Epic Climate Science Fail....

[IanC]

There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest.

As I predicted, you've instantly started yammering that the data is forged.

Hence, there's no point in speaking with you. You've got your conspiracy theories, supplied by your various conspiracy websites (Watts, Spencer, McIntyre), and you're not budging from your conspiracy beliefs.

Watts runs a climate change news gathering site with many types of opinion articles as well, Spencer (& Christie) run the UAH satellite program but Spencer's blog spends as much time debunking the crackpot extremist fringe of skepticism as anything else, and McIntyre's Climate Audit is a solid science site that only ventures into the petty politics of AGW when it has solid evidence to present. I think it is funny that you chose three websites whose owners actually agree that CO2 affects climate through the 'greenhouse effect' as conspiracy theorists.

as far as GISS 'massaging' temps- do you agree or disagree that the temperature figures for any (or at least most) places have been increasing for recent times and decreasing for pre-1950 times? if you look at the numbers for the continental US for the specific years of 1935, 1955, 1975 and 1995 but in the datasets from 1998,2007 and 2013 do you think there should be a big change? about half of the total trend is made up from 'adjustments' made in the last 15 years! are you really OK with that?

 

[SSDD]

There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest.

As I predicted, you've instantly started yammering that the data is forged.

Hence, there's no point in speaking with you. You've got your conspiracy theories, supplied by your various conspiracy websites (Watts, Spencer, McIntyre), and you're not budging from your conspiracy beliefs.

The evidence for the surface station data being tampered with is overwhelming and undeniable unless you are, again, a complete f'ing idiot.

 

[SSDD]

There's been SIGNIFICANT departure in the 2 since 2000 when the GISS books started getting cooked in earnest.

As I predicted, you've instantly started yammering that the data is forged.

Hence, there's no point in speaking with you. You've got your conspiracy theories, supplied by your various conspiracy websites (Watts, Spencer, McIntyre), and you're not budging from your conspiracy beliefs.

Question --- What country was featured in the link I gave you???

Bet you don't know.. Because you didn't even look ---- didya?


The satellite DATA has been diverging with the HEAVILY MASSAGED GISS data.. That's a fact dude/dudette...
And ummmmmm --- I''m gonna go with the satellite data... YOU can stick to 20,000 thermometers and "daily adjustments" to the temperature records of the 1930s.... Fair?? See any conspiracy there???

Wonder if mamooth is feeling lonly being the only one from the crazy train far enough "out there" to try and defend this obvious failure of the climate models? I thought for sure rolling thunder would be here cutting and pasting big, all caps, in some bright color to prove that the models work.

 

[SSDD]

Watts runs a climate change news gathering site with many types of opinion articles as well, Spencer (& Christie) run the UAH satellite program but Spencer's blog spends as much time debunking the crackpot extremist fringe of skepticism as anything else, and McIntyre's Climate Audit is a solid science site that only ventures into the petty politics of AGW when it has solid evidence to present. I think it is funny that you chose three websites whose owners actually agree that CO2 affects climate through the 'greenhouse effect' as conspiracy theorists.

as far as GISS 'massaging' temps- do you agree or disagree that the temperature figures for any (or at least most) places have been increasing for recent times and decreasing for pre-1950 times? if you look at the numbers for the continental US for the specific years of 1935, 1955, 1975 and 1995 but in the datasets from 1998,2007 and 2013 do you think there should be a big change? about half of the total trend is made up from 'adjustments' made in the last 15 years! are you really OK with that?

Watts, Spencer, and McIntyre are riding the crazy train, but they are sitting 10 cars back in the cheap seats so they don't rate with sooper dooper delux first class passengers like mamooth.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ah, so you _are_ claiming that all the scientists in the world are lying, and that only a group of dishonest bedwetters knows the real truth.

Go on, tell us more about the vast quantities of abiotic oil out there, and how a Ph.D. dropout is disproving Einstein, how backradiation doesn't exist, how DDT is harmless, how ozone depletion was faked, and so on. There are almost no idiot conspiracies theory which you cranks don't embrace. If it pushes your political cult's nonsense, you believe.

I don't envy you. Being justifiably laughed at by everyone everywhere can't be fun for you guys. But then, you also get your thrills by proclaiming your martyrhood, so it looks like everyone wins. We get to mock you, and you love being mocked, as you think it proves everyone fears you.

Political cult?


Sweetie........nobody gives a shit about this stuff.


Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

Feb 25, 2013


A newly released international study reveals that the issue of climate change is not a priority for people in the United States and around the world. The surveys showed that when asked to rank priority worries, people were five times more likely to point to the economy over the environment. Additionally, when asked about climate change, people identified the issue as more of a national problem than a personal concern




Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


Actually, its the bedwetters that are laughing. For all the hysterical bomb throwing of those obsessed with climate change, its had zero impact on people.

So.....about that laughing part........

 

[IanC]

Watts runs a climate change news gathering site with many types of opinion articles as well, Spencer (& Christie) run the UAH satellite program but Spencer's blog spends as much time debunking the crackpot extremist fringe of skepticism as anything else, and McIntyre's Climate Audit is a solid science site that only ventures into the petty politics of AGW when it has solid evidence to present. I think it is funny that you chose three websites whose owners actually agree that CO2 affects climate through the 'greenhouse effect' as conspiracy theorists.

as far as GISS 'massaging' temps- do you agree or disagree that the temperature figures for any (or at least most) places have been increasing for recent times and decreasing for pre-1950 times? if you look at the numbers for the continental US for the specific years of 1935, 1955, 1975 and 1995 but in the datasets from 1998,2007 and 2013 do you think there should be a big change? about half of the total trend is made up from 'adjustments' made in the last 15 years! are you really OK with that?

Watts, Spencer, and McIntyre are riding the crazy train, but they are sitting 10 cars back in the cheap seats so they don't rate with sooper dooper delux first class passengers like mamooth.

is it lonely out there in the patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive every year? say 'hi' to Claes and Doug and Joe for me. hahahaha

there is a distinct difference between realizing that the CO2 effect is well compensated by natural homeostatic processes and thinking that it doesnt exist at all. anyways, good luck with overturning physics.

 

[SSDD]

is it lonely out there in the patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive every year? say 'hi' to Claes and Doug and Joe for me. hahahaha

there is a distinct difference between realizing that the CO2 effect is well compensated by natural homeostatic processes and thinking that it doesnt exist at all. anyways, good luck with overturning physics.

It won't be the first time physics is been overturned And nothing is sweeter than vindication after a long stint in the pumpkin patch. Personally I was always rooting for quasicrystals, and something other than stress for ulcers.

All in all got a pretty good track record For picking winning underdogs, and remember classical physics still doesn't teach back radiation.

 

[flacaltenn]

is it lonely out there in the patch, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive every year? say 'hi' to Claes and Doug and Joe for me. hahahaha

there is a distinct difference between realizing that the CO2 effect is well compensated by natural homeostatic processes and thinking that it doesnt exist at all. anyways, good luck with overturning physics.

It won't be the first time physics is been overturned And nothing is sweeter than vindication after a long stint in the pumpkin patch. Personally I was always rooting for quasicrystals, and something other than stress for ulcers.

All in all got a pretty good track record For picking winning underdogs, and remember classical physics still doesn't teach back radiation.

Classical physics understands the heat generated photons don't respect thermal gradients when they leave a body.. It's only the NET Total thermal flow that needs to be in the correct direction.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Mamooth !!! You gots some "splaining to do here....

Besides the fact that you are using GISS instead of satellite as I explained to you, the graph you posted STILL looks phonier than hell.. Because there aint no way that's the GLOBAL LAND/OCEAN surface graph for Real temperature.. Not sure what it is... Here's your crap you tossed out to us...

And HERE is the land ocean data DIRECT from the forgery factory at GISS...

Not even CLOSE are they? Wanna guess how doctored your TRUTH line is in that plot.. Note that temp crosses the 0 anomaly line in about 1939 in the OFFICIAL GISS set and doesn't in whatever the fuck you are looking at until about 1943.. In addition and more important --- the official GISS is at 0.6degC as where the anomaly is currently peaked. YOUR piece of crap isn't above 0.35degC where we are today.....

COULD be as innocent as a 2 decade filtering to make the models look better when they are NOT ACCOUNTING for the AMO, PDO, Solar and OTHER natural influences couldn't it? Or then again, YOUR BIASED sources could have plastered just LAND DATA up because it matched the models better..

See how this works?? See how democratic and unsophisticated you need to be to QUESTION what folks try to feed you??

You should really LEARN to do some of that.. Instead of consuming all the tainted crap from YOUR side. For self-protection..

We're all waiting patiently for you to tell us EXACTLY what's in your PROOF.. Because it's NOT the official GISS Temp record now is it?

 

[SSDD]

Classical physics understands the heat generated photons don't respect thermal gradients when they leave a body.. It's only the NET Total thermal flow that needs to be in the correct direction.

Classical physics does not teach net thermal flow. Post modern physics teaches that.

I suspect that a heat generated photon respects thermal gradients as much as a rock respects gravity when it is dropped or a marble respects a downward grade. The flow is always towards more entropy and net flow is just an attempt to break the law and get away with it. Net flow will eventually end up in the dustbin.

 

[mamooth]

Hey Mamooth !!! You gots some "splaining to do here....

I've already explained that you've been brainwashed by your cult sources. So far, there's been no need for further explanation. And there still isn't.

Not even CLOSE are they?

GISS is not a single temp. GISS is a big collection of various data sets. Pretty dumb of you to assume that everything which says "GISS" has to be identical. Makes one doubt your fundamental grasp of the issues. But then, since your conspiracy pals never told you about such things, you'd have no way of knowing.

Again, I could keep posting more from various sources how well the models work, but what's the point? You'd just auto-respond about how all the data is forged. You wouldn't even have to think about it, since your cult programming would take over.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Mamooth !!! You gots some "splaining to do here....

I've already explained that you've been brainwashed by your cult sources. So far, there's been no need for further explanation. And there still isn't.

Not even CLOSE are they?

GISS is not a single temp. GISS is a big collection of various data sets. Pretty dumb of you to assume that everything which says "GISS" has to be identical. Makes one doubt your fundamental grasp of the issues. But then, since your conspiracy pals never told you about such things, you'd have no way of knowing.

Again, I could keep posting more from various sources how well the models work, but what's the point? You'd just auto-respond about how all the data is forged. You wouldn't even have to think about it, since your cult programming would take over.

Beg to differ clown.. THere IS an official GISS Land/Ocean temp record.. It currently states that we are at 0.6X degC above 0.0 anomaly.. Whatever the fuck is in your graph misses that by at LEAST 0.2 degC.. Along with OTHER inconsistencies all the way back to the 20s.

Now -- GISS CHANGES from day to day because they are not done COOKING the books. And they are constantly dicking with the data to enhance their arguments.

Nobody is gonna buy this "big collection" of Global Mean Surface Temp bullcrap.. There is one for the Oceans, one for the LAND, but the one that MATTERS --- is the one I posted..

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

YOU need to know MORE about why that looks so phoney and WE need sources like the identification of ALL the plots within the graph like Dr. Roy Spencer provided in his...

Deal?????

 

[flacaltenn]

For fuk sake, there's a 0.4 degC change in the GISS temp from 1910 to 1940.. WHERE THE HELL DID IT GO IN YOUR biased proof of the truth terdness?

At the origin of the time axis YOU are sitting at -0.5degC and the official record is at -0.2degC.

In what alternate world is that GISS data as you claim? Where did you pick up this infection??

We need to know.. Otherwise, you're pretty much dismissed on cred..

 

[daveman]

It's just Murray Salby's debunked nonsense about how temperature supposedly drives CO2. No one outside crankland takes it seriously, given how it contradicts the facts.

Right. Like the fact that CO2 is SOOOOO powerful, it goes back in time and drives up temperatures!

CO2 increases lag temp increases. That's one of those inconvenient truths.

 

[mamooth]

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

 

[skookerasbil]

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

LOL......how much am I laughing?

Now, even the New York Times is part of the "cult"......those crazy fuukers at the New York Times!!! Right wing assholes!!!


By Degrees

What to Make of a Warming Plateau?

As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming.

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=2&

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum!!!

 

[westwall]

Back in the real world, models work very well. Which would be why they're used. It really is that simple.

I could post the charts, but what would the point be? After all, the denialists would simply declare that all the data was forged, like they always do.

Given that both sides will claim the other side is lying, try looking at it in a different way. Which of these scenarios is more likely to be true?

A. That the models are good, and are used because they're good.

B. That most of the scientists on planet earth are lying, and that only a handful of right-wing-fringe political cultists understand the real truth.

No computer model has ever accurately predicted anything in the climatology field. CFD models are used fairly well in F1 but even there they have had some spectacular failings like the Virgin car that didn't have a large enough fuel tank to complete a race. That one was pretty epic.

And they are dealing with very few variables compared to a so-called climate model. Nice to see your head is still firmly entrenched up the warmists butts...

 

[westwall]

Ah, so you _are_ claiming that all the scientists in the world are lying, and that only a group of dishonest bedwetters knows the real truth.

Go on, tell us more about the vast quantities of abiotic oil out there, and how a Ph.D. dropout is disproving Einstein, how backradiation doesn't exist, how DDT is harmless, how ozone depletion was faked, and so on. There are almost no idiot conspiracies theory which you cranks don't embrace. If it pushes your political cult's nonsense, you believe.

I don't envy you. Being justifiably laughed at by everyone everywhere can't be fun for you guys. But then, you also get your thrills by proclaiming your martyrhood, so it looks like everyone wins. We get to mock you, and you love being mocked, as you think it proves everyone fears you.

Talk about wearing a tin hat...

 

[westwall]

Time to quit making excuses and PROVIDE the paper or exact source for that cruddy piece of shit you try to pass off as the ONLY TRUTH...

You're raving like a crazy person now.

And I shouldn't always have to be the one to stage these interventions.

Post the source idiot...