Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- BEST has some of the same mangled assumptions (like no heat island effect) and uses the same faulty data as NOAA and GISS. In the big picture, we should downplay all these studies and accept the uniformity and simplicity of the satellite data --- which avoids all those biases and inaccuracies from thousands of sensors that Muller alluded to..

The only Earth surface data prep that comes close to matching satellite data is the UAH data prep. Which is what I accept as a true picture of the warming that exists.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah -- BEST has some of the same mangled assumptions (like no heat island effect) and uses the same faulty data as NOAA and GISS.

Yeah -- fecalhead has some of the same mangled assumptions (like all of them) and uses the same faulty pseudo-data as all of the other denier cult retards, with their assumptions and 'data' being provided, free of charge, by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign which funnels into their brains via the rightwingnut echo chamber/media circus.

Beyond that, who cares what your moronic and uninformed opinions are, fecalhead? You've been shown to be a clueless, ideologically motivated liar several times on these threads in just the last two days. Your 'opinions' are worthless hogwash.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet somehow -- my self-esteem is still entirely intact and my technical credentials are absolutely impeccable. Imagine that..

 

[RollingThunder]

Yet somehow -- my self-esteem is still entirely intact and my technical credentials are absolutely impeccable. Imagine that..

What kind of "technical credentials" do you need to be such an ignorant retard?

A degree from 'stupid school'?

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet somehow -- my self-esteem is still entirely intact and my technical credentials are absolutely impeccable. Imagine that..

What kind of "technical credentials" do you need to be such an ignorant retard?

A degree from 'stupid school'?

Would you like to do this via PM??? Bragging is such a bad move on a public forum.. And it would spare you the embarrassment of looking like a TOTAL ass....

 

[Trakar]

Likewise, I am aware of no evidence which indicates substantive biases or inaccuracies in Surface Temperature Sites ²

Really?? You haven't read Mullers comments VALIDATING how biased and f''d up the surface data sensors are???? Where do you think those huge confidence bars in the BEST study come from?
Never heard of sensors on asphalt roofs -- near huge air compressors -- ect?

You obviously didn't review the links - http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/station-quality-may-20.pdf

And you never commented on that interesting artifact in the official US surface temp MINUS the UAHuntsville data that I put in front of your face several times now..

Wow, all cap shouts and superfluous punctuation, thanks for reminding me about that paper though. I did read through it and even made a few notes, I'll go back to the thread and put together a response for you, I should have put one together before I left.

You ever see the FULL Siberian data set that Brigga cherry-picked?? I have.

indeed? I know about several studies by Dr. Keith Briffa completed but I'm not sure I've read any papers by any Brigga.

And I DID screw up listing the nature of the CO2 forcing function in a list of stuff I deny.. For brevity's sake I blew it.. But the CO2 forcing function and the spectral absorption of the material are FUNDAMENTAL evidence that CO2 competes with water vapor. A gas that makes up 75% of the "greenhouse". Inconvienient facts for people who HANG on the 389 or 395PPM meter like their lives depend on it..

​