1900-2014 Warming -->Extraordinary or Normal?

[saveliberty]

Manipulating data sets to fit your hypothesis does not make you a scientist. Then predicting events that don't occur or have to be revised to fit the model hardly science either.

 

[IanC]

It's not character assassination. It's qualification. Why should we take the word of a dropout who makes AGW skeptic graphs for a hobby over the word of virtually every, degreed, professional researcher on the planet? The answer is: we shouldn't.

Care to explain where Mr Lansner got a 0.6C rise between 1900 and 2010? Do YOU have data that shows such a number?

did you bother reading the article?

he specifically answers your question, and others....

2) I have used 0,7K for the temperature increase 1900-2010. This is obviously highly questionable due to significant UHI measuring problems and adjustment issue that is likely to have exaggerated the temperature increase 1900-2010. On the other hand, temperature variations at Vostok are likely to be larger than global temperature changes, so perhaps a qualitative compare is somewhat fair after all. At least, if you claim that the present temperature increase is extraordinarily large, I think one should show data that supports it. And, as I showed, Vostok data does not really support the claim.

So he thinks 0.7C is a high estimate. Do you agree with him?

I am OK with an estimate of 0.7C. that was the number circa 2000-2005. there have been a lot of adjustments since then that I consider to be dubious at best.

 

[Crick]

Which, without evidence, you have assumed were fraudulent. And, since not a single voice in the community of experts has raised the slightest complaint at those adjustments, your presumption has branded them all conspirators.

Is that where you WANT to be Ian?

 

[IanC]

Which, without evidence, you have assumed were fraudulent. And, since not a single voice in the community of experts has raised the slightest complaint at those adjustments, your presumption has branded them all conspirators.

Is that where you WANT to be Ian?

I said dubious, and now you are claiming I said fraudulent and that I called them all co-conspirators. I thought I asked you not to do that?

there are as many ways to adjust temperature records as there are people to write the code. the mindset of those in charge of taking care of the temp datasets is to show warming. eg Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, etc. every time an adjustment is constructed that adds to the temp trend, it is soon followed by every other dataset. BEST introduced kridging, where homogenization is done by 'detecting' break points and making wholesale changes by shifting whole portions of the curve. these changes should be audited to find a legitimate reason for them but typically the computer just does it with no authorization from reality. the detection is done by predicting what the temp should be, and the assumption is that temps should go up. a step change of say 0.3C would pass undetected if it was warmer but be flagged if it was lower. after that 'break point' repair the expected trend is even higher, leading to more false high readings to go through and detecting even more true low readings to be flagged.

is it fraud to put a kridging system into place without proper safeguards? maybe, maybe not. the first person who does it may have thought it was a great advancement in climate science and didnt look hard enough, or for long enough to find out the true effect of the method. the second group says I like that and the first group has already tested it so I dont have to. the third group says everybody else is doing it so I should too.

there have been many, many mistakes and inconsistencies pointed out in the last 15 years. they seldom get explained and often are left in place. the fiasco in Texas last summer is 'still being looked into'. and you wonder why I am dubious about changes to their methodology that seems to exclusively increase the trend? actually I think Hansen and Seto(?) actually had the nerve to once claim that half the adjustments increased the temp and half decreased the temp.....but they didnt say that all the decreases were in the past and all the increases were in the near present. lol

 

[Crick]

Which, without evidence, you have assumed were fraudulent. And, since not a single voice in the community of experts has raised the slightest complaint at those adjustments, your presumption has branded them all conspirators.

Is that where you WANT to be Ian?

I said dubious, and now you are claiming I said fraudulent and that I called them all co-conspirators. I thought I asked you not to do that?

I didn't quote you. I find "dubious" and "fraudulent" interchangeable in this context. Have you EVER presented the slightest opinion in support of the validity of those adjustments? No. Then it's a little difficult to come to the conclusion that you give the least shrift to the idea that they might be justified.

there are as many ways to adjust temperature records as there are people to write the code. the mindset of those in charge of taking care of the temp datasets is to show warming.

And you still want to argue that you haven't made up your mind?

eg Hansen, Schmidt, Jones, etc. every time an adjustment is constructed that adds to the temp trend, it is soon followed by every other dataset.

Do you have some evidence to support that charge? And I assume you're not talking about datasets that contain the same original readings.

BEST introduced kridging, where homogenization is done by 'detecting' break points and making wholesale changes by shifting whole portions of the curve. these changes should be audited to find a legitimate reason for them but typically the computer just does it with no authorization from reality

BEST is not in charge of anyone's climate database.

the detection is done by predicting what the temp should be, and the assumption is that temps should go up. a step change of say 0.3C would pass undetected if it was warmer but be flagged if it was lower. after that 'break point' repair the expected trend is even higher, leading to more false high readings to go through and detecting even more true low readings to be flagged.

Keep in mind those folks started out in your camp and they're so late to the party no one on my side has paid them the least attention. If they're doing something you don't like, let them know. They'll probably give you more attention than will anyone in mainstream science.

is it fraud to put a kridging system into place without proper safeguards? maybe, maybe not. the first person who does it may have thought it was a great advancement in climate science and didnt look hard enough, or for long enough to find out the true effect of the method. the second group says I like that and the first group has already tested it so I dont have to. the third group says everybody else is doing it so I should too.

Who cares what BEST is doing? Did GISS and Hadley turn their datasets over to them for safekeeping?

there have been many, many mistakes and inconsistencies pointed out in the last 15 years. they seldom get explained and often are left in place.

There have been lots and lots of accusations from your side but I've seen damned little in the way of an actual, demonstrated mistake. Don't you make the mistake of thinking there's a high correspondence between denier accusations and reality.

the fiasco in Texas last summer is 'still being looked into'.

One county in Texas. Right. Earth-fucking-shaking there dude.

and you wonder why I am dubious about changes to their methodology that seems to exclusively increase the trend?

I don't wonder at all. You decided long ago that you wouldn't accept AGW but you were smart enough to realize you didn't want to look prejudiced and ignorant like all your denier buddies. So you keep pretending to hedge your bets and playing the edge trying to make it look as if you actually have an open mind and some actual justification for being so "dubious". But the truth is you're exactly like all the denier idiots here. You've decided long ago that regardless of the evidence found and the logic with which conclusions are drawn, you're sticking with fossil fuels. AGW is for the bleeding-heart, tree-hugging liberals and that ain't you. Got it. But do us a favor and cut the crap. No one buys what you've been trying to sell all this while. No one.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Good Ol Crick... Been shown a liar and a fraud and he still posts the same ol garbage over and aver again.. Screaming DENIER at the top of his lungs as if to embarrass those who disagree with him. Only a fool uses that tired old line as they have been outed as the holocaust abusers and liars in an effort to keep their lies from being exposed.

Same crap different day from the true deniers of what the earth is doing. And its so much fun watching their meme be torn apart by the earth and empirical evidence..

 

[Crick]

Ian has had four days to refute those comments but did not. Are you speaking for him now?

God are you stupid. And dishonest.

 

[SSDD]

Ian has had four days to refute those comments but did not. Are you speaking for him now?

God are you stupid. And dishonest.

Hell, you have had over a week to admit that you were wrong in comparing anonymous suggestions to hold your breath indefinitely to public calls for imprisonment and execution of skeptics....you are also stupid and very dishonest....

 

[Crick]

I admit I'm wrong when I am. I apologize when it is called for. You do neither.

 

[SSDD]

I admit I'm wrong when I am. I apologize when it is called for. You do neither.

Of course you don't...you still maintain that your comparison to suggestions by anonymous posters on a message board to hold your breath indefinitely are the same as public calls (in the press) for the imprisonment and execution of skeptics?

 

[jc456]

I admit I'm wrong when I am. I apologize when it is called for. You do neither.

So where is the apology for misrepresenting the posts by your opposition?

 

[Billy_Bob]

No evidence to refute the OP... A lot of Ahom bombs and character assassinations but no facts to dispute the premise that this, our current warming and pause to cooling, is NOT unprecedented.

 

[Crick]

That would be a falsehood Bobby.

The temperature increase between 1900 and 2014 was 1.0C not 0.6C. And Vostok is not the Earth.

The only thing getting slamdanced on by this thread is the slightest suggestion that you folks know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't expect an answer....you lie and you know that you lie.

 

[Crick]

So... you think the data from the Vostok cores is an accurate measure of the behavior of the climate of the entire Earth.

You really are that stupid.

 

[jc456]

So... you think the data from the Vostok cores is an accurate measure of the behavior of the climate of the entire Earth.

You really are that stupid.

Still no answer!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

So... you think the data from the Vostok cores is an accurate measure of the behavior of the climate of the entire Earth.

You really are that stupid.

It seems that you are that stupid. Those ice cores reflect the global climate over a very long period of time and the isotopes they have found clearly place our current warming trend statistically dead center. You like to character assassinate and NEVER go find any facts from other ice cores to refute what has been posted.

I would expect no less from a witless asshat... I'm sure you can Old Scrote can find something from HOTWHOPPER that you can use to lie about...

 

[Crick]

So you really want to tell us that an ice core from Vostok gives an accurate record of the Earth's temperature?

God are you stupid.

 

[IanC]

So you really want to tell us that an ice core from Vostok gives an accurate record of the Earth's temperature?

God are you stupid.

yet you fully accept other reconstructions that have many proxies, most of which disagree with each other on timing and magnitude. your standards seem to be malleable.

 

[Crick]

I accept reconstructions assembled by qualified individuals that are intended to represent global values; making use of proxies of different nature from locations around the globe. I don't accept single source proxies as representative of global conditions and I'm sure you don't either.