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

[threegoofs]

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.

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?

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?

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.

 

[jc456]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.

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]

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?

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?

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.

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?

LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.

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?

Keep fighting your strawmen.

It's a lot easier than understanding the science, isn't it?

 

[jc456]

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?

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.

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?

LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.

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?

Keep fighting your strawmen.

It's a lot easier than understanding the science, isn't it?

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]

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.

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?

LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.

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?

Keep fighting your strawmen.

It's a lot easier than understanding the science, isn't it?

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.

Your question is stupid and puerile.

I didn't think you actually wanted an answer.

 

[flacaltenn]

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-)

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

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.

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.

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.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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 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..

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]

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 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..

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.

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]

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]

Read blogs to understand the science?

What IS the deal around here, anyway?

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.

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.

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.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

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..

Which claims do you speak of?

 

[jc456]

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?

LOL. No one said that seasons would change.

You seem to be fighting a strawman.

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?

Keep fighting your strawmen.

It's a lot easier than understanding the science, isn't it?

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.

Your question is stupid and puerile.

I didn't think you actually wanted an answer.

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]

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.

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?

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..

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]

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.

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.

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.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

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..

Which claims do you speak of?

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]

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.

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?

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..

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.

View attachment 49979

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]

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.

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.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

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..

Which claims do you speak of?

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 -- 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....

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]

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.

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?

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..

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.

View attachment 49979

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.....

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]

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.. .