Climate Change Challenge

[Old Rocks]

You brought up April in the northeast. I don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're blathering about there. Ice is melting in the Arctic and on almost every one of the world's glaciers.

So JC, you're easily as smart of Billy Boy, what supposition do you believe is supported by the empirical evidence out there?

I did, for you see that is spring and when snow and ice in the northeast has always melted for the most part, there have been years it took until May, but in general April.

As for the Arctic, where is ice melting that hasn't melted before? And glaciers have been melting since before Jesus. So you posted ice melts and I'm asking you where and you can't show it. You can put in print the Arctic, but you can't show it with statistics. But why let facts get in your way eh?

Dumb ass, do you ever research before posting. The glaciers grew during the LIA. Not only that, they have been growing the overall gradual cool down for the last 6000 years. Occasional recession, but overall growth. Now, they are receding very rapidly. Same for the Arctic Ice. Nobody made it throught the Northwest Passage until 1906. And that took 3 years, from 1903 to 1906. In a specially rebuilt 88 ton herring boat.

Now, there have been several years that normal sailing ships have gone through the Northwest Passage. In fact, one year a Norwegian and Russian sailboat had a race to circumnavigate the Arctic Ice Cap.

Arctic explorer's race against time - CNN.com

 

[mamooth]

Ian, can you tell us exactly what year it was that scientists switched from good to evil?

If you want your conspiracy theory to get any respect, you'll have to provide such specific details, and also back up your completely unsupported claims. So far, the only reasoning we've heard from you is that if you don't like the results, it has to be fraud, and if you do like the results, it's not fraud.

You need to expand on that a bit more. For example, Judith Curry has explained the necessity of the adjustments. Is she part of the fraud?

 

[jc456]

You brought up April in the northeast. I don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're blathering about there. Ice is melting in the Arctic and on almost every one of the world's glaciers.

So JC, you're easily as smart of Billy Boy, what supposition do you believe is supported by the empirical evidence out there?

I did, for you see that is spring and when snow and ice in the northeast has always melted for the most part, there have been years it took until May, but in general April.

As for the Arctic, where is ice melting that hasn't melted before? And glaciers have been melting since before Jesus. So you posted ice melts and I'm asking you where and you can't show it. You can put in print the Arctic, but you can't show it with statistics. But why let facts get in your way eh?

Dumb ass, do you ever research before posting. The glaciers grew during the LIA. Not only that, they have been growing the overall gradual cool down for the last 6000 years. Occasional recession, but overall growth. Now, they are receding very rapidly. Same for the Arctic Ice. Nobody made it throught the Northwest Passage until 1906. And that took 3 years, from 1903 to 1906. In a specially rebuilt 88 ton herring boat.

Now, there have been several years that normal sailing ships have gone through the Northwest Passage. In fact, one year a Norwegian and Russian sailboat had a race to circumnavigate the Arctic Ice Cap.

Arctic explorer's race against time - CNN.com

really? The ice in the Arctic has always melted in summer since it froze over. It's still frozen over today. So again, where is ice melting due to AGW?

 

[jc456]

Ian, can you tell us exactly what year it was that scientists switched from good to evil?

If you want your conspiracy theory to get any respect, you'll have to provide such specific details, and also back up your completely unsupported claims. So far, the only reasoning we've heard from you is that if you don't like the results, it has to be fraud, and if you do like the results, it's not fraud.

You need to expand on that a bit more. For example, Judith Curry has explained the necessity of the adjustments. Is she part of the fraud?

post up Judith Curry's explanation.

 

[IanC]

Ian, can you tell us exactly what year it was that scientists switched from good to evil?

If you want your conspiracy theory to get any respect, you'll have to provide such specific details, and also back up your completely unsupported claims. So far, the only reasoning we've heard from you is that if you don't like the results, it has to be fraud, and if you do like the results, it's not fraud.

You need to expand on that a bit more. For example, Judith Curry has explained the necessity of the adjustments. Is she part of the fraud?

You do YOUR explanation of the big upwards adjustments of ocean temps and the time frame of when they were implemented. I get tired of doing homework only to have you handwave it away.

 

[Crick]

You've seen it before. Short term memory loss?

 

[mamooth]

post up Judith Curry's explanation.

No problem. She put the article, by Zeke Hausfather, front and center in her blog, indicating her approval of it.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

 

[IanC]

You've seen it before. Short term memory loss?

Are you addressing me?

 

[IanC]

post up Judith Curry's explanation.

No problem. She put the article, by Zeke Hausfather, front and center in her blog, indicating her approval of it.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

She puts up articles from lots of people, across the spectrum of skeptical to warmist. She is giving out food for thought not blanket endorsement.

 

[jc456]

post up Judith Curry's explanation.

No problem. She put the article, by Zeke Hausfather, front and center in her blog, indicating her approval of it.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

seriously? you're going with that eh? Judith Curry has posted up many others blogs as a way to get the information out. In no way does it insinuate approval. Now if you had her saying she approves of the adjustments, then you have a point I can't challenge. But so far, that statement hasn't been posted. Thanks for playing. If you read on she will usually have comments afterward where discussions take place concerning the article posted, do you have one with her approving the adjustments?

 

[mamooth]

You do YOUR explanation of the big upwards adjustments of ocean temps

I'm quite certain I already pointed out the explanation. It was honest scientists correcting the data the best they knew how, it order to get the most accurate results.

Now, if I was like you, I'd call it a conspiracy. Obviously, I'm not like you.

and the time frame of when they were implemented.

I think everyone has guessed that you keep asking because you don't know. It appears I have to educate you on all the basics. Folland and Parker (1995) was the biggest change, the one that greatly warmed up the past and reduced the apparent warming in HadSST2.

Hence, we can deduce from this that you believe TheGreatConspiracy began after 1995, correct?

Can you please narrow that start date down some more? I grow tired of trying to guess when you think TheGreatConspiracy started. How are we supposed to know what data is fraudulent, if you won't tell us the date of when all data became fraudulent?

I get tired of doing homework only to have you handwave it away.

When have you ever done any homework? Parroting CultofMcIntyre conspiracy theories would not count as homework.

 

[jc456]

You do YOUR explanation of the big upwards adjustments of ocean temps

I'm quite certain I already pointed out the explanation. It was honest scientists correcting the data the best they knew how, it order to get the most accurate results.

Now, if I was like you, I'd call it a conspiracy. Obviously, I'm not like you.

and the time frame of when they were implemented.

I think everyone has guessed that you keep asking because you don't know. It appears I have to educate you on all the basics. Folland and Parker (1995) was the biggest change, the one that greatly warmed up the past and reduced the apparent warming in HadSST2.

Hence, we can deduce from this that you believe TheGreatConspiracy began after 1995, correct?

Can you please narrow that start date down some more? I grow tired of trying to guess when you think TheGreatConspiracy started. How are we supposed to know what data is fraudulent, if you won't tell us the date of when all data became fraudulent?

I get tired of doing homework only to have you handwave it away.

When have you ever done any homework? Parroting CultofMcIntyre conspiracy theories would not count as homework.

I'm quite certain I already pointed out the explanation. It was honest scientists correcting the data the best they knew how, it order to get the most accurate results.

how can they prove they're more accurate? Explain for me.

BTW, that is too special to say the least. more accurate. fall on the floor laughing.

 

[IanC]

You do YOUR explanation of the big upwards adjustments of ocean temps

I'm quite certain I already pointed out the explanation. It was honest scientists correcting the data the best they knew how, it order to get the most accurate results.

Now, if I was like you, I'd call it a conspiracy. Obviously, I'm not like you.

and the time frame of when they were implemented.

I think everyone has guessed that you keep asking because you don't know. It appears I have to educate you on all the basics. Folland and Parker (1995) was the biggest change, the one that greatly warmed up the past and reduced the apparent warming in HadSST2.

Hence, we can deduce from this that you believe TheGreatConspiracy began after 1995, correct?

Can you please narrow that start date down some more? I grow tired of trying to guess when you think TheGreatConspiracy started. How are we supposed to know what data is fraudulent, if you won't tell us the date of when all data became fraudulent?

I get tired of doing homework only to have you handwave it away.

When have you ever done any homework? Parroting CultofMcIntyre conspiracy theories would not count as homework.

I will conditionally accept Folland95 as the start of modern era ocean temps. Even Hansen's GISS (edit- 1999) global temps would be acceptable.

Since then global temps have seen pre 1950 numbers go down dramatically and near present ones increase. This also correspondends to the upsurge in CAGW alarmism and the effort to make the temps match the 0.2C/decade prediction from the climate models. The only backwards step that I know of is the correction of the Y2K bug in 2007, which was completly reversed by 2008.

Do you have any other examples of changes to the methodology since the turn of the millennium that resulted in a downward swing? Have global temps increased since 1995, 1999, 2001, or not?

 

[Crick]

Why are you looking at temperature adjustments per the direction they take rather than their fundamental justification? Makes me think you've already made up your mind Ian.

 

[IanC]

Why are you looking at temperature adjustments per the direction they take rather than their fundamental justification? Makes me think you've already made up your mind Ian.

Are you asking that question in a sincere fashion?

I am concerned that all the new methodologies have resulted in rising temp trends. I am concerned that some legitimate corrections like TOBS appear to make a larger impact than the method would suggest. I am concerned that other corrections appear to have a smaller impact than seems reasonable, like UHI.

There are other circumstances like the drop in reporting stations that should have a correction but don't. Or regional weighting methodologies that shouldn't make a significant change but do.

And then there are the obvious mistakes like Reykjavik that remain uncorrected, or even explained. Or the glaring mistakes in GPS coordinates that are a symptom of shoddy bookkeeping.

Should I go on?

 

[mamooth]

Given that you're only "concerned" with the adjustments that are inconvenient to your politics, no, there's no need for you to go on. We could discuss them one by one, but there's little point, being you'll eventually invoke the conspiracy to handwave away the science.

The burden proof is on your side, and you need to meet it in the scientific community, not on conspiracy blogs. You don't have to, of course, but if you don't, nobody will pay attention to you.

 

[IanC]

Given that you're only "concerned" with the adjustments that are inconvenient to your politics, no, there's no need for you to go on. We could discuss them one by one, but there's little point, being you'll eventually invoke the conspiracy to handwave away the science.

The burden proof is on your side, and you need to meet it in the scientific community, not on conspiracy blogs. You don't have to, of course, but if you don't, nobody will pay attention to you.

I am not particularly interested in the politics of global warming. I am interested in the science. And I find the science and the projections made to be exaggerated and unsupported by the evidence.

 

[basquebromance]

climate change is just another phony RELIGION like all the others!