NOAA/NCDC Commit Scienctic Fraud... Through Data Manipulation..

[Crick]

Here we have another denier with reading comprehension difficulties. Tisdale (in whom I have no more faith than the local shaman) is NOT talking about Karl et al's actual temperature results. Let THAT sink in a bit.

 

[IanC]

Tisdale uses open access data to compile his graphs. He has made literally hundreds if not thousands of them. Are you saying he is altering the data in some way?

Karl 15 described how they made their adjustments. Tisdale reproduced the comparisons and found discrepancies. That is how science works.

Karl15 does not use NEW data, it puts existing data together in a new (and some say cherrypicked) fashion. Pointing out how Karl's results differ from the stated methodology does not make Tisdale a witchdoctor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just read through an article by Bob Tisdale and he shows why NOAA and their "pause busting paper" the fraud called Karl Et Al is deception at its finest.. They manipulated the axis and doubled the rate of warming in the night time temprature readings that they used to justify the adjustments. soak that in for a moment.. THEY DOUBLED THE RATE OF WARMING...while adjusting the x axis at 1998.

The base data shows what they did... The more information that comes out about how two top government scientists are faking data should send chills up your spine...

Source

Of course they faked the data, the real data was a DENIER!!!! and had to be adjusted

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here we have another denier with reading comprehension difficulties. Tisdale (in whom I have no more faith than the local shaman) is NOT talking about Karl et al's actual temperature results. Let THAT sink in a bit.

Crick, simple math problem for you.

If 90% of the energy in a system is absorbed by the oceans, and it takes 700 times the energy to raise the temperature of the oceans than it does for air, and the overall system registers a .9 degree temperature increase. Watt's the expected temperature increase in a system composed solely of air.

 

[Crick]

Frank, I can't say that I have ever noted you to understand ANYTHING I've ever posted. It either goes right over your head or you duck and it goes right over your head.

Tell us why you want to know this number Frank. What do you think to be its significance?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yet another analysis of the fraud that is Karl Et Al and my how those steps are so pronounced without justification..

The fraud is so stunning that it baffles my mind how any reputable scientist can lend any credibility to it..

Source

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I can't say that I have ever noted you to understand ANYTHING I've ever posted. It either goes right over your head or you duck and it goes right over your head.

Tell us why you want to know this number Frank. What do you think to be its significance?

Well, since you're a serial, pathological liar, my failure to understand you is quite the compliemnt

 

[Crick]

Why do you want to know this number Frank?

 

[jc456]

Why do you want to know this number Frank?

Why can't you just post it? What does it matter what he wants it for. Do you have it or not?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do you want to know this number Frank?

"...and then he said, 'Why do you want to know this number Frank?'"

 

[mamooth]

The current version of Frank's question now makes no sense at all, given the world isn't made of air.

Frank, "You question is stupid because ..." is a valid answer to any question. Hence, your question has been answered. If you don't like the answer, don't ask such a stupid question.

 

[jc456]

The current version of Frank's question now makes no sense at all, given the world isn't made of air.

Frank, "You question is stupid because ..." is a valid answer to any question. Hence, your question has been answered. If you don't like the answer, don't ask such a stupid question.

No it's not. Now you've exposed yourself as a fraud.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The current version of Frank's question now makes no sense at all, given the world isn't made of air.

Frank, "You question is stupid because ..." is a valid answer to any question. Hence, your question has been answered. If you don't like the answer, don't ask such a stupid question.

Pooh flinging money does not answer, just flings pooh.

Who else saw that coming?

Tell us how a wisp of CO2 is heating the oceans.

 

[evince]

science know these things

You lie about them

 

[mamooth]

Frank, why do you think the planet is made of air?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

science know these things

You lie about them

great so give me the math behind it. How does a wisp of CO2 generate the energy needed to heat the oceans

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, why do you think the planet is made of air?

I never said that, Monkey.

Read carefully, I said according to the current version of your stupid theory, 120PPM of CO2 is raising Earths temperature .9 degrees with 90% of the "warming" now being "absorbed by the oceans" If that's true, and we know it's not, then 120PPM of CO2 should be able to raise the temperature of an equal volume of air by at least 4 degrees. Because it takes 4 times the energy to heat water than air.

 

[mamooth]

I never said that, Monkey.

If you don't like trolling, you should probably stop relying the tactic of trolling exclusively.

Read carefully, I said according to the current version of your stupid theory, 120PPM of CO2 is raising Earths temperature .9 degrees with 90% of the "warming" now being "absorbed by the oceans"

And I said the atmosphere has to warm by the same amount as the oceans. You ignored that, and pretended to not get an answer.

If that's true, and we know it's not, then 120PPM of CO2 should be able to raise the temperature of an equal volume of air by at least 4 degrees.

Well, on the bright side, at least you've stopped saying the whole world consists of air.

However, it's still just dumb. You're saying the same amount of heat energy must be retained by the water and air. Why do you say that? You won't tell us. You just say it has to happen, contradicting common sense and the laws of physics, because you want it to be that way.

Here, I'll help you out concerning the root cause of your failure. CO2 does not create heat. You are the only person here who thinks CO2 creates heat, hence the only person to fail in the way you do.

CO2 keeps heat from leaking out, like a blanket. A fluffy blanket will have a much lower heat capacity than a warm body. According to your crazy theory of magical forced heat flow, the blankets on your bed will have to heat up to about 200F. That should give you a hint that your theory is nutso.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never said that, Monkey.

If you don't like trolling, you should probably stop relying the tactic of trolling exclusively.

Read carefully, I said according to the current version of your stupid theory, 120PPM of CO2 is raising Earths temperature .9 degrees with 90% of the "warming" now being "absorbed by the oceans"

And I said the atmosphere has to warm by the same amount as the oceans. You ignored that, and pretended to not get an answer.

If that's true, and we know it's not, then 120PPM of CO2 should be able to raise the temperature of an equal volume of air by at least 4 degrees.

Well, on the bright side, at least you've stopped saying the whole world consists of air.

However, it's still just dumb. You're saying the same amount of heat energy must be retained by the water and air. Why do you say that? You won't tell us. You just say it has to happen, contradicting common sense and the laws of physics, because you want it to be that way.

Here, I'll help you out concerning the root cause of your failure. CO2 does not create heat. You are the only person here who thinks CO2 creates heat, hence the only person to fail in the way you do.

CO2 keeps heat from leaking out, like a blanket. A fluffy blanket will have a much lower heat capacity than a warm body. According to your crazy theory of magical forced heat flow, the blankets on your bed will have to heat up to about 200F. That should give you a hint that your theory is nutso.

It's obvious you don't understand the latest iteration of the AGWCult theory. I'll explain it to you again.

The AGWCult alleges that a wisp of CO2 is causing "global warming". They claim a 120 ppm increase in CO2 is heating the entire planet with 90% of the heat trapped by the oceans. As you know, water takes 4 times the heat to raise temperature than does air. So if a 120 ppm increase in CO2 generates enough heat to raise that system by .9 degrees, you'd expect a lab experiment with only air to heat by 4 degrees

 

[mamooth]

So if a 120 ppm increase in CO2 generates enough heat to raise that system by .9 degrees, you'd expect a lab experiment with only air to heat by 4 degrees

No, you wouldn't expect such a crazy thing. At least no sane person would expect it, being it contradicts common sense and the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat doesn't flow from cold to warm (on the macro scale). The sun heats the oceans, then the oceans heat the air. If the air warms a bit, less heat flows from the oceans into the air, and more heat ends up stored in the oceans. That is, exactly what is predicted by AGW theory happens. As usual.

As far as your bizarre theory goes, you are the only person on the planet to believe in it, so nobody else cares.