Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

[IanC]

Sea level. Looks like its rising most everywhere.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents

this is an interesting interactive map. most of the locations are green, indicating 0-3 mm/yr. a random choice of a dozen spots produced figures over the whole range, which would imply an average less than 3 mm/yr. try it yourself.

the official estimate of 3.3 mm/yr SLR doesnt seem to hold up for measured coastal areas. presumably the extra SLR is to be found out in the open ocean where actualmeasured confirmation is impossible.

 

[mamooth]

Tell you what Davros, maybe you can show me what the fail data set is for AGW theory? What events would have to happen that would prove AGW to be false?

Geez, where have you been? Several times, I've listed concrete data that could falsify global warming theory. Being that it's real science, global warming science is falsifiable in multiple ways. Here are some:

1. A sustained lack of warming.

2. A lack of a CO2 increase

3. A lack of sea level rise

4. Stratospheric warming

5. Steady outgoing longwave radiation (instead of decreasing in the GHG bands)

6. Steady backradiation (instead of increasing)

Can you do that, or is AGW a tautology and thus not a scientific theory?

Now, back at you. What concrete data could falsify denialism?

if you do list some things, you'll be the first denier here to ever to so, despite me asking over and over. Denialism appears to be unfalsifiable. Bu then, religions are like that.

 

[mamooth]

That was about 5 million years ago and we were but a glimmer in some dino's loins methinks at that particular time.

No, it was 500 million years ago. When the sun was 5% dimmer.

Given the dimmer sun, the earth could not have sustained a normal temperature without that extra CO2. In that era when CO2 was low, the entire earth was frozen.

By bringing up those past CO2 levels, deniers show yet another line of evidence that supports AGW theory.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, totally fudged data and manufactured BULLSHIT.

They managed to fake rising sea level, rising air temperature, rising ocean temperature, shrinking ice sheets, shrinking arctic ice, shrinking glaciers, increased extreme rainfall events, ocean acidification, and CO2 levels being drastically higher than any time in the past 650,000 years? All of that?

You do realize that the only one of those lies that is half true is CO2 and its warming signal can not be seen in current US-CRN and satellite data.

What the hell are you talking about? CO2'S greenhouse gas status is a proven scientific fact.

CO2 in a bottle reacts differently in our atmosphere. One is closed system the other is not.. Water vapor has been found to be a NEGATIVE forcing and detracts from CO2 warming, It balances it out to zero. it does not amplify it as alarmist models predict and it is why the models fail.

Wrong. Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas. Clouds are a negative feedback. Those are made of liquid water and water ice. Hence increased water vapor can indirectly cause negative feedback by increasing low level cloudiness. But the vapor itself is a strong positive feedback.

You have one thing right ... water vapor feedback / cloud feedback is very complicated, and is one reason why models struggle with details.

But the basic concept remains that CO2 warms the Earth's surface, and feedbacks are eventually overcome in the long term if CO2 continues to increase.

NO! water vapor is not a positive feedback. Water vapor is the main ingredient in our CONVECTION CYCLE which is not inhibited by CO2.

YOU still believe that heat transfer is in retention only. The problem is that CO2 is in much greater concentration near surface and it is this area where water vapor is warmed. It then rise, despite CO2 and those photons are released to space balancing earths energy budget.

Water Vapor is why every single one of the alarmist models fail and head off to unstoppable warming. Empirical evidence has laid these pieces of crap waste showing that our rise is only half of what is expect from CO2 alone.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That was about 5 million years ago and we were but a glimmer in some dino's loins methinks at that particular time.

No, it was 500 million years ago. When the sun was 5% dimmer.

Given the dimmer sun, the earth could not have sustained a normal temperature without that extra CO2. In that era when CO2 was low, the entire earth was frozen.

By bringing up those past CO2 levels, deniers show yet another line of evidence that supports AGW theory.

You got some really far out fantasies you call facts.. Why then has the earth not warmed in the last 18 years 8 months?

 

[mamooth]

Speaking of fantasies, isn't it time you stopped telling that "There's been no warming!" lie? Most of the other deniers have given up on it, and have retreated to the "but ... but ... the warming is natural!" fallback position.

After that position crumbles, you can fall back to "But warming is good!", and from there to "But it will cost too much to fix!", and finally to "We're all screwed, but that's great, because I love Darwinism! Every man for himself!".

 

[Billy_Bob]

Speaking of fantasies, isn't it time you stopped telling that "There's been no warming!" lie? Most of the other deniers have given up on it, and have retreated to the "but ... but ... the warming is natural!" fallback position.

After that position crumbles, you can fall back to "But warming is good!", and from there to "But it will cost too much to fix!", and finally to "We're all screwed, but that's great, because I love Darwinism! Every man for himself!".

Snageltooth is nothing but a liar... Even US-CRN show no warming.. now go fuck yourself hairball.

 

[mamooth]

The satellites are flawed, Billy. Everyone knows that. If you want to know surface temps, you use the surface temps, which have been adjusted to make the warming look smaller, yet still show big warming. And those surface temps have been adjusted very little in comparison with the heavily twiddled and fudged satellite data.

It's an indicator of cult pseudoscience when a group deliberately ignores good data and uses bad data instead. That's what you're doing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The satellites are flawed, Billy. Everyone knows that. If you want to know surface temps, you use the surface temps, which have been adjusted to make the warming look smaller, yet still show big warming. And those surface temps have been adjusted very little in comparison with the heavily twiddled and fudged satellite data.

It's an indicator of cult pseudoscience when a group deliberately ignores good data and uses bad data instead. That's what you're doing.

Lol, first it was 'Everrybody knows that's not true' but after seeing the evidence Madmut says its all broken satellites, roflmaop

 

[JimBowie1958]

That was about 5 million years ago and we were but a glimmer in some dino's loins methinks at that particular time.

No, it was 500 million years ago. When the sun was 5% dimmer.

Given the dimmer sun, the earth could not have sustained a normal temperature without that extra CO2. In that era when CO2 was low, the entire earth was frozen.

By bringing up those past CO2 levels, deniers show yet another line of evidence that supports AGW theory.

Speculative bullshit that is not science.

Please, go find a street to play in.

 

[mamooth]

Speculative bullshit that is not science.

It's been long established that stars on the main sequence burn brighter over time, with our sun increasing output by about 1% every 100 million years. Jim, however, knows that stellar physics is now also part of the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

Please, go find a street to play in.

JIm confirms what we already knew, which is that deniers tend to be a homicidal and violent bunch. You don't see the rational people calling for people to die, but such death wishes are common coming from deniers.

 

[JimBowie1958]

lol

Geez, where have you been? Several times, I've listed concrete data that could falsify global warming theory. Being that it's real science, global warming science is falsifiable in multiple ways. Here are some:

1. A sustained lack of warming.

Well, I guess a pause would suffice since it hasn't resumed without further temperature 'adjustments'.

But the lack of significant temperature rises for the last 15 y ears or more has been noted for quite some time, though you Warmistas have come up with all kinds of explanations why Mother Nature is hiding her rising temperature

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html

3. A lack of sea level rise

A total lack of sea level rise hasn't happened, but if CO2 is rising that would create a greater warming effect, wouldn't it, and thus an increase in sea level rise over time, no?

And that is NOT what we are seeing.

Latest NOAA mean sea level trend data through 2013 confirms lack of sea level rise acceleration

"But what the UN IPCC AR5 WG1 report completely fails to address is the fact that the long duration period NOAA mean sea level trend data behavior represent constant and unchanging linear records over time which present major challenges to IPCC claims of increasing sea level rise rates since 1971. The NOAA data is simply unsupportive of IPCC claims of increasing rates of sea level rise in recent decades....There is simply nothing in these NOAA long duration mean sea level trend data records that supports claims that man made CO2 emissions are accelerating sea level rise at U.S. locations."

4. Stratospheric warming

Sudden stratospheric warming: could it lead to a very cold January in D.C.?

"A phenomenon known as a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event just got underway, and this is sparking some conversation about how cold the pattern in the United States could get in January."

5. Steady outgoing longwave radiation (instead of decreasing in the GHG bands)

"OLR is a critical component of the Earth's energy budget, and represents the total radiation going to space emitted by the atmosphere. Earth's radiation balance is quite closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun. Thus, the Earth's average temperature is very nearly stable."

Outgoing longwave radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, back at you. What concrete data could falsify denialism?

Denialism is a straw man created by AGW proponents. Since it is your straw man, YOU disprove it.

if you do list some things, you'll be the first denier here to ever to so, despite me asking over and over. Denialism appears to be unfalsifiable. Bu then, religions are like that.

Well, glad to help you with four of those six, so I guess I have disproven AGW four times more than neded since you said any ONE of them would disprove AGW.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Speculative bullshit that is not science.

It's been long established that stars on the main sequence burn brighter over time, with our sun increasing output by about 1% every 100 million years. Jim, however, knows that stellar physics is now also part of the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

I was referring to this: "
Given the dimmer sun, the earth could not have sustained a normal temperature without that extra CO2. In that era when CO2 was low, the entire earth was frozen."

There is no proof of what you assert here. Maybe there was plenty of water vapor or methane to compensate, you don't have any idea.

Lol, and yo are the one that keeps bringing up conspiracy, not me. think academic stupidity explains enough of it without resorting conspiracy theories.

Please, go find a street to play in.

JIm confirms what we already knew, which is that deniers tend to be a homicidal and violent bunch. You don't see the rational people calling for people to die, but such death wishes are common coming from deniers.

Lol, so now anyone that disagree with Warmista horse crap is a potential murder? Just like the good old Stalinist days, when dissenters would be put into psychiatric hospitals for daring to object that the Soviet union was not a Workers Paradise.

 

[jc456]

Tell you what Davros, maybe you can show me what the fail data set is for AGW theory? What events would have to happen that would prove AGW to be false?

Geez, where have you been? Several times, I've listed concrete data that could falsify global warming theory. Being that it's real science, global warming science is falsifiable in multiple ways. Here are some:

1. A sustained lack of warming.

2. A lack of a CO2 increase

3. A lack of sea level rise

4. Stratospheric warming

5. Steady outgoing longwave radiation (instead of decreasing in the GHG bands)

6. Steady backradiation (instead of increasing)

Can you do that, or is AGW a tautology and thus not a scientific theory?

Now, back at you. What concrete data could falsify denialism?

if you do list some things, you'll be the first denier here to ever to so, despite me asking over and over. Denialism appears to be unfalsifiable. Bu then, religions are like that.

yes, I completely agree, and each item on your list has already been proven, except #2. There is 20 PPM of CO2 that went into the atmosphere in the last 20 years. And, no warming.

There has been no sea rise, no stratospheric warming, steady outgoing radiation, no back radiation. So, tooth, since you believe the earth is warm for the last 18 years, why don't you post up actual station readings that show that. Oh wait, you can't. Although the satellite data posted in this forum does show no warming. hmmmmmmm/

 

[mamooth]

But the lack of significant temperature rises for the last 15 y ears or more has been noted for quite some time,

Only the most desperate of cultists still pretend there was some kind of "pause". Given the actual evidence, it's just an insane claim, and if someone makes the claim, you instantly know not to take them seriously. It's like somebody claiming that the earth is flat.

And that is NOT what we are seeing.

Sure it, the sea level rise. You don't expect anyone to actually take a WUWT rant seriously, do you? It was a textbook example of dishonest cherrypicking.

"A phenomenon known as a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event just got underway, and this is sparking some conversation about how cold the pattern in the United States could get in January."

Again, the cherrypicking. You find some local spot at one point in time, and ignore the rest of the world and all other times.

"OLR is a critical component of the Earth's energy budget, and represents the total radiation going to space emitted by the atmosphere. Earth's radiation balance is quite closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun. Thus, the Earth's average temperature is very nearly stable."

Very nearly. 'Nuff said.

So, you whiffed completely. All you can do is copy cherrypicks you don't understand from denier blogs, or copy bits from wiki that don't support your claims. You're obviously way out of your league.

Now, back at you. What concrete data could falsify denialism?

Denialism is a straw man created by AGW proponents. Since it is your straw man, YOU disprove it.

So as expected, you ran from the challenge. Deniers will never say what could falsify their beliefs, because it's not possible to falsify a religion.

 

[mamooth]

There is no proof of what you assert here. Maybe there was plenty of water vapor or methane to compensate, you don't have any idea.

Sure we do. We know most of the earth was frozen. We know that, as all the CO2 sinks were frozen, volcanic CO2 accumulated over millions of years eventually raised the temperature enough to unfreeze the earth.

Methane requires organic processes to replenish, as it slowly oxidizes in the presence of free oxygen, and there weren't any ways to make significant methane on a frozen earth. And water vapor levels don't change if the temperature is constant.

Lol, so now anyone that disagree with Warmista horse crap is a potential murder?

You were the one telling people to kill themselves. On the bright side, at least you seem to understand that was wrong.

Just like the good old Stalinist days, when dissenters would be put into psychiatric hospitals for daring to object that the Soviet union was not a Workers Paradise.

It's only your side trying to jail scientists. If you want to show that you're not a proud Stalinist, simply condemn your fellow deniers for trying to jail Dr. Mann and other scientists.

I doubt you will. I haven't yet met a denier who was brave enough to disavow their cult's thug tactics.

 

[jc456]

But the lack of significant temperature rises for the last 15 y ears or more has been noted for quite some time,

Only the most desperate of cultists still pretend there was some kind of "pause". Given the actual evidence, it's just an insane claim, and if someone makes the claim, you instantly know not to take them seriously. It's like somebody claiming that the earth is flat.
]

I have to laugh at you tooth. still spewing the mumbo jumbo, the title of the OP is estimate, and it is what is done. I know you don't deny it. so, it is manipulated data and therefore, you have no evidence to support your statement. pause is going strong tooth.

 

[jc456]

There is no proof of what you assert here. Maybe there was plenty of water vapor or methane to compensate, you don't have any idea.

Sure we do. We know most of the earth was frozen. We know that, as all the CO2 sinks were frozen, volcanic CO2 accumulated over millions of years eventually raised the temperature enough to unfreeze the earth.

.

and the earth warmed without humans on it. how is that at all possible? The fact remains the OP is estimate and it is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no proof of what you assert here. Maybe there was plenty of water vapor or methane to compensate, you don't have any idea.

Sure we do. We know most of the earth was frozen. We know that, as all the CO2 sinks were frozen, volcanic CO2 accumulated over millions of years eventually raised the temperature enough to unfreeze the earth.

Methane requires organic processes to replenish, as it slowly oxidizes in the presence of free oxygen, and there weren't any ways to make significant methane on a frozen earth. And water vapor levels don't change if the temperature is constant.

Lol, so now anyone that disagree with Warmista horse crap is a potential murder?

You were the one telling people to kill themselves. On the bright side, at least you seem to understand that was wrong.

Just like the good old Stalinist days, when dissenters would be put into psychiatric hospitals for daring to object that the Soviet union was not a Workers Paradise.

It's only your side trying to jail scientists. If you want to show that you're not a proud Stalinist, simply condemn your fellow deniers for trying to jail Dr. Mann and other scientists.

I doubt you will. I haven't yet met a denier who was brave enough to disavow their cult's thug tactics.

That is why 20 of your beloved have asked Obama, in writing i might add, to use RICO against any one who doesn't agree with CAGW and you... You are fucking hilarious and a fucking moron.. You try and run the debate in circles... Again hairball.. go fuck yourself. The proof is in WRITING... You lying sack of excrement..

 

[Billy_Bob]

But the lack of significant temperature rises for the last 15 y ears or more has been noted for quite some time,

Only the most desperate of cultists still pretend there was some kind of "pause". Given the actual evidence, it's just an insane claim, and if someone makes the claim, you instantly know not to take them seriously. It's like somebody claiming that the earth is flat.
]

I have to laugh at you tooth. still spewing the mumbo jumbo, the title of the OP is estimate, and it is what is done. I know you don't deny it. so, it is manipulated data and therefore, you have no evidence to support your statement. pause is going strong tooth.

His estimates are accurate to 100th of a degree... who needs empirical evidence when they can just make shit up? His ignorance is stunning but it is fun watching it try and run us in circles. I just put a nail in one of his feet. Its running in circles will accelerate now..