2014 hottest year on record
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
write-stuff
En-Route
The shear fact you had NO idea who Grubber is speaks volumes...
You either watch MSNBC /NBC /ABC /CNN.. or live in a cave.... or Both...
Ok, what volumes does it speak?
I'm sure I can come up with countless names in the news that you won't remember. Will that speak similar volumes? I understand that you are on some type of anti-liberal crusade and figures who fit your agenda will seem to have more prominence.
write-stuff
En-Route
Why bother? Would you believe them if they didn't say what you wanted to hear?
On the contrary. I'd prefer to know the truth, regardless of how it impacts my own personal world view.
Florida Cracker
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
The wholesale invention of convenient data, followed by butt covering, lies, massaged data, and incedibly unprofessional methodology, combined with the nasty, outright fallacious attacks on anyone who dared question the "settled" science, speaks volumes, and continues to.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
The 'climate scientists' got caught with their finger in the cookie jar. Someone like me(with better letters, in a position of power) called them on it, and show that it was statistically impossible without some kind of gamesmanship. Then, the real numbers were found, and when faced with the evidence, the truth will out. Same reason the old hockey stick graph was shown to be a complete lie. Data modeling, extrapolation and prediction. I'm saying, the temp numbers that were falsified through their politically motivated bias do not hold up to any moderate scrutiny, and thus - were reversed.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
This is one of the central problems with predictive bias when politically motivated. Once you get caught, like that guy at NASA who made up all the greenhouse shyte, and published it, he's tossed under the bus, and no matter that some of his early work was useful everything he did once the lies were called out made it useless.
Like I have always said, I think the planet is warming, I think that humans have had a very modest effect, I think the ozone layer is at risk, and I think something should be worked on. But -- and this is a big however, it has to pass rigorous scrutiny by peer review, including being taken apart by the opposition.
I went through it for my thesis, and I survived. If the science doesn't hold up, no harm no foul. If it does hold up, then we can move on. Sadly, it's become 85% political and 15% science, when it should be 95% science supported by 15% politics. The left has messed this up soooooo bad that no one but the most ultra-lib buys it anymore. Using leading worded polls to make policy is ridiculous.
azure
Final Approach
Not sure what you mean. Do I need a source for logic?
The claim was made that 100% of the corrections are in one direction. I stated that an old record couldn't be reinstated if that were true. Is that statement in error?
azure
Final Approach
Who has shown that the corrections are statistically impossible? Steve Goddard's whole argument is "the EPA still says that the heatwaves of 1934 were the worst in U.S. history", as if that proves anything. Anthony Watts seems to be the one making the most cogent noise about this, and the farthest he will go is to say that MOST (not all) of the corrections make the past cooler. If you read the article I linked to (Hausfather), you'll see that that is to be expected given the biases that are being corrected for tend to make the present cooler. Watts claims to have "discovered" that the NCDC numbers keep changing on an ongoing basis. Hausfather explains that too, as a byproduct of a QC process that applies almost daily corrections to the entire record up to the current date. What percentage of corrections should be in one direction vs. the other given the correction algorithms NCDC uses?
To indict the NCDC on the grounds you're claiming, it seems you would need to do a statistical analysis of the update record, taking into account the effect and frequency of application of each correction type. If you know that someone has done that, please post a link.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
You first. You're ilk are trying to prove a warming trend. Time after time, after time when it gets out from under the politically biased crap numbers, and the real data is presented, the whole thing falls apart. You want me to provide a link that something didn't happen?
Time for the ever popular
whatev.
Another of the ultra-lib with an agenda that they will do anything to advance. I'm not going to try proving that something didn't happen to the original data, we all know it did, because the report was revised, and then revised again after they got caught.
If you want my analysis, you can PM me with your mailing info, and I'll send you a invoice for what I charge. Send the check and you'll get more data than you can read in a year. Otherwise, you prove something with raw data this time, not the manufactured reality hockey stick stuff.
Time for the ever popular
whatev.
Another of the ultra-lib with an agenda that they will do anything to advance. I'm not going to try proving that something didn't happen to the original data, we all know it did, because the report was revised, and then revised again after they got caught.
If you want my analysis, you can PM me with your mailing info, and I'll send you a invoice for what I charge. Send the check and you'll get more data than you can read in a year. Otherwise, you prove something with raw data this time, not the manufactured reality hockey stick stuff.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Funny this thread popped up on a Pilot board when I just completed two weeks study of the subject. I started researching the CO2 issue just out of a mild curiosity, but became engrossed by one of the most interesting stories I have ever encountered. I will not repeat the evidence but just my conclusions:
1 The theory of the Greenhouse effect caused by CO2 has been disproved
2. The real scientific debate is over
3. Only the political debate rages, fueled by one of the most effective propaganda campaigns ever
4. Policies to drastically reduce CO2 emissions will cause real damage, especially to the underdeveloped world.
5. Eisenhower was right, in his farewell speech, warning about not only the military industrial complex, but the danger of scientific research being funded mostly by government.
Most theories are tested by controlled experiments and close observations. What surprised me the most is that no scientific experiment has ever been successfully conducted to detect or measure the greenhouse effect, so we are left only with observations of the climate record. The only indirect evidence there is of the effect is a mathematical equation. The equation produced a number that is 33 C cooler than the Earths actual mean temperature. Therefor, the Earth is 33 C warmer because of the Greenhouse Effect. When this same equation was used by NASA to predict the surface temperature of the Moon, it was found that the moon was actually 40 C warmer than what was predicted.
1 The theory of the Greenhouse effect caused by CO2 has been disproved
2. The real scientific debate is over
3. Only the political debate rages, fueled by one of the most effective propaganda campaigns ever
4. Policies to drastically reduce CO2 emissions will cause real damage, especially to the underdeveloped world.
5. Eisenhower was right, in his farewell speech, warning about not only the military industrial complex, but the danger of scientific research being funded mostly by government.
Most theories are tested by controlled experiments and close observations. What surprised me the most is that no scientific experiment has ever been successfully conducted to detect or measure the greenhouse effect, so we are left only with observations of the climate record. The only indirect evidence there is of the effect is a mathematical equation. The equation produced a number that is 33 C cooler than the Earths actual mean temperature. Therefor, the Earth is 33 C warmer because of the Greenhouse Effect. When this same equation was used by NASA to predict the surface temperature of the Moon, it was found that the moon was actually 40 C warmer than what was predicted.
That's my point! If you don't believe the people bringing you the data, people under peer review by six ways from Sunday, people who are in an industry that typically attracts people looking for truth. While collecting the data costs a lot of money, the people collecting it at the top echelon are only pulling low six figure, remember, the NOAA people are on GS/Military pay scales. They fight for money for their programs so they can look for truth, not buy yachts. I can't remember the last time I saw any of these people at Nikki Beach. These people will never get rich doing what they do, but that's not their passion, they want to know things, they value knowledge. I hang at docks with NOAA crews every now and then, I've eaten in their galley and they in mine. These people seek knowledge and adventure, they are pretty idealistic too for the most part.
The demonizing I see of this community of people, it really kinda sickens me. If you refuse to believe them, you will never know the truth.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
You need to read the "climategate" emails to get the full picture. Science has really gotten a black eye over this. I, like many others, know of this thing called the scientific method. It is a long and very rigorous process. Once something has gone through this process and scientists make a proclamation , we think they have arrived at the truth and we believe it. Other scientists who have not studied the subject tend to believe it also. The opposite has happened with climate research. Peer review in climate science was corrupted by this small group of climate scientists. Read the E mails.
That is what happens when information is politicized by people for monetary or political power gain. I don't really care about all that, in this report, it is not yet involved. This report is the data that get spun by others.
What this thread exemplifies is that a large portion of a population that should represent 'above average' intelligence no longer apply the critical thinking to separate propaganda from truth. The disheartening part is they prefer the propaganda only on the basis that it will cost less money to believe that. In the mean time they lose the opportunity to be productive and gain in what they want and get things they never imagined they could could have, rather than be conservative and covet things they can't have.
This is the result you get from putting your faith and values in money, that is what Barnumity is all about, always wanting more stuff.
Last edited:
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
I care about the truth, so when I saw the infamous "hockey stick" graph I was quite alarmed. I assumed this graph survived the scientific method scrutiny . We are just not in the habit of questioning scientists integrity. This is why the whole thing is so shocking.
There may be many good reasons to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, but CO2 is not one of them .
There may be many good reasons to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, but CO2 is not one of them .
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
I think I get what you are saying. Insult the opposition, make your case with arguments of "authority ". Since the science part of the issue is over, this is about all you hear from the anti CO2 crowd. One thing you won't see them do now is engage in a face to face debate with someone who knows the facts.
The President's economic expert who helped push Obamacare through gets caught on multiple tapes gloating over how they pulled one over on the "stupid" American people; who then gets called up to Congress to testify about this ruse.....and those on the Left haven't even heard of him!!
If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the Leftists news media and how they keep their minions in the dark, I don't know what would?!!
Perhaps explains how they've missed the dissenting scientific opinions on man's impact on global warming.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
The 'report' was issued by the WMO. The WMO is the world meteorological Org, and UN chartered group to gather, study and report on weather and water changes. WMO spawned the IPCC, which is the group directly responsible for the infamous 'hockey stick' graph!
This report is so completely politically biased, right from the start that it has zero scientific credibility. It's the same group as the hockey stick schlubs with a different name!
Here is what the goals are:
Assess available scientific information on climate change
Assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change
Formulate response strategies
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/international_ipcc.php
Guess what "formulate response strategies" means? Well, I can help you with that. As with everything associated with the UN, it simply means write big checks to third world countries.
What a doof. You've been had -- again.
<edited to correct "WMO" from "WHO">
Last edited:
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Anyone who accepts the conclusions of an IPCC report today does not care about the truth. The IPCC used to have a hockey stick logo on their reports. Won't find that now. If you go back to older IPCC reports you will see they used to use the real data. They didn't hide the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age , the 1930's ( hottest decade in the modern thermometer record) , the temperature decline from 1940-1975 ( scientist in the 70's were warning of a new ice age). The famous climategate Email said they had to "hide the decline" because if there was a correlation of temp to CO2 this is the time frame it should be most apparent.
Ironically, it was the "right" that first politiced CO2. It is no coincidence that the main body of climate research has come from England. Margeret Thatcher was having a hard time with the coal miners, who she thought had been taken over by left wing extremists and were very disruptive to the economy. She wanted support to build Nuclear power plants which do no emmit CO2, and so the first major government funding of CO2 research began.
Ironically, it was the "right" that first politiced CO2. It is no coincidence that the main body of climate research has come from England. Margeret Thatcher was having a hard time with the coal miners, who she thought had been taken over by left wing extremists and were very disruptive to the economy. She wanted support to build Nuclear power plants which do no emmit CO2, and so the first major government funding of CO2 research began.
Last edited:
azure
Final Approach
Details, please. Which surface temperature is 40C warmer than predicted? Day? Night? Global? Mean? Blackbody? Predicted based on what assumptions?
If true this would be Big News.
azure
Final Approach
In other words, you have nothing of substance to offer and are just spouting off.
Seriously, if the methods of the climate scientists who say the trends are real are flawed, that is something that should be argued in the literature. This stuff is backed by peer-reviewed research and has been checked by dozens of people working independently. Reputable journals welcome solidly argued contrarian papers. One doesn't find accusations that the land data are faked there. Not even in non-mainstream journals and scientific blogs such as Curry's. The only place one sees this kind of accusation is in highly politicized blogs, and it's never backed up with solid analysis that I can tell, only (at most) hand waving arguments that I don't find particularly convincing. That's why I asked if you knew of a reference to any such analysis. If you can't produce it, that's fine since it seems no one else can either.
Last edited:
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
No, I'm very serious. This is a discussion web board with opinions flying everywhere, or spouting off if you like. You pop in with your demand; 'I want your data'. Well, try that with the WMO and they will tell you the exact same thing. You gotta pay to play. If you want what I have, you have to pay for it.
Also, It's telling that you want to see data that proves global warming isn't happening. I've already said that I think there is a general warming trend, and I've also said it's not up to me to prove it isn't happening, because I think it is! The MMGW problem is that it's mostly using falsified data, that's been manipulated in some strange ways(ala hockey stick 'methods') to prove a point.
If the climate change crowd, which used to be the man-made global warming crowd would really and truly rely on peer reviewed data, with concomitant workable ideas on global improvements(including China), I bet you would get a lot more fence sitters and skeptics backing them. But running around with the 'sky is falling, sky is falling!' hockey stick, glacier-melting by 2010(it didn't) mantra is killing any cred.
One more thing. Every one of these climate change gurus use more Ergs per day than the global average. Al (the bore) Gore is the poster boy. Flies around in a gas gulping jet, keeps three or four houses running all the time, rides in a limo, etc. They want others to change, but the second one of them has the pablum held back from their mouth they scream like a stuck pig. This guy in Peru that's hosting the climate change conference is working in a air conditioned office, and has a driver, and limo, and all the hotels for all the guests are in swanky 5 star resorts with central air, pools, saunas, etc. Talk about elitism, to the middle class and even the third world lower class they all look and sound like bafoons. Really makes working people sick.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
The mean temp of the moon. Just like the equation computed the Earth should have a mean temp of -18F, but has a mean temp of 59F. The equation has the assumption that a celestial body will behave as a " Black Body". Look that term up.You have to remember the Greenhouse Gas effect theory was not a big issue at the time, there were other bigger fish to fry. Air pollution, water pollution , acid rain etc. This equation that assumes the Earth behaves like a Black Body is the only indirect evidence of the Greenhouse theory we have.
Part of the science process is to try to rip apart a theory, any theory, and see if it survives. If the facts don't fit the theory you toss or amend the theory, not change the facts to fit the theory. This is what has happened with CO2.
Perhaps they were not flawed but intentionally corrupted for the purpose of keeping their masters happy and the grants flowing.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Yep. Scientists only pay attention to peer review papers. Climategate reveals how they controlled the peer review process and would not permit dissenting voices to get published. But they couldn't control the Internet, and thank goodness they can't fiddle with Satalite data.
azure
Final Approach
I don't need to look it up. I teach college level physics. The Moon's blackbody temperature is something like -3C, warmer than the Earth's blackbody temperature because of differences in albedo (i.e., the Moon reflects away less light). Are you saying that the Moon's measured mean temperature is 37C? How was this measured? "Mean" in what sense? References please...
Florida Cracker
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
The best argument for those who know that the mmgw crowd is a bunch of opportunistic, partisan, hacks comes from steingar, when he insisted that those people are the most intelligent and MOST DESERVING people he has ever met., as an argument to convince people to never doubt the veracity of their "settled" science.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Do your own homework. I didn't comment on this topic to spout off a lot of facts, but rather to encourage people to dig a little deeper rather than blindly accept the party line.
azure
Final Approach
That's a cop out. If you have a source for your claim (which is an extraordinary one, since it would be a revolutionary finding if true), then it's on you to furnish it if you want your claim to be taken seriously. Lots of people say lots of completely false and even crazy things on the internet. If I chased every one of them I would have no time left for my own work.
The hockey stick in the Antarctic ice record is accurate.
CharlieTango
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 878
- Location
- Mammoth Lakes, California
- Display Name
Display name:
CharlieTango
Are you switching sides now or just confused?
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Real hockey stick finally located: Antarctic sea ice continues to blow through all-time record-high levels 5th year in a row
This marks the 5th year in a row that Antarctic sea ice extent has blown through prior all-time-high records, and the peak winter extent is probably still another few weeks away.
Real hockey stick finally located: Antarctic sea ice continues to blow through all-time record-high levels 5th year in a row
This marks the 5th year in a row that Antarctic sea ice extent has blown through prior all-time-high records, and the peak winter extent is probably still another few weeks away.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/real-hockey-stick-finally-located.html
In other words, you have nothing of substance to offer and are just spouting off.
Seriously, if the methods of the climate scientists who say the trends are real are flawed, that is something that should be argued in the literature. This stuff is backed by peer-reviewed research and has been checked by dozens of people working independently. Reputable journals welcome solidly argued contrarian papers. One doesn't find accusations that the land data are faked there. Not even in non-mainstream journals and scientific blogs such as Curry's. The only place one sees this kind of accusation is in highly politicized blogs, and it's never backed up with solid analysis that I can tell, only (at most) hand waving arguments that I don't find particularly convincing. That's why I asked if you knew of a reference to any such analysis. If you can't produce it, that's fine since it seems no one else can either.
You never did read the Climategate emails, did you?
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
I'm not copping out. NASA made the moon temps known and what they told the astronauts to expect. I don't want to spend a lot of time either going back and forth citing papers. Since you are a physicist though I will refer you to a peer review paper that deals with this subject.
Two German physicists, Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
azure
Final Approach
That's pretty vague. It also happened a long time ago, so finding papers discussing it via online search is difficult. I did find a NY Times article from the Apollo 11 era that mentioned the temperature at the Tranquility landing site. A few degrees below 0C in the lunar morning. Nothing unexpectedly warm. Also there is no convection on the Moon so surface temperature depends sensitively on the composition of the local rock and regolith. If NASA got that wrong on some of the later missions, it doesn't mean our understanding of radiative heat transfer on the Moon is wrong.
Oh. Well that's one I hadn't heard of. I did find it, but am not about to pay for a paper whose authors I know nothing about. I also found a rebuttal by Halpern, Colose, and Ho-Stuart, also paywalled. My current employer is highly unlikely to have a subscription to a minor journal like International Journal of Physics B, heck I don't think my former employer, a major university, had that one either. What I did read, and found very disheartening, was this discussion in which one of the authors of the rebuttal participates. Again, I can't comment on the G&T paper directly, but if those folks are representing its points accurately, then it is indeed a bad paper that should never have made it past peer review (but as someone said, it may have been an invited review article, for which peer review is largely bypassed).
And it's a good example of why I have a hard time taking the skeptic community seriously. Because time after time I find that the skeptics use handwaving arguments based on dubious physics, and the rebuttals from the climate consensus folks (even those far removed from the CRU, WMO, etc.) are far more cogent and based on physics as I understand it.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The arguments against MMGW are very, very similar in form to those made against Evolution. Pseudoscience, obscure reports, even more obscure reporters. It is only on the latter that the deniers get any traction from me, there are some fairly heavy hitters who deny MMGW. Then again, there is a Nobel laureate who denies HIV causes AIDS. So what? Doesn't make it so.
CharlieTango
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 878
- Location
- Mammoth Lakes, California
- Display Name
Display name:
CharlieTango
Gary F
Final Approach
I don't agree. Sorry.
vintage cessna
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,076
- Display Name
Display name:
retro
Having an unproven theory doesn't make it so either. The only correlations of CO2 to rising temperature exists in a made up graph and fictitious computer models that have been wildly inaccurate.
Amazing, considering the MMGW crowd demands for actions. Show one time era in the record, thermometer or proxy, just one that depicts a correlation.
Yes, 50 years of scientific research put this guy in the same class of young earth Creationists
: