected 200,000 people to just ‘hundreds’ *

*Washington DC:* The hopes were so high back in August for a massive climate rally to support Pope Francis’ climate push. But reality has now sunk in .

*Climate Prediction: August 25, 2015: WaPo: ‘For Pope Francis’s D.C. visit, environmental rally of up to 200K planned’ *– Several environmental groups are planning a major climate rally that will draw hundreds of thousands to the National Mall on Sept. 24, the day Pope Francis speaks to Congress and is expected to address the public afterwards. The permit for the gathering — which will make the moral case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming — is for 200,000 people. The Moral Action on Climate Network, along with the Earth Day Network, League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and other groups, have timed the rally on the Mall the same day of the pope’s speech.

Another Climate Prediction Fizzles: DC Climate Rally for Pope shrinks from expected 200,000 people to just 'hundreds'


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes water vapor is predominant, but CO2 and CH4 absorb IR in some gaps in the H2O spectrum. This will increase energy entrapment and cause warming.
> ...


We covered this already in post #508 where I said,  
_"Again I don't understand what you are getting at. I would say that if radiation is a very minor bit player, then a radiative greenhouse effect does exist, but it is a minor effect and would have negligible influence on the hot spot. That is not a reason to say the greenhouse effect does not exist at all."
_​


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> And yet that flow from cool to warm has never been observed....it is a mathematical construct....unobservable....untestable.....unmeasurable.


We also went through that once before in a different thread.
Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency | Page 35 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I will repeat the conclusion here:
The Cosmic Microwave Background has a temperature of 2.7 degrees K. Radio telescopes are hundreds of degrees warmer. Yet the CMB was able to penetrate the warmer atmosphere and strike a warmer reflector dish and be detected by a slightly warmer (4 deg K) sensor.

That is an “_observable … testable … measurable_” counterexample to your misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> But that's the point WuWei -- to MODEL the earth as an ideal 15degC Black Body would NEVER give you an answer with acceptable tolerances to FIND that 9W/m2. Problem with an "energy" budget a la Trenberth is that it virtually ignores temporal effects of storage. Which climate science has only seemed to discovered lately. NOW there is more of a recognition that the Climate System includes some rather time constants on thermal transfer. A concept that was sickly missing from the early hysteria...
> 
> You're right about reducing the "master metric" to a Mean Annual Surface Temperature". Like ONE NUMBER is supposed to represent the sum total change in Climate. Climate science tends to make a lot of things GLOBAL -- when they should be understanding the local and regional thermal energy flow. Biggest example of reduction to absurdity is this global "climate sensitivity" number that magically multiplies the power of CO2 for the entire planet. Not only insufficient as a single number topographically -- but it ignores the different temporal time constants involved.


I'm not aware if Trenberth ever considered his model as a instrument for predicting the future. I consider it a back-of-the-envelope sort of snapshot of the current dynamics. And yes temporal response of the various elements of any theory are an integral part of understanding the long-term non-equilibrium thermodynamics of the atmosphere and it can't be done yet.

I cant' find the references now, but one approach was for satellites to measure the short wavelength radiation entering the earth and the wide band of short to long waves leaving the earth. The difference would be on a global average scale and a direct measurement that would obviate any model like Trenberth. As I understand it there was a rather large difference where a non-trivial excess was hitting the earth - more than most people expected or accepted. I didn't look for viewpoints on the veracity of that finding - if satellites were in error or what. I'm sure it's controversial.  If anyone has any further info on that, I'm sure they will tell me.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei ---- my belief is that they don't want to win arguments the hard way. They want to invent "secret weapons" to try and impeach basic accepted science. One of the ugliest things I've ever seen was when Dr Roy Spencer was viciously attacked by the skeptic community for simply acknowledging that Radiative transfer from the atmos was "flowing from a colder source to a warmer surface" . In fact, the net transfer ALWAYS obeyed the 2nd law Thermo, but trying to explain that to them was a fool's errand..
> ...



Measured all the time.. I've given you several studies with the results. ALMOST similar to pointing a IR thermometer at the sky..

PS --- Last time we discussed this -- you tried to BS the studies by attacking the measuring device without knowing that one of my specialties is multi-spectral imaging. Wanna try again???


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > But that's the point WuWei -- to MODEL the earth as an ideal 15degC Black Body would NEVER give you an answer with acceptable tolerances to FIND that 9W/m2. Problem with an "energy" budget a la Trenberth is that it virtually ignores temporal effects of storage. Which climate science has only seemed to discovered lately. NOW there is more of a recognition that the Climate System includes some rather time constants on thermal transfer. A concept that was sickly missing from the early hysteria...
> ...



I'll buy that Trenberth study as "a back of the envelope" excersize.  But it's been promoted to great heights as a confirmation of radiative forcing similar to estimates by IPCC and others. That's the problem with a lot of the "famous" works of GW...  Definitely wouldn't qualify as evidence for requiring massive global redistribution of wealth or declaring of CO2 as a pollutant. 

As you stated, the problem is EXACTLY that we've only had advanced instruments in space for less than 30 years to measure all  sorts of phenomena that is critical to Climate Science. And with all the rush to judgments being made, there won't be the patience to observe changes that may cycle in multi-decadal or even 100s of years. One of my issues is -- The sensitivity of the GreenHouse mechanism to even SMALL shifts in the FREQUENCY distribution of incoming Solar Irradiance. We now know from satellites what we couldn't measure from the ground. That there seem to be shifts in energy between bands associated with the solar cycle. And if LONGTIME shifts are present -- then those numbers from Trenberth on INCOMING forcing would change by maybe the same amount he improbably ended up with for an "imbalance"..


----------



## jc456 (Sep 25, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Can you prove the greenhouse effect? Has it actually been tested?


Funny stuff.

So what is the temperature of the control?  79 what is the temperature of the CO2 tank 79.  Too funny.  And then the dude jumps in and says well earlier it was 81.  hahahahahahhaha I see this kind of shit in most if not all of the supposed experiments.  And then you want to know why there are skeptics and why questions come up as they do?  Brain wash the little second grader.  again funny, poor kid.

Oh and the dude also comments on the fog in the jar.  BTW, the same in all three.  So, what is different?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 25, 2015)

here from youtube CO2 impacts....


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> As you stated, the problem is EXACTLY that we've only had advanced instruments in space for less than 30 years to measure all sorts of phenomena that is critical to Climate Science. And with all the rush to judgments being made, there won't be the patience to observe changes that may cycle in multi-decadal or even 100s of years. One of my issues is -- The sensitivity of the GreenHouse mechanism to even SMALL shifts in the FREQUENCY distribution of incoming Solar Irradiance. We now know from satellites what we couldn't measure from the ground. That there seem to be shifts in energy between bands associated with the solar cycle. And if LONGTIME shifts are present -- then those numbers from Trenberth on INCOMING forcing would change by maybe the same amount he improbably ended up with for an "imbalance"..


The CERES satellite data sets measured energy in and out of the earth and showed a large surplus energy hitting the earth. Of course cloud cover was a major defining factor in that data. As I understand it the satellite tracked the cloud cover rather well. I believe it was in a polar orbit. That type of survey would directly yield yearly Earth energy gain, not yearly temperature change.
However, it seems that nobody has made a big thing of data set one way or another.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet that flow from cool to warm has never been observed....it is a mathematical construct....unobservable....untestable.....unmeasurable.
> ...



CMB was detected via resonance frequency with a radio telescope...if you want to actually measure CMB, you need an instrument that has been cooled down to 2.7K


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Measured all the time.. I've given you several studies with the results. ALMOST similar to pointing a IR thermometer at the sky..



You think your IR thermometer only measures energy moving towards you?



flacaltenn said:


> PS --- Last time we discussed this -- you tried to BS the studies by attacking the measuring device without knowing that one of my specialties is multi-spectral imaging. Wanna try again???[



Like your belief that you have an instrument that is actually counting photons?.... and actual device that is counting theoretical particles....right.  People fool themselves with instrumentation all the time.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> We covered this already in post #508 where I said,
> _"Again I don't understand what you are getting at. I would say that if radiation is a very minor bit player, then a radiative greenhouse effect does exist, but it is a minor effect and would have negligible influence on the hot spot. That is not a reason to say the greenhouse effect does not exist at all."
> _​



The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Measured all the time.. I've given you several studies with the results. ALMOST similar to pointing a IR thermometer at the sky..
> ...



OMG -- Call the FDA -- they just approved my photon-counting camera design for protein marker bio-fluorescence. I've measured small numbers of photons before --- have you???? 

If you have a material chucking off 1 or 2 photons per microsecond  -- you simply add them in a sensor bucket for a second or two --- you'll get an accurate count if you do it right. Done all the time in DOZENS of fields of science and engineering. 

Could just be witchcraft and luck I guess --- but it detects various forms of HumanPapVirus..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > We covered this already in post #508 where I said,
> ...



Like I said -- your "professor" is pulling your leg.. The fact that CO2 might delay ejecting a photon for a second changes nothing about the radiative nature of a cloud or GHGas. In all those billions of kinetic collisions he clouded with statistically smoke. The CO2 is probably close to equal likelihood of GAINING kinetic energy as losing it in the intervening second. That 1 billionth stat -- is just fooling some natives into worshipping his "cleverness".


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.


I understand that you are saying that the earth is not radiating. That comes as a great surprise. Do you think that is why the earth is warm and outer space is so cold?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Worse still is the BEST pile of crap.. if we simply take the unadjusted numbers the lie is easily exposed... The upwards adjustments to present day and the downward adjustments to the past... The model they use to make adjustments and make up data is crap..
> ...


Take your own advice and quit posting crap from left wit sources that have no bearing on real science.  That "blog" has more credibility than you or your idiot crap you post.  At least my 'blog' can back up its assertions with FACTS..  You, not so much..


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 25, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Take your own advice and quit posting crap from left wit sources that have no bearing on real science. That "blog" has more credibility than you or your idiot crap you post. At least my 'blog' can back up its assertions with FACTS.. You, not so much..



Stop​


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei ---- my belief is that they don't want to win arguments the hard way. They want to invent "secret weapons" to try and impeach basic accepted science. One of the ugliest things I've ever seen was when Dr Roy Spencer was viciously attacked by the skeptic community for simply acknowledging that Radiative transfer from the atmos was "flowing from a colder source to a warmer surface" . In fact, the net transfer ALWAYS obeyed the 2nd law Thermo, but trying to explain that to them was a fool's errand..
> ...



That's because you don't know the diff between HEAT modes of thermal flow and Electromagnetic modes of thermal flow. Photons are not heat until they are absorbed by a molecule capable of absorbing them. And until they collide with matter --- not a chance they alter their path because of the temperature.  (disclaimer -- turbulence in matter DUE to heat --- CAN change scatter and direction of EM propagation -- all that is secondary to the argument)

Thankfully, Neither thermal modes or radiative modes of heat flow violate ANY laws of physics.
Remain stupid my friend -- and read my sigline again..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?



Radio telescopes don't measure IR radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse hypothesis is radiative in nature....if radiation is not the driver then the greenhouse effect as described by climate science does not exist....something else does and it is about time that the failed radiative greenhouse hypothesis is scrapped and work being on a hypothesis that is closer to reality.
> ...



Can you differentiate between a thing that radiates and a hypothetical effect that operates via radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> That's because you don't know the diff between HEAT modes of thermal flow and Electromagnetic modes of thermal flow. Photons are not heat until they are absorbed by a molecule capable of absorbing them.



Can you prove the existence of photons?  

Remain faithful.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2015)

LOL


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 26, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?
> ...



bolometer : definition of bolometer and synonyms of bolometer (English)
_"Bolometers directly detect thermal radiation. For submillimeter wavelengths, bolometers are among the most sensitive available detectors, and are therefore used for astronomy at these wavelengths. To achieve the best sensitivity, they must be cooled to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero (typically from 50 millikelvins to 300 mK).
Notable examples of bolometers employed in submillimeter astronomy include the Herschel Space Observatory, the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy(SOFIA)."_​
Since bolometers directly detect heat, they are not dependent on the narrow band masers that can detect only a single frequency at a time. And since they are much colder than the incoming radiation there should be no problem detecting the CMB at 2.7 K

That is an example of a Radio telescope that does directly detect IR radiation. What do you think of that?


----------



## Wuwei (Sep 26, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that you are saying that the earth is not radiating. That comes as a great surprise. Do you think that is why the earth is warm and outer space is so cold?
> ...


You are answering my question with a question. Again, are you saying the Earth does not radiate?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Take your own advice and quit posting crap from left wit sources that have no bearing on real science. That "blog" has more credibility than you or your idiot crap you post. At least my 'blog' can back up its assertions with FACTS.. You, not so much..
> ...



Again you fail to post facts to refute what I posted.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2015)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's because you don't know the diff between HEAT modes of thermal flow and Electromagnetic modes of thermal flow. Photons are not heat until they are absorbed by a molecule capable of absorbing them.
> ...



Photons are a statistical convenience and a model for lightwave prop that works. I could measure an optical flow in Lumens or Lux if you prefer.. But that breaks down statistically when the net flux becomes very very tiny. Because matter ejects photons due to temperature based on it's individual molecular construction on a statistical basis -- not on a regular "avg" flow. 

Short answer is YES I can -- take a very cold source and observe the incremental addition of energy to the IR stream. You'll find that a PARTICLE model  is the best way to understand the result.. Go read a bit. It's not hard to find examples of this.. HELL of lot easier than simply DENYING the tools and constructs of basic Physics. 

You'll have so much more time to ENJOY science and life with less friction and heat being generated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying that the CMB actually did hit the telescope but then you immediately imply it didn't. Which is it?
> ...



What radiation do they measure?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



You've asked some stupid questions but CONGRATULATIONS....this one lowers the bar....RADIO telescopes operate in the RADIO frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*if you want to actually measure CMB, you need an instrument that has been cooled down to 2.7K *

Something at 2.7K is going to radiate toward a warmer Earth, only if the receiver, underneath a much warmer atmosphere, is 2.7K or colder? LOL!    

That's funny.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


hmmmmmm, the word radio should give something away.

Hint, it's all man made.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why did you feel the need to state the obvious, did you think that was some deep insight?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes, SSDD's idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I don't think he stated that a radio telescope reads radiation.  I'm just saying, let's keep the discussion a little honest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
I don't think he stated that a radio telescope reads radiation.
*
What does it "read"?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He made the claim that IR radiation was measured with a radio telescope.  If one wanted to actually measure CMB...one would need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than 2.75K.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


radio waves from satellites from what I could find.  Meaning a transmission made by a device somewhere in space made by man, or alien I supposed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*He made the claim that IR radiation was measured with a radio telescope.*

So radio radiation can travel from colder to warmer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Look up CMB. You'll sound a little less ignorant.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


again with the word radiation.  hmmmmmmmm, pretending to act stupid is so unbecoming.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I looked up radio telescope.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I don't believe you're pretending.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Now look up CMB.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why?  I looked up radio telescope. I gave you the answer I found.

It stated radio telescope.

Is tuned to capture frequencies by man made electromagnetic communication waves.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I never pretend.  I use to as a kid.  But I got a job started a family and left the pretending to my kids and their kids now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why?*

I told you, you'll sound a little less ignorant.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ok so? 

"However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
However, a sufficiently sensitive **radio telescope** shows a faint background glow
*
There you go, learning about CMB. Good for you!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude, so what.  What does that have to do with what a radio telescope is used for. Some guy got a noble prize because he sees leftovers.  Not sure what that has to do with IR radiation.  Again, that is what I saw posted.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and it's value?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The theory is it's evidence of the Big Bang.
In this thread, it's evidence that SSDD is wrong about radiation not moving from cold objects to warm objects.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ok, I see now.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 7, 2015)

Expect the NASA GISS September 2015 temperature anomaly to be close to +0.90C. The previous September record high, set in 2014, is +0.90C.

That will continue 2015's march to be the runaway hottest year on the historical record.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Expect the NASA GISS September 2015 temperature anomaly to be close to +0.90C. The previous September record high, set in 2014, is +0.90C.
> 
> That will continue 2015's march to be the runaway hottest year on the historical record.



That's awful!
If we spend $80 trillion on "green energy", what will the temperature be in 2080?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 7, 2015)

Much lower. Cost wise, it's a no-brainer, as it will save many times that much money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Much lower. Cost wise, it's a no-brainer, as it will save many times that much money.



*Much lower.
*
0.1 degrees? 0.2?
*
Cost wise, it's a no-brainer, as it will save many times that much money.
*
That's funny!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So radio radiation can travel from colder to warmer?



Radio waves are warm or cold?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> However, a sufficiently sensitive **radio telescope** shows a faint background glow
> *
> There you go, learning about CMB. Good for you!



If one tunes in to the proper resonance frequency....radio telescopes do not detect radiation in the IR band.  Perhaps you should read a bit as well...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So radio radiation can travel from colder to warmer?
> ...



They have no temperature, of course.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



*If one tunes in to the proper resonance frequency
*
I could detect radiation emitted from cold to warmer?

*radio telescopes do not detect radiation in the IR band.
*
Matter radiates in bands other than just the IR.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The theory is it's evidence of the Big Bang.
> In this thread, it's evidence that SSDD is wrong about radiation not moving from cold objects to warm objects.



Like everything is evidence for the AGW hypothesis..  Some scientists at the Bell laboratories got a Nobel Prize for discovering that this background radiation was absolutely uniform in every direction. No matter which direction one looks in space, there it was and it was exactly the same. A dead flat, constant 2.75 degree Kelvin cold. They said that the fact that it was uniform in every direction was the final nail in the creationist coffin. It was proof of the big bang.

A few years later, some superior detectors that we placed in orbit that were more sensitive than those used by the Bell laboratory scientists by orders of magnitude found that the flat background radiation wasn’t really flat at all but had some significant undulations and unevenness. It was then determined that the fact that the radiation was uneven and variable was the ultimate proof of the big bang

The big bang is fading as an acceptable hypothesis....the big bang theory requires that one believe in more miracles than the creation story.

And again, the CMB was detected via a resonant radio freqency...not actual 2.7K thermal radiation.  One can measure actual CMB but one must have an instrument that detects thermal radiation and that instrument must be cooled to a temperature below 2.7K


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Then why ask the question:
"So radio radiation can travel from colder to warmer?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I could detect radiation emitted from cold to warmer?[/quote[
> 
> No...you could detect the evidence of radiation that you could not directly detect otherwise unless you had an IR detecting instrument cooled to a temperature below that of the actual radiation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The theory is it's evidence of the Big Bang.
> ...


*
And again, the CMB was detected via a resonant radio freqency...not actual 2.7K thermal radiation.
*
How is "a resonant radio frequency"  different than "thermal radiation"?
Are they both waves? Are they both detected when they hit a receiver?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

You have now proven quite adequately that you can indeed fool yourself with instrumentation...although climate science beat you to the proof quite some time ago.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I could detect radiation emitted from cold to warmer?[/quote[
> ...



*CMB is thermal radiaton....not radio radiation.
*
What is the wavelength of CMB?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Because of your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I could detect radiation emitted from cold to warmer?[/quote[
> ...



I could detect radiation emitted from cold to warmer?

*No...you could detect the evidence of radiation that you could not directly detect otherwise unless you had an IR detecting instrument cooled to a temperature below that of the actual radiation.
*
But the detector is beneath a warmer atmosphere.
According to your claim, nothing that cold would radiate toward the warmer surface.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How is "a resonant radio frequency"  different than "thermal radiation"?
> Are they both waves? Are they both detected when they hit a receiver?



You just suggested that JC go read something so that he would sound more informed on the topic....perhaps you should take your own advice and go read something so that you can know the difference between radiation in the radio frequencies and radiation in the thermal frequencies.

And the resonance frequency is what the radio telescope detected...not CMB.  For example...it is possible to receive radio signals via resonance frequency when the actual radio signal is to weak to be received by the receiving antenna....that is, the actual signal never reaches the receiver...but the information is received non the less via resonance frequency that can reach the receiver...detection of CMB by radio telescope in no way proves that energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects....it does prove that you are perfectly capable of fooling yourself with instrumentation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the detector is beneath a warmer atmosphere.
> According to your claim, nothing that cold would radiate toward the warmer surface.



Why would you assume that the instrument is on the surface of the earth and not in orbit>


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How is "a resonant radio frequency"  different than "thermal radiation"?
> ...



*...perhaps you should take your own advice and go read something so that you can know the difference between radiation in the radio frequencies and radiation in the thermal frequencies.*

Who claimed the radio telescopes we're talking about detected IR radiation? They detect radio waves.
*
...it is possible to receive radio signals via resonance frequency when the actual radio signal is to weak to be received by the receiving antenna..*

Do you have a source that better explains these magically detectable "too weak to be received" signals?

*detection of CMB by radio telescope in no way proves that energy can move from cooler objects to warmer objects.
*
Radio waves moving from very cold matter through the very warm atmosphere doesn't prove radiation can move from cold to warmer objects? What does it prove?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > But the detector is beneath a warmer atmosphere.
> ...



Because the guys who won the Nobel Prize had a ground based receiver.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who claimed the radio telescopes we're talking about detected IR radiation? They detect radio waves.{?quote]
> 
> The very same idiots who claimed that CMB actually contacted the warmer receiver.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A ground based radio telescope...incapable of detecting thermal radiation which is what CMB is....


See you later toddster...you have grown to tedious to talk to....you make no points...twist what has been said into statements that no longer resemble the original intent and in general are not interesting....if I want to talk to a 5 year old who isn't able to adequately hold up his side of the conversation...I have a grandson whom I like far better than you to talk to.  When you have progressed far enough in your socialization to actually keep up your end of a conversation rather than misrepresent everything you read....let me know.  Perhaps we can talk again sometime in the future.


----------



## IanC (Oct 8, 2015)

the horn antenna used to discover the CBR and win a serendipitous Nobel for Penxxxxxx and Wilson. I dont see any liquid helium tanks, hahahahahaha.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> the horn antenna used to discover the CBR and win a serendipitous Nobel for Penxxxxxx and Wilson. I dont see any liquid helium tanks, hahahahahaha.




You don't see a device that actually detected CMB either....you see a device that detected a resonance radio frequency which indicated the  existence of CMB.  Why be deliberately dishonest Ian?  Surely you grasp the thread of the conversation...why be dishonest when it really wan't necessary?


----------



## IanC (Oct 8, 2015)

you said the detector had to be at a lower 'temperature' than the radiation it was detecting. I call bullshit. CCDs also measure wavelengths that are 'colder' than the instrument containing the CCD. if anyone is being dishonest, it is you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Who claimed the radio telescopes we're talking about detected IR radiation? They detect radio waves.{?quote]
> ...



*The very same idiots who claimed that CMB actually contacted the warmer receiver.
*
Do you have a real source that backs your claim that they didn't actually receive CMB at the Earth based antenna?
*
I have grown quite tired of your tedium....*

I understand. Having your errors exposed must be very tiring for you. Maybe you should stop making them?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2015)

Smart photons, smart photons all the way down. Now that sounds more modern than turtles.

SSDD, you are an embarrassment even to the deniers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
A ground based radio telescope...incapable of detecting thermal radiation which is what CMB is....*

Matter at a few degrees above absolute zero emits what type of radiation?
*
if I want to talk to a 5 year old who isn't able to adequately hold up his side of the conversation
*
You'd talk to yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Smart photons, smart photons all the way down. Now that sounds more modern than turtles.
> 
> SSDD, you are an embarrassment even to the deniers.



And yet....every observation ever made supports my position.  The luke warmers should be embarrassed....they believe in the same magic as you....unobservable...unmeasurable...untestable.....................fantasy.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2015)

IanC said:


> you said the detector had to be at a lower 'temperature' than the radiation it was detecting. I call bullshit. CCDs also measure wavelengths that are 'colder' than the instrument containing the CCD. if anyone is being dishonest, it is you.




Actually what I said was....."One can measure actual CMB but one must have an instrument that detects thermal radiation and that instrument must be cooled to a temperature below 2.7K"....but what is a bit of alteration of someone's actual statement...if you are going to be dishonest....may as well go all the way....right? 

As to CCD's measuring wavelengths colder than the instrument itself....bullshit.  You must first consider the source of the radiation coming from the object that the CCD is measuring...is it reflected light?....what is the temperature of the source.  Put the CCD and the cooler object in a dark room and then tell me how much the CCD records....


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 8, 2015)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you said the detector had to be at a lower 'temperature' than the radiation it was detecting. I call bullshit. CCDs also measure wavelengths that are 'colder' than the instrument containing the CCD. if anyone is being dishonest, it is you.
> ...


How quickly you forget SSDD this is what I posted way back on page 56 of this thread.

bolometer : definition of bolometer

_"Bolometers directly detect thermal radiation. For submillimeter wavelengths, bolometers are among the most sensitive available detectors, and are therefore used for astronomy at these wavelengths. To achieve the best sensitivity, they must be cooled to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero (typically from 50 millikelvins to 300 mK).
Notable examples of bolometers employed in submillimeter astronomy include the __Herschel Space Observatory__, the __James Clerk Maxwell Telescope__, and the __Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy__(SOFIA)."_

Since bolometers directly detect radiated heat, they are not dependent on the narrow band masers that can detect only a single frequency at a time. And since they are much colder than the incoming radiation there should be no problem detecting the CMB at 2.7 K

That is an example of a Radio telescope that does directly detect IR radiation. What do you think of that?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2015)

Another month gone and no global rise..  No hottest month ev'a according to satellites (both UAH and RSS have this in the mid range)


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2015)

Oh, who to believe, an anonymous poster on a 'Conservative' message board, or NASA and NOAA. Such difficult choices.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 8, 2015)




----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> That is an example of a Radio telescope that does directly detect IR radiation. What do you think of that?




What do I think of that???....not much.  What do I think of you?...that you are just another warmer or luke warmer who believes you have a clue but don't...

Bolometer, an instrument used to measure infrared, or heat, radiation. The bolometer is essentially a very sensitive thermometer. It can be used with a spectroscope to measure the ability of certain chemical compounds to absorb various wavelengths of infrared radiation. These measurements provide valuable information about the structures of these compounds.

What on earth would ever give you the impression that a bolometer is a radio telescope.  It is a device used to measure infrared....by definition that makes it NOT a radio telescope....and note that it is cooled to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, as I have often stated,  so that it can indeed receive what you idiots like to call back radiation....were it at ambient temperature, it would not pick up such radiation because such energy does not move from cool to warm...backradiation has never been measured by an instrument at ambient temperature....by cooling it to very low temperatures nearly all frequencies of IR are moving from warm to cool just as the second law predicts and demands.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh, who to believe, an anonymous poster on a 'Conservative' message board, or NASA and NOAA. Such difficult choices.



When nasa and noaa have been caught repeatedly faking data....what sort of idiot would believe anything they have to say....their, and other agencies have done such incredible damage to science with their misbehavior that it should rise to the level of criminality....it will be decades after this hoax is over before science again regains anything like real credibility.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> What on earth would ever give you the impression that a bolometer is a radio telescope. It is a device used to measure infrared....by definition that makes it NOT a radio telescope.



The thing that gave me the impression that makes a bolometer a telescope is right in my post that you omitted in your reply:

_"Notable examples of bolometers employed in submillimeter astronomy include the __Herschel Space Observatory__, the __James Clerk Maxwell Telescope__, and the __Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy__(SOFIA)."_​
Why didn't you see that bolometers *are *used in radio telescopes.



SSDD said:


> by cooling it to very low temperatures nearly all frequencies of IR are moving from warm to cool just as the second law predicts and demands.



Yes, the bolometer is sensitive enough to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere and hit the reflector dish at hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer. That shows that cold radiation can strike warmer objects without disobeying the second law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Who claimed the radio telescopes we're talking about detected IR radiation? They detect radio waves.{?quote]
> ...



*The very same idiots who claimed that CMB actually contacted the warmer receiver.
*
Do you have a real source that backs your claim that they didn't actually receive CMB at the Earth based antenna?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That is an example of a Radio telescope that does directly detect IR radiation. What do you think of that?
> ...



*
 so that it can indeed receive what you idiots like to call back radiation
*
In what way does back radiation differ from good old fashioned radiation?

*....by cooling it to very low temperatures nearly all frequencies of IR are moving from warm to cool just as the second law predicts and demands.*

Where does the second law mention radiation?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Oh, who to believe, an anonymous poster on a 'Conservative' message board, or NASA and NOAA. Such difficult choices.


here's a link to read credit Yahoo.com:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

excerpt:
"Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.""


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What on earth would ever give you the impression that a bolometer is a radio telescope. It is a device used to measure infrared....by definition that makes it NOT a radio telescope.
> ...



And the stupidity just keeps on rolling.....did you bother to even look at your links?


The *Herschel Space Observatory* is a space observatory built and operated by the European Space Agency (ESA). It was active from 2009 to 2013, and was the *largest infrared telescope ever launched.*

It is an infrared telescope genius....NOTt a radio telescope.

The *James Clerk Maxwell Telescope* (*JCMT*) is a submillimetre-wavelength telescope at Mauna Kea Observatory in Hawaii. The telescope is near the summit of Mauna Kea at 13,425 feet (4,092 m). Its primary mirror is 15 metres (16.4 yards) across: it is the largest astronomical telescope that operates in *submillimetre wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum*

It detects sub millimeter wavelengths....ie  far IR to microwave....again NOT a radio telescope.

Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy  -  The name of that one should have clued you in just a bit....but alas...it didn't.  SOFIA is based on a Boeing 747SPwide-body aircraft that has been modified to include a large door in the aft fuselage that can be opened in flight to allow a 2.5 meter diameter reflecting telescope access to the sky. This telescope is designed for *infrared astronomy** observations* in the stratosphere at altitudes of about 41,000 feet (12 km).

Again....the telescope is designed for infrared astronomy...NOT a radio telescope....try real hard to understand....a bolometer is for detecting infrared wavelengths....not radio.

Each and every one of the facilities you listed explicitly said that they were interested in the infrared....not radio....so again, what on earth would make you think that a bolometer had anything whatsoever to do with radio frequencies.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The very same idiots who claimed that CMB actually contacted the warmer receiver.
> *
> Do you have a real source that backs your claim that they didn't actually receive CMB at the Earth based antenna?



Sure...how many do you want.  The fact that you need one is proof that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about....you haven't spent 1 minute researching the topic and were talking entirely out of your ass...as usual.  Here have some links...

The Universe Adventure - The Discovery of the CMB

clip:  *Accidental Discovery  *In 1964, Bell Laboratory scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were trying to detect sources of radiation that might potentially harm satellites. Their data, however, showed background noise from a microwave signal corresponding to a temperature of approximately 2.7 K that appeared to be emitted from every direction.

This Month in Physics History

clip: 
Bell Labs had built a giant, 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ in 1960 as part of a very early satellite transmission system called Echo, but the launch of the Teslar satellite a few years later made the Echo system obsolete for its intended commercial application. Penzias and Wilson seized the opportunity to use the antenna as a radio telescope to amplify and measure radio signals from the spaces between galaxies. To do so, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver, removing the effects of radar and radio broadcasting and *suppressing interference from the heart of the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium.*

There are any number of sources that state quite clearly that it was NOT IR radiation that was detected but a resonance frequency that corresponded to a temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

IanC said:


> the horn antenna used to discover the CBR and win a serendipitous Nobel for Penxxxxxx and Wilson. I dont see any liquid helium tanks, hahahahahaha.



Whaddya know...there were liquid helium tanks....hahahahahahahahahahahahaha  Perhaps if you had taken a couple of minutes to actually learn something about the instrument being used...........

This Month in Physics History   (from the APS)

Sometimes the most stunning scientific discoveries are the least expected, and occur more by serendipity than by intent. Take the case of Bell Labs physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who set out to map radio signals from the Milky Way and wound up being the first to measure the cosmic background radiation (CMB). Their momentous discovery made it possible to obtain information about cosmic processes that took place about 16 million years ago, and forever changed the science of cosmology, transforming it from a specialty of a select few astronomers to a "respectable" branch of physics almost overnight.

In the 1950s there were essentially two theories about the origin of the universe. One was the Steady State Theory, which held that the universe was homogenous in space and time and would remain so forever . The more controversial theory sought to incorporate Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that galaxies are moving away from one another at remarkable speeds. A handful of physicists led by George Gamow argued that the separation between galaxies must have been smaller in the past, which meant that at some point the universe had once been infinitely dense. Everything in the universe had emerged from this incredibly dense and hot state in a cataclysmic explosion called "the Big Bang."

Bell Labs had built a giant, 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ in 1960 as part of a very early satellite transmission system called Echo, but the launch of the Teslar satellite a few years later made the Echo system obsolete for its intended commercial application. Penzias and Wilson seized the opportunity to use the antenna as a radio telescope to amplify and measure radio signals from the spaces between galaxies. To do so, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver, removing the effects of radar and radio broadcasting and suppressing interference from the *heart of the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium*.

However, when Penzias and Wilson reduced their data, they found an annoying background "noise", like static in a radio, that interfered with their observations. The noise was a uniform signal in the microwave range (with a wavelength of 7.35 centimeters), and seemed to come from all directions.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In what way does back radiation differ from good old fashioned radiation?



Backradiation is not real....how is that for a difference?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where does the second law mention radiation?



Questions like that are why I would rather not waste my time on you.....there is such a thing as being so obtuse as to become completely uninteresting.  By asking it you are either suggesting that radiation is not a form of energy or that infrared energy is not radiation...in either case, the question is just to stupid to answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > In what way does back radiation differ from good old fashioned radiation?
> ...



*Backradiation is not real....*

LOL! That's funny. So how is this fake radiation detected?

*Questions like that are why I would rather not waste my time on you*

I agree, simple questions that you can't answer which highlight your confusion make you angry.
*
By asking it you are either suggesting that radiation is not a form of energy or that infrared energy is not radiation.*

Simply pointing out that your claim about radiation is mentioned nowhere in the 2nd Law.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, who to believe, an anonymous poster on a 'Conservative' message board, or NASA and NOAA. Such difficult choices.
> ...



^ BOOKMARK IT!!!!

The oceans Ate my Warming!!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL! That's funny. So how is this fake radiation detected?



It isn't....all instruments that are claimed to detect back radiation are cooled to temperatures far lower than the ambient....that means that the energy is flowing from warm to the cooler instrument....just radiation moving from warm to cool...not back radiation as claimed.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Simply pointing out that your claim about radiation is mentioned nowhere in the 2nd Law.



Second Law of Thermodynamics:  It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that do you think excludes radiation or suggests that radiation is not included?  Are you really as ignorant as your sophomoric question suggest?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The very same idiots who claimed that CMB actually contacted the warmer receiver.
> ...



*Their data, however, showed background noise from a microwave signal corresponding to a temperature of approximately 2.7 K that appeared to be emitted from every direction.
*
Yes, they detected the signal. By receiving the signal.
From a much colder source, thru our much warmer atmosphere.

*To do so, they had to eliminate all recognizable interference from their receiver, removing the effects of radar and radio broadcasting and suppressing interference from the heart of the receiver itself by cooling it with liquid helium.
*
Are you under the impression that the signal didn't hit the Earth _until _they cooled the receiver?

*There are any number of sources that state quite clearly that it was NOT IR radiation that was detected but a resonance frequency*

You still haven't provided a source that explains the detection of this non-radiation frequency that they received without receiving.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! That's funny. So how is this fake radiation detected?
> ...



*It isn't....all instruments that are claimed to detect back radiation are cooled to temperatures far lower than the ambient....
*
So all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface heads only in one direction, out to space, UNLESS we point a cooler detector toward the sky which causes these strictly out bound IR waves to suddenly reverse direction and travel toward the receiver? 

WOW! Do these waves have a rear view mirror?
How do they suddenly notice the cooler receiver?

*Second Law of Thermodynamics:  It is not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any **work** having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low **temperature** object to a higher temperature object.
*
Thanks for the proof that the Second Law doesn't mention radiation.
*
Which part of that do you think excludes radiation or suggests that radiation is not included?* 

The fact that the word "radiation" is missing.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Each and every one of the facilities you listed explicitly said that they were interested in the infrared....not radio....so again, what on earth would make you think that a bolometer had anything whatsoever to do with radio frequencies.



You may have forgotten that the M in CMB means microwave. Microwave refers to wavelengths in electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation in the micron region is often referred to as the radio spectrum as opposed, for example, to light in the visible spectrum which is also electromagnetic radiation.

The literature often refers to bolometers as detecting radio frequencies. However, if the term “radio telescope” confuses you then “infrared telescope”, I agree, is a more accurate term.

The bolometer was used in the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere hundreds of degrees warmer and hit the reflector dish hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer.

That shows that very cold radiation can strike warmer objects without disobeying the second law. Do you disagree?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, they detected the signal. By receiving the signal.
> From a much colder source, thru our much warmer atmosphere.



They detected a microwave signal that corresponded to a thermal signal....not CMB itself...sorry if this is to difficult for you to understand.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still haven't provided a source that explains the detection of this non-radiation frequency that they received without receiving.


[/quote]

Sorry you are unable to differentiate between a resonance signal and an actual signal....not my job to fix that sort of ignorance...there are plenty of sources out there where you can remedy your ignorance if you are so motivated.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface heads only in one direction, out to space, UNLESS we point a cooler detector toward the sky which causes these strictly out bound IR waves to suddenly reverse direction and travel toward the receiver?



Do ir thermometers state which direction the IR is moving?.....Are you under the impression that IR thermometers can't detect outbound radiation?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Each and every one of the facilities you listed explicitly said that they were interested in the infrared....not radio....so again, what on earth would make you think that a bolometer had anything whatsoever to do with radio frequencies.
> ...



Sorry guy...just grow up and admit that you are wrong and didn't know the difference between IR and radio radiation.  And if you bothered to read about the instruments you listed, you would also see that they are all cooled to just above absolute zero....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they detected the signal. By receiving the signal.
> ...


*
They detected a microwave signal that corresponded to a thermal signal....not CMB itself
*
You'll have to explain how this works. Maybe provide a link?

*Sorry you are unable to differentiate between a resonance signal and an actual signal
*
Sorry you are unable to explain it.

*there are plenty of sources out there where you can remedy your ignorance
*
I've been unable to find a source that agrees with your claim, where is one of yours?


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> And if you bothered to read about the instruments you listed, you would also see that they are all cooled to just above absolute zero....


You didn't answer the question:
The bolometer was used in the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere hundreds of degrees warmer and hit the reflector dish hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer.

That shows that very cold radiation can strike warmer objects without disobeying the second law. Do you disagree?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So all the IR emitted by the Earth's surface heads only in one direction, out to space, UNLESS we point a cooler detector toward the sky which causes these strictly out bound IR waves to suddenly reverse direction and travel toward the receiver?
> ...



*Do ir thermometers state which direction the IR is moving?..... 
*
Well, an IR thermometer on the ground won't measure IR that is traveling toward space which does not impact the thermometer.

*Are you under the impression that IR thermometers can't detect outbound radiation?*

I'd love for you to show how they do.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, an IR thermometer on the ground won't measure IR that is traveling toward space which does not impact the thermometer.



You clearly don't know how an IR thermometer works...ever look at one?  Ever hold one in your hand?  They typically look like this although there are variations.







See the big opening in the front?...It has a lens in there that focuses the target onto a thermopile inside....depending on what that lens is focused on, that thermopile is either gaining energy or losing it.  If it is focused on a warmer object..will be gaining energy and the rate at which it is warming, via mathematical formula tells us the temperature of the target....if the object is cooler, the thermopile will be losing energy and the rate at which it is cooling via mathematical formula tells us the temperature of the object....the thermopile doesn't care whether energy is coming towards it or leaving...it is either warming or cooling based on what the lens is focused on....




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd love for you to show how they do.



Just did....do I expect you to understand?....no....Do I expect more 5 year old level comments....yes....should you expect answers...no


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Well, an IR thermometer on the ground won't measure IR that is traveling toward space which does not impact the thermometer.
> ...



*See the big opening in the front?...It has a lens in there that focuses the target onto a thermopile inside....depending on what that lens is focused on, that thermopile is either gaining energy or losing it. If it is focused on a warmer object..will be gaining energy and the rate at which it is warming, via mathematical formula tells us the temperature of the target...*

When you point it at the sky, does it somehow measure the IR emitted by the ground?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 9, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Now that you know how one works...if you were able to apply just a bit of logic...that logic would tell you that when you point it at the sky during the day, you will be measuring the temperature of packets of warm air moving towards higher altitudes....point it at a cloud...you get the approximate temperature of the water in the cloud....point it towards the sky on a clear night...depending on the quality of the instrument, you may get the temperature of the upper troposphere....what you won't measure with it is back radiation because back radiation does not exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Now that you know how one works...if you were able to apply just a bit of logic...that logic would tell you that when you point it at the sky during the day, you will be measuring the temperature of packets of warm air moving towards higher altitudes....point it at a cloud...you get the approximate temperature of the water in the cloud....point it towards the sky on a clear night.*

So it isn't measuring outbound radiation. Makes your earlier statement sound stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they detected the signal. By receiving the signal.
> ...



*Sorry you are unable to differentiate between a resonance signal and an actual signal....
*
So the actual signal that's been traveling for billions of years, gets to the top of our atmosphere, realizes the Earth is warmer than 2.7K and somehow creates a resonance signal?

Wow! Any backup for this silly claim?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So it isn't measuring outbound radiation. Makes your earlier statement sound stupid.



Not nearly as stupid as you first, not having a clue as to how IR thermometers work but still claiming that they only measure radiation that impacts them...as if they did something other than simply measure the rate, and direction of change within their internal thermopile.  Such is the nature of the bulk of your conversation...so congratulations toddster....I have never put anyone on ignore before....not rocks...not dean...abraham or is crick reincarnation.....not the hairball....not even rolling thunder....but you have become so tedious and uninteresting that I have come to the conclusion that life is to short to squander it talking to the likes of you.

I will look at your posts occasionally and take you off ignore when you grow up a bit and find yourself able to engage a conversation with more than a sentence or two and make those sentences more interesting than that of a 5 year old constantly asking why.....and learn to use the quote function the board itself so graciously provides.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And if you bothered to read about the instruments you listed, you would also see that they are all cooled to just above absolute zero....
> ...




You are something.....dumb as a post, but something.  Even when it is suggested to you that perhaps you should read up a bit on the topic  (in this case bolometers) you ignore the advice and just keep on talking....Even when it is pointed out to you that by definition, a bolometer does not detect microwave radiation...you just keep on talking.

Here....have a few facts.

Regarding the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope....As I pointed out it is  the largest astronomical telescope that operates in submillimetre wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.  There is a vital clue there that you should have picked up on if you were half as smart as you seem to think you are...and when I say vital...I mean, if you don't, it is obvious to everyone who knows..that you don't....we will get back to that...building suspense you understand  (or maybe not)

The older continuum single pixel UKT14 bolometer receiver was replaced in the 1990s by the Submillimetre Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA). This instrument operated simultaneously at wavelengths of 450 and 850 micron (with 91 and 37 pixels, respectively), and was sensitive to the thermal emission from interstellar dust. It was retired from service in 2005.

Again...vital clue.

Then the SCUBA was succeeded by SCUBA-2, which was commissioned in 2011. This ground-breaking camera consists of large arrays of superconducting transition edge sensors with a mapping speed hundreds of times larger than SCUBA. It has 5120 array elements at both 450 and 850 micron wavelength (10,240 total pixels). It has been conducting the JCMT legacy surveys since November, 2011, including the SCUBA-2 All Sky Survey, and was made available for general astronomical observations in February, 2012.[3] Two ancillary instruments, FTS-2 and POL-2, add spectroscopic and polarimetric capabilities to SCUBA-2.

And yet again...vital clue.

Now, had you bothered to actually read about bolometers...specifically the super high tech variety such as SCUBA and SCUBA`2 which you referenced, you might have noticed that the term microwave was conspicuously absent from the write up while great verbiage was used to describe what it actually detects.  I did find a mention of microwave after I visited several different locations describing this telescope.  The SCUBA-2 bolometer, because of its extreme sensitivity to INFRARED radiation, is being used on the subtraction of the foreground and calibration of the Planck  microwave background satellite...an instrument which actually does detect microwave radiation.

So what was that vital clue that you missed...and missed...and missed?  Over and over in the write ups about the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope it was explicitly specified that the super high tech bling bling bolometer that was the heart of the telescope was a sub millimeter IR telescope....operating, oddly enough in the SUB MILLIMETER frequencies.  By DEFINITION, this telescope does not, and can not detect microwave radiation.  Why, you might ask?  (because you didn't have any interest in actually learning about the telescope...you were just trying, unsuccessfully, to win a point)  Had you actually bothered to take the opportunity to learn something you might have figured out that the term SUB MILLIMETER actually means something...especially when you were trying to claim that the instrument in question detects microwaves.

Question:  What is microwave radiation?
Answer: It is electromagnetic radiation with a frequency range of 0.3 GHz to 300 Ghz.

Question:  Where along the EM frequency range are microwaves found?
Answer:  They are found between radio waves and IR radiation

Question:  What is the wavelength of microwave radiation?
Answer:  Between 1 meter and 1 millimeter.

By the way....radio waves...which are not microwaves have a wavelength between 1mm and 1 kilometer.

One last chance to figure it out yourself now that you have the whole thing spelled out for you....The wavelength of microwave radiation is, BY DEFINITION between 1 meter and 1 millimeter......the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope uses a bolometer that receives IR radiation with wavelengths of 450 and 850 MICRONS.....the wavelength of microwaves is between 1 meter and 1 millimeter....the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope detects radiation at two wavelengths  450 and 850 microns........

Question: Did the bolometer James Clerk Maxwell telescope which detects IR at wavelengths of 450 and 850 MICRONS detect CMB which peaks at about 1.9mm?

Think hard...answer the question...and grow up and admit that you were wrong......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So it isn't measuring outbound radiation. Makes your earlier statement sound stupid.
> ...



*Not nearly as stupid as you first, not having a clue as to how IR thermometers work but still claiming that they only measure radiation that impacts them*

That's funny. Previously you've claimed that a sensor can't measure the temperature of an object unless it's been cooled below the temperature of that object. Now they can measure a cooler object by the speed at which the sensor loses energy? Hilarious!
*
I have come to the conclusion that life is to short to squander it talking to the likes of you.
*
I agree, pointing out the flaws in your idiotic claims is a waste of your time.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't answer the question:
> ...


Yes yes. We all know you can copy and paste stuff from the web. But then you do two things. You post a crap interpretation that you invent from your gut and then you embellish it with bitter insults.

And you do all that so you can evade the fundamental question. I gather it must be embarrassing to you. Here is the question for the fourth time:

The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was used to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere hundreds of degrees warmer and hit the reflector dish hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer.

That shows that very cold radiation can strike warmer objects without disobeying the second law. Do you disagree? I'm curious as to how you are going to evade the question for the fifth time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



*The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was used to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere hundreds of degrees warmer and hit the reflector dish hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer.*

Don't you understand? They measured the CMB by seeing how quickly the sensor lost energy, because thermometers can detect outgoing radiation that never hits them.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was used to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere hundreds of degrees warmer and hit the reflector dish hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer.



You just don't get any smarter do you?  The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope sees IR radiation in the 450 and 850 MICRON wavelengths.....CMB is microwave and peaks at 1.9mm and by definition can not be detected by an instrument working in the SUB MILLIMETER range.  How dense are you?

The James Clerk Maxwell telescope nor any other IR telescope detected microwave radiation.....find yourself a microwave telescope cooled to a temperature lower than 2.7K and you will have an instrument capable of detecting actual CMB and not just a resonant radio frequency which is also not microwave....

By the way...I didn't interpret anything...that is your prevue as the site you linked clearly stated that the telescope in question was an IR telescope and went on to provide links describing the differences between radio, microwave, and IR radiation and their respective wavelengths...then it explicitly stated that the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope operates in the SUB MILLIMETER range , 450 and 850 microns specifically, which makes it absolutely incapable of detecting microwave radiation.

Continuing to claim that microwave radiation was detected with an IR instrument working in the sub millimeter wavelength just brings your abject ignorance into sharp focus.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was used to see the Cosmic Microwave Background at 2.7 degrees K. But those CMB waves still have to go through the atmosphere hundreds of degrees warmer and hit the reflector dish hundreds of degrees warmer in order to reflect to the the bolometer.*
> 
> Don't you understand? They measured the CMB by seeing how quickly the sensor lost energy, because thermometers can detect outgoing radiation that never hits them.


Yeah, how silly of me. It takes a special kind of person to live in a wonderland and be able to dream up crap and truly believe your crap and then call everyone idiots that don't believe your crap.

Their motto is, “Reality is an OK place to visit, but I would not want to live there.”


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2015)

SSDD said:


> CMB is microwave and peaks at 1.9mm and by definition can not be detected by an instrument working in the SUB MILLIMETER range.


The CMB peaks at 1.1 mm, not at 1.9 mm as you said. That is within the range of the CMT telescope.

So you are saying that the CMB never hit earth even though the paper is titled,
_Using SCUBA to place upper limits on arcsecond-scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies at 850 μm_​
It's amazing that they could look at anisotropies of the CMB without seeing the CMB at all. You better tell the authors that they are full of crap.

There are sixty five experiments in this reference that all think they saw the CMB:
List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Can you tell me how many of them you think are full of crap too?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CMB is microwave and peaks at 1.9mm and by definition can not be detected by an instrument working in the SUB MILLIMETER range.
> ...



*It's amazing that they could look at anisotropies of the CMB without seeing the CMB at all.
*
The CMB stops before it enters the atmosphere and pulls out a cell phone to call down to the antenna.
That's the best way to send a signal that the receiver doesn't receive.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2015)

*



			It's amazing that they could look at anisotropies of the CMB without seeing the CMB at all.
		
Click to expand...

*


> The CMB stops before it enters the atmosphere and pulls out a cell phone to call down to the antenna.
> That's the best way to send a signal that the receiver doesn't receive.


Yes, that's the only thing that makes sense. After all, the rays are mysteriously *cosmic*!
Who knows what kind of supernatural eeriness lurks at the edge of the universe ready to surprise us when after a 13.8 billion year journey the rays suddenly stop at the top of the atmosphere. I hope we are enlightened by the master of make-believe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just love the idea that the radiation doesn't penetrate our atmosphere, until the moment our sensor is cooled below 2.7K. Not only are the waves smart, they can see billions of years into the future, not to mention through warmer air.

That's a much better explanation than all matter above 0K emits all the time in all directions.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 11, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Yeah, how silly of me. It takes a special kind of person to live in a wonderland and be able to dream up crap and truly believe your crap and then call everyone idiots that don't believe your crap.
> 
> Their motto is, “Reality is an OK place to visit, but I would not want to live there.”



From the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope site.....



> SCUBA-2
> 
> 850 and 450 micron continuum camera.
> 5120 bolometers (4 sub arrays x 1280 bolometers) at each wavelength band.
> Currently about 3500 bolometers are working at each wavelength band.




You, alas are the only one dreaming up crap...If you go to the web site of JCMT, and do a search for the term microwave,  you will find 4 matches.  They are as follows:


The search term itself.
A microwave field engineer
A reference to The Yuan-Tseh Lee Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMiBA)
And a list of observed microwave lines from the NIST Physical Measurement Laboratory
In short..the James Clerk Maxwell telescope is not in the business of detecting microwaves...they are an infrared facility operating in the Sub Millimeter range...and by the way I said that CMB PEAKS at 1.9 mm....your 1.1mm wavelength is not its peak and is still far far far outside of the range of the JCMT.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 11, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > CMB is microwave and peaks at 1.9mm and by definition can not be detected by an instrument working in the SUB MILLIMETER range.
> ...



How stupid are you?  I said that 1.9 is the peak radiating wavelength of CMB...Can you grasp that 1.1 is still greater than 1 millimeter?  The James Clerk Maxwell telescope operates in the SUB MILLIMETER range....that means less than 1 millimeter....and in its case far far far less than 1 millimeter.  It operates on two frequencies specifically  450 and 850 microns.  far less than 1 millimeter.  450 microns is 0.450mm  and 850 microns is 0.850mm.  See the zero there before the decimal place....less than a mm therefore not capable of receiving a 1.1 mm wavelength.



Wuwei said:


> So you are saying that the CMB never hit earth even though the paper is titled,
> _Using SCUBA to place upper limits on arcsecond-scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies at 850 μm_



_And you just keep on talking not even bothering to read your own references....or maybe you read them and just couldn't grasp what was being said.  From the paper you referenced"

_


> Apart from identifying well-detected sources, such data can also be mined for information about fainter sources and their correlations, as revealed through *low-level fluctuations in SCUBA maps.* As a first step in this direction, *we analyse a small SCUBA data set as if it were obtained from a cosmic microwave background (CMB) differencing experiment.*



I already pointed out that the SCUBA and SCUBA-2 bolometers, because of their  extreme sensitivity to INFRARED radiation, is being used on the subtraction of the foreground and calibration of the Planck microwave background satellite...an instrument which actually does detect microwave radiation.  A CMB differencing experiment is exactly that.....subtraction of the foreground.  Geez guy.  Give it up.  The JCMT isn't in the business of microwave although they can assist groups who are.​They go on to say in the paper you referenced:



> *These results could easily be reinterpreted in terms of any other fluctuating sky signal*. This is currently the best limit for these scales at high frequency, and comparable to limits at similar angular scales in the radio. Even with such a modest data set, it is possible to put a constraint on the slope of the SCUBA counts at the faint end, since even randomly distributed sources would lead to fluctuations. Future analysis of sky correlations in more extensive data sets ought to yield detections, and hence additional information on source counts and clustering.






Wuwei said:


> amazing that they could look at anisotropies of the CMB without seeing the CMB at all. You better tell the authors that they are full of crap.



The authors stated exactly what they did....and it was not detecting CMB....they looked for flections in the infrared range and used them like resonance signals in an attempt to define the limits of CMB...and they stated quite clearly that their results were not iron clad...that the could EASILY be interpreted in terms of any other fluctuating sky signal.    What they never said...which you simply made up was that they detected CMB with the instrument....CMB is greater than 1mm...the JCMT is a sub mm instrument.​


Wuwei said:


> There are sixty five experiments in this reference that all think they saw the CMB:
> List of cosmic microwave background experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



Of course there are...I never said that there weren't.  Did you happen to notice in that list that the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope was not listed?  Of course you didn't.  You are just pulling crap out of your ass and either not reading, or misinterpreting everything you reference.  You will also note that there are a couple of experiments involving bolometers....if you bothered to look them up and could actually understand what they were saying, you would find that they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself as microwave and IR are two different things.



Wuwei said:


> Can you tell me how many of them you think are full of crap too?



I don't think any of them are full of crap...you, on the other hand are so full of it that you literally spew. Unlike you, they are not claiming to have actually measured CMB, a microwave signal with a thermometer.  You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> .. they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself.... You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.


That is totally ludicrous. I, and no doubt every scientist, claims that the radiation from the CMB had to strike the telescopes in order for the CMB to be discovered. How can you possibly think otherwise.

You are saying that none of the several dozen CMB experiments detected the very cold CMB radiation using any of these detectors, or combinations,
30 bolometers,
20 HEMT,
9 Interferometers,
4 SIS detectors.

If you are actually saying that, then how on earth did the CBM get to those detectors.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 11, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .. they detected evidence of a signal....not the signal itself.... You can measure the effects of a microwave signal with a thermometer, but not the signal itself.
> ...



CMB itself can only be observed by an instrument that is first capable of detecting those wavelengths...and is cooled to nearly absolute zero.



Wuwei said:


> If you are actually saying that, then how on earth did the CBM get to those detectors.



Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to.  The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.

Did you bother to go to the JCMT web site?...Did you find any claim that they detected the actual CMB signal with it?....now you are all over the board and haven't grown up enough to admit that you were dead wrong insofar as the JCMT went...it never detected the actual CMB radiation because it uses bolometers...instruments for detecting IR...not microwave.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.


Suppose the instruments are all cooled to a fraction of a Kelvin. Are you saying that you would then believe that they actually received radiation from the CMB? If so the CMB radiation would have to pass through the atmosphere to get to those detectors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 11, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*CMB itself can only be observed by an instrument that is first capable of detecting those wavelengths...and is cooled to nearly absolute zero.
*
Some morons believe that the energy won't be emitted unless the instrument is cooled first.
Can you imagine, all this CMB flying around, for billions of years, but not toward the Earth, unless and until the CMB "knows" it can go through the warmer atmosphere and hit a colder instrument.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 12, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say*
> Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
> The findings that make a nonsense of claims of a 'pause' in global warming
> 
> ...



This has been said many tie for many years and yet when the real numbers are crunched, it does not come close to the hottest..


----------



## Kosh (Oct 12, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > So why doesn't the "global warming" Illuminati take their cause to the Chinese? After all, it's not the US who's the biggest polluter in the world, it's the Chinese.
> ...



More AGW propaganda not based on reality..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Note the temperatures all of the above instruments are cooled to. The instrument must be cooler than the signal it is expected to detect...like it or not, that is simply how it is.
> ...



Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...*

Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 12, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...*
> Now that you've admitted the "cold radiation" can pass through the warmer atmosphere to be detected by a colder sensor, you've admitted it would also be absorbed by the warmer surface.


Yes, Also, after the CMB passes through the atmosphere it must strike the parabolic dish so that it can reflect to the detector. The dish is also at ambient temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than the CMB.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...*
> ...



He'll come back with a new claim, "If a sensor is not cooled enough to detect the CMB, it all gets reflected back into space, because if it were absorbed by warmer matter, it would violate the 2nd Law".


----------



## SSDD (Oct 12, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Passing through an atmosphere and being absorbed by that atmosphere are two entirely different things...*
> ...



You don't seem to be grasping that the receptors on these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.  Unsurprising that you aren't though...you seem to be on par with most warmers....disregard for physical laws whether your claims can be observed or not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.
*
Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.*
> 
> Some slices of the sky can violate your misinterpretation of the 2nd Law? LOL!


The fact that a cold black body can radiate to the much warmer earth is an uncontroversial counterexample that shows the second law of thermodynamics can never be written as,

“Energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..” (WRONG)

It should be written as

“Heat cannot spontaneously move from a colder object to a warmer object..”

That, of course, allows backradiation of greenhouse gasses to be a reality.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.*
> ...


still no evidence of backradiation.  Feel free to post some up though.  I do believe Judith Curry concerning backradiation.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 13, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *these instruments are cooled to almost absolute zero...and are aimed at very narrow slices of the sky.*
> ...



Is heat a form of energy...or is heat the result of energy moving from one place to another?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2015)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Alex,
da,    . da,      .da,    

da,da,da,da,da,

da,    . da,    .da,    .da,    

da,

      da,da,da,da,da,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
still no evidence of backradiation
*
A few weeks ago you agreed that since all matter above 0K can emit radiation at all times in all directions that back radiation is real. Why the change?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


it was actually back in August after looking it up.  The question was do I agree all "matter emits IR at their respective temperature wave lengths".  I said yes. I believe that if you place an ice cube on a table top and light a match near it, the match will not get any cooler.  If I put my hand between the ice cube and the match I will feel the cool of the cube and I will feel the heat of the match depending on where I hold my hand.  The heat from the match will melt the ice cube the cold from the  ice cube will not extinguish the match.  So, I don't believe backradiation reaches the troposphere from the atmosphere above nor do I believe that backradiation reaches the ground from the troposphere.

And again, I'm all game to have someone prove backradiation warms the warmer air below it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I believe that if you place an ice cube on a table top and light a match near it, the match will not get any cooler.*

Of course the match gets cooler.
*
The heat from the match will melt the ice cube the cold from the  ice cube will not extinguish the match.
*
It's a stupid example. You really should use one that doesn't involve combustion. Confuses the issue.


Here's a better example. On a perfectly calm 70F day, with a perfectly clear sky, what feels cooler, sitting in the shade outside under the clear sky or sitting inside your 70F house?

*So, I don't believe backradiation reaches the troposphere from the atmosphere above nor do I believe that backradiation reaches the ground from the troposphere.*

When the GHG molecules in the troposphere emit IR toward the ground, what stops it from reaching the ground, as you claim?
*
I'm all game to have someone prove backradiation warms the warmer air below it.
*
Why does it have to warm the air, can't it just slow down the cooling?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

threegoofs said:


> Well, why don't you show us a paper that says the opposite of what Marcott, pages 2k, Mann, etc etc showed?
> 
> Oh yeah. You can't find one. All you can find are blog critiques from unqualified people that you reproduce here.



Notice YOU couldn't address his last two posts at all just demand what YOU can't provide.

You told me in another forum that you review science papers but the way you post here doesn't show any sign of science background and your poor replies of science papers doesn't inspire my confidence.


----------

