Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[skookerasbil]

The ice cores do show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. What they conveniently fail to mention is the CO2 follows after the heat rise.

So? Why do you think that's a problem? CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

They also fail to mention that the majority of glacial retreat happened before increased CO2 emissions.

So, why do you think that's a problem? Natural variability in the past does not prevent humans from influencing climate now.

The heat records in the US mention a half century. Obviously they didn't want to talk about the 1930s.

That's conspiracy nonsense.

CO2 acidifying the oceans makes no sense since warmer water holds less CO2 than colder water.

major ignorance of chemistry on your part. Concentration of a gas in a liquid is proportional to partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere aThat bove it, and inversely proportional to temperature. Partial pressure is up 40%. Temperature is up less than 1%. That'

There's no evidence sea level rise is accelerating.

That's flatly contradicted by the data.

The oceans should be warming, we are still rebounding from the little ice age.

That's nonsense. The earth was fully recovered from the LIA by 1850.

The oceans take along time to react to temp swings.

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

The heating of the troposphere is not being registered by the satellite data, much to the dismay of the warming community.

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

I like how they say temp rises are unprecedented in 1300 years and throw in ice ages. I'm not aware of any ice ages in the last 1300 years, seeing as the last one ended what 12,000 years ago.

Random rambling.

Of course they're absolutely certain of their conclusions because their models say so. It's the certainty that drives me. They can't show scientific certainty in the surface data they're putting out now.

What's your explanation for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands? As there are no natural explanations for those directly observed factors (no models required), those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases. Your "it's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong.

So? Why do you think that's a problem? CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

The planet warms. the oceans warm, much later, warmer water releases CO2. This is an accepted reality. Warmer water holds less CO2.. If you believe in the feedback, why did the planet not continue to warm? The planet cooled and CO2 fell. ???????

That's conspiracy nonsense.

Conspiracy my ass. Unless you are relying on manufactured historical data. The raw temperature data shows clearly that the temps in the US were by far warmer in the US in the 30s than anything now.120 degrees in Fargo ND? Even today high temp records around the US are predominantly from the 30s. Unless of course you employe "Mike's trick". As in Michael Mann.

That major ignorance of chemistry on your part. Concentration of a gas in a liquid is proportional to partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere above it, and inversely proportional to temperature. Partial pressure is up 40%. Temperature is up less than 1%. That's a net effect of +39%.

???? Is this supposed to make sense? Partial pressure is up 40%? Partial pressure of what? The atmosphere? Please explain.

That's flatly contradicted by the data.

And what data would that be? There isn't a knowledgeable oceanographer on the planet than can or will venture such arrogance. The satellites suck at global sea level, the tide gauges are so few and far between as to be useless. Look into the battles between the two, they rip each others data to shreds. It's no different from global average temperature data. It's a joke. Missing data, averaged data, homogenized data. You've got to be kidding.

That's nonsense. The earth was fully recovered from the LIA by 1850.

NASA disagrees...

Deep Pacific Ocean waters are still cooling from the Little Ice Age • Earth.com

We've been measuring ocean temps a long time. The upturn didn't start until recently. Thus, your theory fails.

And that data sucks. A guy with a bucket and a thermometer, where ever the ship might be? You're kidding right? Care to give me the global coverage of the historical data? Care to even try to give me the current coverage of such data? I'll give you a hint, it sucks..Just like the the ground temp data today, the amount of estimated data outweighs any actual data. You've been duped.

Random rambling.

Read the article and explain to me how you can speak of 1300 years and ice ages.

What's your explanation for the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands? As there are no natural explanations for those directly observed factors (no models required), those are all smoking guns for warming caused by greenhouse gases. Your "it's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong

You miss the point. This proves that CO2 is the main driver of climate change? GHGs DO affect the climate, we know this. Are they the main driver? This you cannot show. Period.

As I've stated over and over and over, It's about scientific certainties. The current temp data sucks, full of missing data, adjusted data, "homogenized" data, the changing of historical data, Mike's trick "to hide the decline", "get rid of the medieval warm period", (ref "climategate"), Cook refusing to show data because someone might want to prove him wrong. This has become a joke. Anyone with respect for the scientific method would have to be appalled.

Of course, the models agree with AOC we're all going to die unless we pay racial reparation, repair all historical injustices and totally change all of society.

Idiocy.

By the way, how are the global warming predictions doing, Is NYC under water? Arctic ice gone? My grandchildren HAVE seen snow. Hurricanes more frequent and more powerful? More tornados? More drought? Do a little research on recent crop losses ( last 2-3 years) you'll find cold and snow losses. Hear anything about record snows, record cold? Of course it's all global warming. It's becoming a running joke.

My beard is turning grey, global warming, my golden retriever isn't as active, global warming, more snow, global warming, more drought, global warming, more floods, global warming, young chicks look hotter, global warming, movies suck, global warming, politicians get dumber by the day, global warming, my shoe's untied, global warming..

Dang this guy brings it!! WINNING!!

Just what the climate crusaders need in this forum.....another member schooling them!!

 

[mamooth]

[The planet warms. the oceans warm, much later, warmer water releases CO2.

No, that's not correct. If CO2 lags, it barely lags at all. Milankovitch cycles give the initial warming kick, the oceans burp a little CO2, and the CO2 takes over from there.

This is an accepted reality. Warmer water holds less CO2.. If you believe in the feedback, why did the planet not continue to warm?

Because positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.

Conspiracy my ass. Unless you are relying on manufactured historical data. The raw temperature data shows clearly that the temps in the US were by far warmer in the US in the 30s than anything now.

First, no, they don't.

Second, the USA is a tiny portion of the world.

Third, don't try your conspiracy theory about data adjustments, being that nobody outside of your cult cares. Your conspiracy blogs tend to lie about everything. You need to understand that.

Unless of course you employe "Mike's trick". As in Michael Mann.

If all the data didn't contradict you, you wouldn't have to peddle these conspiracy theories. But it does, so you do.

???? Is this supposed to make sense? Partial pressure is up 40%? Partial pressure of what? The atmosphere? Please explain.

The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, obviously. That's up 40%. If it remained at that level, ocean CO2 levels would eventually reach an equilibrium concentration that's 40% higher.

When I know little about a topic, and all the experts say something I don't understand, I don't automatically assume a conspiracy. Not being a paranoid narcissist, I assume I need to research the topic more.

And what data would that be?

Here's just one example.

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating
---
Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.
---

There isn't a knowledgeable oceanographer on the planet than can or will venture such arrogance.

Yet I just pointed some out, and I can point out many more, which will force you to invoke more conspiracy theories.

NASA disagrees...

No, they don't. By 1850, temperatures were well above where they were prior to the LIA. That's pretty much the defintion of "recovery".

Deep Pacific Ocean waters are still cooling from the Little Ice Age • Earth.com

So according to that, earth should be cooling more. Yet it's warming more. That's even stronger evidence for human caused global warming.

And that data sucks.

That's why the data was corrected. And those corrections have made the warming look _smaller_. Would you prefer the raw data be used, which would make the warming look _larger_?

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

And the corrected data made the warming look smaller. guy with a bucket and a thermometer, where ever the ship might be? You're kidding right? Care to give me the global coverage of the historical data? Care to even try to give me the current coverage of such data? I'll give you a hint, it sucks..Just like the the ground temp data today, the amount of estimated data outweighs any actual data. You've been duped.

Don't you look dumb now. The data adjustments have made the warming look smaller, and that's not debatable. Thus, your conspiracy theory dies with a whimper.

If I were you, I'd ask your masters why they lied to you. But you won't. Instead, you're going to run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies.

You miss the point. This proves that CO2 is the main driver of climate change? GHGs DO affect the climate, we know this. Are they the main driver? This you cannot show. Period.

You miss the point that science isn't about absolute certainty. It's about finding the theory that best explains all the observed data.

Your "It's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so it's wrong.

AGW theory explains all the observed data extremely well, so it is the accepted theory.

If you want to change the science, you need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data better than AGW theory does. Simply mumbling that there are still uncertainties doesn't do that. There are still uncertainties about gravity, but that doesn't stop us from launching rockets.

As I've stated over and over and over, It's about scientific certainties. The current temp data sucks, full of missing data, adjusted data, "homogenized" data, the changing of historical data, Mike's trick "to hide the decline", "get rid of the medieval warm period", (ref "climategate"), Cook refusing to show data because someone might want to prove him wrong. This has become a joke. Anyone with respect for the scientific method would have to be appalled

I can see you spend a lot of time on conspiracy blogs. Sadly for you, nobody cares.

Of course, the models agree with AOC we're all going to die unless we pay racial reparation, repair all historical injustices and totally change all of society.

It always comes down to this, deniers demonstrating how for them, the issue is entirely about politics. Your political cult has ordered you to believe something, hence you believe it. You don't see us rational people raving about politics. We don't have to, because the hard data backs us up.

Every denier is a member of an extremist right-wing-authoritarian political cult. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would vanish, being it's entirely right-wing political propaganda.

In stark contrast, the AGW theory crosses all political boundaries all over the world, because it's real science instead of politics. If left-wing politics vanished, real climate science would remain entirely unchanged.

By the way, how are the global warming predictions doing, Is NYC under water?

No one ever predicted that. So why are you peddling such a falsehood? I hope you're not going to compound your offense here and pretend Dr. Mann said it.

Arctic ice gone? My grandchildren HAVE seen snow.

Very dishonest to pretend a statement by one man represents the scientific consensus.

Hurricanes more frequent and more powerful?

More frequent, never predicted. More powerful, confirmed. Your understanding of the science is poor, and that's putting it charitably.

More tornados?

Never predicted.

More drought?

Not predicted for the present time. Predicted in the long term.

Do a little research on recent crop losses ( last 2-3 years) you'll find cold and snow losses. Hear anything about record snows, record cold?

As AGW theory does not predict an end to cold, that's a remarkably stupid sentence.

In the USA over the past 365 days, new record highs outnumbered new record lows by 1.81 to 1. That's exactly what one expects to see in a warming world.

Climate Signals | Record High Temps vs. Record Low Temps

Of course it's all global warming. It's becoming a running joke.

At this stage, you're only interesting in a psychological sense, as an illustration of how fanatical cult devotion will cause a person to abandon common sense and good morality.

 

[skookerasbil]

[The planet warms. the oceans warm, much later, warmer water releases CO2.

No, that's not correct. If CO2 lags, it barely lags at all. Milankovitch cycles give the initial warming kick, the oceans burp a little CO2, and the CO2 takes over from there.

This is an accepted reality. Warmer water holds less CO2.. If you believe in the feedback, why did the planet not continue to warm?

Because positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.

Conspiracy my ass. Unless you are relying on manufactured historical data. The raw temperature data shows clearly that the temps in the US were by far warmer in the US in the 30s than anything now.

First, no, they don't.

Second, the USA is a tiny portion of the world.

Third, don't try your conspiracy theory about data adjustments, being that nobody outside of your cult cares. Your conspiracy blogs tend to lie about everything. You need to understand that.

Unless of course you employe "Mike's trick". As in Michael Mann.

If all the data didn't contradict you, you wouldn't have to peddle these conspiracy theories. But it does, so you do.

???? Is this supposed to make sense? Partial pressure is up 40%? Partial pressure of what? The atmosphere? Please explain.

The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, obviously. That's up 40%. If it remained at that level, ocean CO2 levels would eventually reach an equilibrium concentration that's 40% higher.

When I know little about a topic, and all the experts say something I don't understand, I don't automatically assume a conspiracy. Not being a paranoid narcissist, I assume I need to research the topic more.

And what data would that be?

Here's just one example.

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating
---
Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.
---

There isn't a knowledgeable oceanographer on the planet than can or will venture such arrogance.

Yet I just pointed some out, and I can point out many more, which will force you to invoke more conspiracy theories.

NASA disagrees...

No, they don't. By 1850, temperatures were well above where they were prior to the LIA. That's pretty much the defintion of "recovery".

Deep Pacific Ocean waters are still cooling from the Little Ice Age • Earth.com

So according to that, earth should be cooling more. Yet it's warming more. That's even stronger evidence for human caused global warming.

And that data sucks.

That's why the data was corrected. And those corrections have made the warming look _smaller_. Would you prefer the raw data be used, which would make the warming look _larger_?

<data:blog.pageTitle/>

And the corrected data made the warming look smaller. guy with a bucket and a thermometer, where ever the ship might be? You're kidding right? Care to give me the global coverage of the historical data? Care to even try to give me the current coverage of such data? I'll give you a hint, it sucks..Just like the the ground temp data today, the amount of estimated data outweighs any actual data. You've been duped.

Don't you look dumb now. The data adjustments have made the warming look smaller, and that's not debatable. Thus, your conspiracy theory dies with a whimper.

If I were you, I'd ask your masters why they lied to you. But you won't. Instead, you're going to run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies.

You miss the point. This proves that CO2 is the main driver of climate change? GHGs DO affect the climate, we know this. Are they the main driver? This you cannot show. Period.

You miss the point that science isn't about absolute certainty. It's about finding the theory that best explains all the observed data.

Your "It's natural!" theory is contradicted by the observed data, so it's wrong.

AGW theory explains all the observed data extremely well, so it is the accepted theory.

If you want to change the science, you need to come up with a theory that explains all of the observed data better than AGW theory does. Simply mumbling that there are still uncertainties doesn't do that. There are still uncertainties about gravity, but that doesn't stop us from launching rockets.

As I've stated over and over and over, It's about scientific certainties. The current temp data sucks, full of missing data, adjusted data, "homogenized" data, the changing of historical data, Mike's trick "to hide the decline", "get rid of the medieval warm period", (ref "climategate"), Cook refusing to show data because someone might want to prove him wrong. This has become a joke. Anyone with respect for the scientific method would have to be appalled

I can see you spend a lot of time on conspiracy blogs. Sadly for you, nobody cares.

Of course, the models agree with AOC we're all going to die unless we pay racial reparation, repair all historical injustices and totally change all of society.

It always comes down to this, deniers demonstrating how for them, the issue is entirely about politics. Your political cult has ordered you to believe something, hence you believe it. You don't see us rational people raving about politics. We don't have to, because the hard data backs us up.

Every denier is a member of an extremist right-wing-authoritarian political cult. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would vanish, being it's entirely right-wing political propaganda.

In stark contrast, the AGW theory crosses all political boundaries all over the world, because it's real science instead of politics. If left-wing politics vanished, real climate science would remain entirely unchanged.

By the way, how are the global warming predictions doing, Is NYC under water?

No one ever predicted that. So why are you peddling such a falsehood? I hope you're not going to compound your offense here and pretend Dr. Mann said it.

Arctic ice gone? My grandchildren HAVE seen snow.

Very dishonest to pretend a statement by one man represents the scientific consensus.

Hurricanes more frequent and more powerful?

More frequent, never predicted. More powerful, confirmed. Your understanding of the science is poor, and that's putting it charitably.

More tornados?

Never predicted.

More drought?

Not predicted for the present time. Predicted in the long term.

Do a little research on recent crop losses ( last 2-3 years) you'll find cold and snow losses. Hear anything about record snows, record cold?

As AGW theory does not predict an end to cold, that's a remarkably stupid sentence.

In the USA over the past 365 days, new record highs outnumbered new record lows by 1.81 to 1. That's exactly what one expects to see in a warming world.

Climate Signals | Record High Temps vs. Record Low Temps

Of course it's all global warming. It's becoming a running joke.

At this stage, you're only interesting in a psychological sense, as an illustration of how fanatical cult devotion will cause a person to abandon common sense and good morality.

Read this post here....you will notice something: a ton of loose association bullcrap terms such as, "increasing, "higher", "rising", "more", "warmer", "stronger". Notice too.....none of these terms are operationally defined. None of them!! They never are!

They serve to dupe people who are easily suckered by loose associations! Every climate crusader uses it as a strategy when making their points. And they've been doing it consistently for 20 years. Ghey

 

[baileyn45]

No, that's not correct. If CO2 lags, it barely lags at all. Milankovitch cycles give the initial warming kick, the oceans burp a little CO2, and the CO2 takes over from there.

It still lags. It was not the CO2 causing the warming, it was the warming causing the oceans to release CO2.

Don't you look dumb now. The data adjustments have made the warming look smaller, and that's not debatable. Thus, your conspiracy theory dies with a whimper.

Here's the us temp record as published in 1999 by NASA...

Here's what GW poster child James Hansen had to say

" "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

Here's what is supposed to be the same chart from just a few years ago.....

Look any different? Care to explain?

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

And as I said the measuring of sea level is at best unreliable. The problems with tide gauges are obvious. There aren't enough to even hazard a guess. The satellites have their own issues. Here's a quick take on some of the problems.

"You are trying to measure with a satellite altimeter the instantaneous, absolute, height, with accuracy up to the nanometer, of a continuously oscillating mass of water bounded by an irregular, continuously moving surface. With the much more established and reliable GPS system that serves many more goals than the monitoring of a climate change parameter, it is hard to compute with accuracy larger than a couple of millimeters per year the time rate of change of the position of fixed GPS domes. The global mean sea level results of the satellite altimeter are unfortunately never validated computations, not certainly very accurate measurements."

The satellites have the additional problem of having no historical data to compare to.

How about all those record temps.

How about heat waves.

As far as extreme weather, there is hardly a day that goes by that some article is blaming a weather event on AGW.

None of this addresses what I consider the elephant in the room, and that is where the average global temp comes from, particularly surface data. It's based primarily on manufactured data. As I said before, the amount of missing data is astounding. Look at these maps.

From this they're going to tell me the average global temp over the course of a year to within a tenth of a degree? I call shenanigans.

 

[mamooth]

It still lags. It was not the CO2 causing the warming, it was the warming causing the oceans to release CO2.

But that initial warming isn't even close to being enough to account for the subsequent CO2 rise. Historical climate can not be explained without taking into account the greenhouse effect of CO2, which is one of the many reasons we know the greenhouse warming theory is correct.

Here's the us temp record as published in 1999 by NASA...

Look any different? Care to explain?

Sure.

First, you're digging nonsense out of conspiracy blogs.

Second, you're comparing bad uncorrected data with good corrected data. Better data was available, but you deliberately used the bad data instead. That's a hallmark of pseudoscience.

Third, you threw out the global data in favor of local data. The global data proved you were wrong, and that the corrections have made the total global warming look smaller, so your conspiracy theory is debunked. In response, you ignored the complete data and substituted incomplete data, a hallmark of pseudoscience. Good science doesn't have to discard inconvenient data. Your science does.

How about all those record temps.

What about them? Again, you're ignoring the good data here, average temperature, in favor of some fuzzy "percent of USHCN stations to have one or more days above 95F". Again, that's a hallmark of pseudoscience. It's also highly inconsistent of you, as you're presenting data that you say is fraudulent as proof of something.

None of this addresses what I consider the elephant in the room, and that is where the average global temp comes from, particularly surface data. It's based primarily on manufactured data.

Nonsense.

First, your station coverage map is insane. Oh, I see. It's from Climate Audit. That explains it. Here's the actual USCRN map. You might want to ask Climate Audit where they came up with their nonsense.

U.S. CRN Groups Map

Second, interpolation is extremely accurate. If you removed 90% of the stations, the result would still be the same, which shows how much redundant information is in the network. Thus, that conspiracy theory dies as well.

From this they're going to tell me the average global temp over the course of a year to within a tenth of a degree? I call shenanigans.

Because you know so little about statistics, you're unaware of how little you know.

 

[baileyn45]

But that initial warming isn't even close to being enough to account for the subsequent CO2 rise. Historical climate can not be explained without taking into account the greenhouse effect of CO2, which is one of the many reasons we know the greenhouse warming theory is correct.

Based on what? Any paleoclimatologist I've heard address these issues will say they can't tell what caused major climate swings in the distant past. This knee jerk reaction that everything is CO2 is just not supportable. If CO2 was such a major driver, why don't we see an unending feedback loop in these past warmings? What we do see is the planet warms CO2 levels rise, later, the planet cools and CO2 levels fall, later. If the proxy evidence is to be believed the CO2 follows the temp, not the other way around.

First, you're digging nonsense out of conspiracy blogs.

By which you mean anyone that doesn't take hook, line and sinker.

First, you're digging nonsense out of conspiracy blogs.

Second, you're comparing bad uncorrected data with good corrected data. Better data was available, but you deliberately used the bad data instead. That's a hallmark of pseudoscience.

Third, you threw out the global data in favor of local data. The global data proved you were wrong, and that the corrections have made the total global warming look smaller, so your conspiracy theory is debunked. In response, you ignored the complete data and substituted incomplete data, a hallmark of pseudoscience. Good science doesn't have to discard inconvenient data. Your science does.

Bad uncorrected data, good corrected data? What in the hell does that mean? Care to tell me how taking historical data and changing it makes it "good corrected" data? Care to enlighten us as to where the better data from 1936 was hiding? Look at the Karl study out of NOAA attacking what even the IPCC called the hiatus in temp rise from 1998 - 2012. He managed this by ignoring the "good" data from buoys and "correcting" it to match the "bad" data from ship borne readings. On top of that no one can reproduce his work because he conveniently failed to archive his data.

As far as "global" data, there is no global data. On this thread alone we've shown over and over that the coverage of the global data set for surface temp is a joke. Then trying to compare it to past data sets, that were even worse, is ridiculous. Same with sea level, there are all kinds of problems with the data both tidal gauges and satellites. And of course comparing the data we do have to historical data that's virtually nonexistent.

What about them? Again, you're ignoring the good data here, average temperature, in favor of some fuzzy "percent of USHCN stations to have one or more days above 95F". Again, that's a hallmark of pseudoscience. It's also highly inconsistent of you, as you're presenting data that you say is fraudulent as proof of something.

And yet we continually hear about how extreme our weather is becoming. Everything seems to be "unprecedented" I was pointing out that things have been more extreme in the past. And again the global avg temp is a joke. In these cases I'm using the same type of data that the warming community is using, BAD data, as in best available data. The bottom line is that none of this data is sufficient to show global avg temp over the course of a year to a tenth of a degree, to believe so is ludicrous.

First, your station coverage map is insane. Oh, I see. It's from Climate Audit. That explains it. Here's the actual USCRN map. You might want to ask Climate Audit where they came up with their nonsense.

Look at the map you've posted. I live in Ohio, my state has one temp recording station for 41,000 sq/mls. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? And keep in mind the US constitutes the best system on the planet. This impresses you? I grew up just west of Cleveland. The home I grew up in was less than a quarter mile from the lake, I could get on my bike and ride to a friends home on the lake, 5 sometimes 10 degree difference. I will say your map is incomplete. the US has 1200 sites considered pristine enough to be utilized.

At this moment there is a 2 deg difference between the reported temp between the reporting station in Wooster and Cleveland, there's a 4 deg temp between Cleveland and Cincinnati, doesn't sound like much, unless you are talking about temp averages over the course of a year. The avg temp of Ohio at this moment is 16F. Even though there's a 4 deg difference between Cleveland and Cincinnati, 6 degrees between Wooster and Cincinnati. What is the predominant temp in Ohio right now? What goes into the record book?

How about Michigan. Right now there's an 8 degree difference between Gaylord, MI and Detroit. What goes into the record books? What is used for the official global avg temp? Scientifically this is crap. And again this is the best system on the planet.

Do you realize that right now the official number of trusted ground based stations on the planet is around 3000? !97,000,000 sq/mls. 30% is land, 59,000,000 sq/mls of land. That's 1 station for every 19,000 sq mls. The good news is that my state of Ohio now gets 2. What a friggin joke.

Because you know so little about statistics, you're unaware of how little you know.

Spare me the faux superiority. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, that's not correct. If CO2 lags, it barely lags at all.

Empirical evidence shows that lag is between 200 and 800 years..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just had me some Gulf of Mexico BP shrimp blackened over clean coal for dinner.

Did you READ the internal EXXON research?? Do you know that 40 years ago (or whenever it was written at Exxon) that those PROJECTIONS and analysis was FAR MORE ACCURATE, than ANY of the IPCC modeling or wild ass claims made in the scientific literature at that time??

That's the important point. They provided BETTER information to their corporate leaders, than an army of over-funded climate science zealots managed to pull off..

So you learned something important today.. Thank me later...

 

[flacaltenn]

Second, you're comparing bad uncorrected data with good corrected data. Better data was available, but you deliberately used the bad data instead. That's a hallmark of pseudoscience.

Third, you threw out the global data in favor of local data. The global data proved you were wrong, and that the corrections have made the total global warming look smaller, so your conspiracy theory is debunked. In response, you ignored the complete data and substituted incomplete data, a hallmark of pseudoscience. Good science doesn't have to discard inconvenient data. Your science does.

A USA sample of Global warning SHOULD NOT CHANGE OVER TIME... That's the point of showing the "corrections" to it... They COOLED the 30s and 40s and WARMED the 80s and 90s. Only the temps reported in between are similar.. AND THE RAW DATA did not change.

What's telling is that the 1998 massive El Nino event has it's magnitude HALVED (compared to immediately preceeding years) in the later version.. What kind of "adjustment" would cause a LAND BASED sensor system to need to have an El Nino adjustment?

It's been julliened, pureed, par boiled and roasted. OVER and OVER again... Still fucking with thermometer readings from 80 years TODAY to get the picture that sells.....

Oh and you're confused by the USHCN.. There is the network of all registered active stations -- and then there is the REFERENCE version of that network. So the map of locations WILL look different to morons and idiots..

 

[the other mike]

Did you READ the internal EXXON research?? Do you know that 40 years ago (or whenever it was written at Exxon) that those PROJECTIONS and analysis was FAR MORE ACCURATE, than ANY of the IPCC modeling or wild ass claims made in the scientific literature at that time??

That's the important point. They provided BETTER information to their corporate leaders, than an army of over-funded climate science zealots managed to pull off..

So you learned something important today.. Thank me later...

I'll remember that next time I purchase some Chinese- made solar panels from Home Depot.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Did you READ the internal EXXON research?? Do you know that 40 years ago (or whenever it was written at Exxon) that those PROJECTIONS and analysis was FAR MORE ACCURATE, than ANY of the IPCC modeling or wild ass claims made in the scientific literature at that time??

That's the important point. They provided BETTER information to their corporate leaders, than an army of over-funded climate science zealots managed to pull off..

So you learned something important today.. Thank me later...

I'll remember that next time I purchase some Chinese- made solar panels from Home Depot.

and that means what, that you agree with Trumps tariffs that they were/are flooding the market?

 

[the other mike]

and that means what, that you agree with Trumps tariffs that they were/are flooding the market?

It means we should have led the world in producing solar panels from the 1980's on.
Instead we allowed the fossil fuel industry boondogglers to run the show....polluting the earth with oil and uranium and running countless dangerous nuclear plants which never ever turned a profit.

Fukushima Radiation Concerns in Alaska

 

[Wyatt earp]

and that means what, that you agree with Trumps tariffs that they were/are flooding the market?

It means we should have led the world in producing solar panels from the 1980's on.
Instead we allowed the fossil fuel industry boondogglers to run the show....polluting the earth with oil and uranium and running countless dangerous nuclear plants which never ever turned a profit.

we did and you do know that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars on green energy since the 1970's right?

or didn't you get that talking point...........

 

[the other mike]

we did and you do know that fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars on green energy since the 1970's right?

or didn't you get that talking point...........

Fossil fuel has spent billions of dollars on slowing the progress of green energy if anything.
If they were interested in anything but profits, we would have fast rails everywhere and electric and biodiesel cars & trucks, cars that get 100 MPG easily by now. And we would still be able to eat seafood out of the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[the other mike]

Don't blame me....I voted for Carter in 1980.
It's not my fault we're in the wrong future and Biff Henderson is president.

 

[abu afak]

Look at the map you've posted. I live in Ohio, my state has one temp recording station for 41,000 sq/mls. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? And keep in mind the US constitutes the best system on the planet. This impresses you? I grew up just west of Cleveland. The home I grew up in was less than a quarter mile from the lake, I could get on my bike and ride to a friends home on the lake, 5 sometimes 10 degree difference. I will say your map is incomplete. the US has 1200 sites considered pristine enough to be utilized.

At this moment there is a 2 deg difference between the reported temp between the reporting station in Wooster and Cleveland, there's a 4 deg temp between Cleveland and Cincinnati, doesn't sound like much, unless you are talking about temp averages over the course of a year. The avg temp of Ohio at this moment is 16F. Even though there's a 4 deg difference between Cleveland and Cincinnati, 6 degrees between Wooster and Cincinnati. What is the predominant temp in Ohio right now? What goes into the record book?

How about Michigan. Right now there's an 8 degree difference between Gaylord, MI and Detroit. What goes into the record books? What is used for the official global avg temp? Scientifically this is crap. And again this is the best system on the planet.

Do you realize that right now the official number of trusted ground based stations on the planet is around 3000? !97,000,000 sq/mls. 30% is land, 59,000,000 sq/mls of land. That's 1 station for every 19,000 sq mls. The good news is that my state of Ohio now gets 2. What a friggin joke.

Because you know so little about statistics, you're unaware of how little you know.

Spare me the faux superiority. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

LINK for your claim of a singular station in Ohio?

IAC, How many do you want.
How Dumb (or deceptive) is it to do it by State.
Cleveland to Cincin, is 250 miles.
But ie, Cleveland to Indianapolis is 112 miles.
Then for good measure you do it by Square miles in a state instead of distance between stations.
`

 

[baileyn45]

What just kills me about GW scare is that no one will think of anything else. 5 or 6 years ago the solar cycle people were saying that when the sun goes into an extreme quiet cycle that we would see a shift in the jet streams. I reacted as I always will, with skepticism. Now, they have proven nothing, they are, however calling things better than the GW people. The GW people say we will see more extreme weather because of GW. Meteorology 101 says the opposite.The less difference between the poles and the equator temp wise the less extreme weather. And yet we see major jet stream anomalies, not called for by the GW people, called for by the solar cycle people.

What I like about the solar people is they don't claim to know why. They are looking at what happened the last time such things happened. The correlation of solar cycles and drought, in specific areas is is compelling.

It's not even only solar, Australia is in the midst of a serious drought, I've listened to people that called this 6 or 7 years ago. They say another 5 to 7 years, and it's going to get worse. Are they correct? Time will tell. And they aren't talking solar cycles but ocean cycles.

Have any of you seen the correlations between solar cycles and the fall of Chinese dynasties? It proves nothing, it is, however extremely compelling. Major solar minimums correlate to dynasty falls quite well. When the sun goes into a minimum the grain producing areas of China go into drought. We are in a major solar drop off. China is experiencing serious drought. Compelling.

I've used the term "compelling" too much, however, solar and ocean cycles, historically provide much more "compelling' evidence of what happens on this planet than what the GW community can provide. Time will tell and the nonsense will be exposed.

 

[the other mike]

What just kills me about GW scare is .....

Forget the scare - we need the jobs.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/education/clean-energy-jobs-and-planning

 

[baileyn45]

Look at the map you've posted. I live in Ohio, my state has one temp recording station for 41,000 sq/mls. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? And keep in mind the US constitutes the best system on the planet. This impresses you? I grew up just west of Cleveland. The home I grew up in was less than a quarter mile from the lake, I could get on my bike and ride to a friends home on the lake, 5 sometimes 10 degree difference. I will say your map is incomplete. the US has 1200 sites considered pristine enough to be utilized.

At this moment there is a 2 deg difference between the reported temp between the reporting station in Wooster and Cleveland, there's a 4 deg temp between Cleveland and Cincinnati, doesn't sound like much, unless you are talking about temp averages over the course of a year. The avg temp of Ohio at this moment is 16F. Even though there's a 4 deg difference between Cleveland and Cincinnati, 6 degrees between Wooster and Cincinnati. What is the predominant temp in Ohio right now? What goes into the record book?

How about Michigan. Right now there's an 8 degree difference between Gaylord, MI and Detroit. What goes into the record books? What is used for the official global avg temp? Scientifically this is crap. And again this is the best system on the planet.

Do you realize that right now the official number of trusted ground based stations on the planet is around 3000? !97,000,000 sq/mls. 30% is land, 59,000,000 sq/mls of land. That's 1 station for every 19,000 sq mls. The good news is that my state of Ohio now gets 2. What a friggin joke.

Because you know so little about statistics, you're unaware of how little you know.

Spare me the faux superiority. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

LINK for your claim of a singular station in Ohio?

IAC, How many do you want.
How Dumb (or deceptive) is it to do it by State.
Cleveland to Cincin, is 250 miles.
But ie, Cleveland to Indianapolis is 112 miles.
Then for good measure you do it by Square miles in a state instead of distance between stations.
`

I was referring to the map provided by the person I was responding to. In the US according to NOAA their are 1219 stations that are considered pristine enough to be worthy of inclusion in their analyses. The US continental land mass is roughly 3.6 million sq miles. That works out to what just under 3000 sq mls per station. This impresses you? And keep in mind these stations are not equally spaced.

 

[baileyn45]

What just kills me about GW scare is .....

Forget the scare - we need the jobs.
Clean Energy Jobs and Planning

Govt jobs aren't jobs, they're overhead.