mann made global warming

[wirebender]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

 

[konradv]

he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

You're the only one that says that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm hiding the decline

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers, is that it?

Seriously?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Still desiring to get your ass kicked on this?

 

[skookerasbil]

Who cares..................

Here comes natural gas to the rescue.........reducing greenhouse gas emmissions over time.......and inexpensively I might add.

Can natural gas help stop global warming? - The Washington Post



C'mon s0ns.......the science debate has become boring. An exercise in futility in 2012. Its having zero significant impact on public policy at this point. What can change it? Well..........if some of these tornado's start dropping beach ball sized hail, or ALaska starts seeing weeks of 70 degrees in mid-January, then, the AGW folks might have some traction then with the bomb throwing. Otherwise, its nothing but a big old yawn in 2012.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[wirebender]

he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

You're the only one that says that.

Yeah, me and that nasty old 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

 

[wirebender]

LOL. Still desiring to get your ass kicked on this?

Laughable rocks. You have been kicked around so much on this topic that you apparenly have completely lost the sense of having your ass kicked. It is all falling apart around you and you are so completely wrapped up in your faith that you can't see it.

Soon, very soon a paper will be published by N&Z that will completely change the paradigm upon which climate science is based. CO2 is, always has been and always will be a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere that is completely incapable of altering the global climate in any way. N&Z's work proves that statement beyond question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Still desiring to get your ass kicked on this?

I don't see "wider and wider swings with an overall warmer" in the chart as your theory describes.

Time for a new theory, no?

 

[wirebender]

LOL. Still desiring to get your ass kicked on this?

I don't see "wider and wider swings with an overall warmer" in the chart as your theory describes.

Time for a new theory, no?

Hypothesis. AGW has never been a theory; not nearly enough hard science and observation avaliable to elevate it to the status of a theory. Even as a hypothesis, it is a piss poor example.

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Clearly agw can't be legitimately called a theory. There are exactly zero actual experiments that even begin to confirm the theory. All "experimentation" in climate science is the result of highly questionable computer models. I would like to see even one example of an actual experiment that even begins to demonstrate agw claims.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

As a hypothesis, agw barely makes the grade. I am not aware of any actual experiments that it is the basis of. It has done little more than spawn a couple of generations of computer models designed for no other purpose than to give the appearance of validation to the hypothesis. They have certainly proven to be worthless in terms of predicting future climate trends or even replicating known past trends.

 

[Flopper]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

Spencer is a member of the right wing, Heartland Institute, which has opposed environmental regulations for over 25 years, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, funded by oil and gas interests, a big proponent of intelligent design, a "scientific adviser" to the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance", and a favorite on the Limbaugh and Beck shows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Still desiring to get your ass kicked on this?

I don't see "wider and wider swings with an overall warmer" in the chart as your theory describes.

Time for a new theory, no?

Hypothesis. AGW has never been a theory; not nearly enough hard science and observation avaliable to elevate it to the status of a theory. Even as a hypothesis, it is a piss poor example.

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Clearly agw can't be legitimately called a theory. There are exactly zero actual experiments that even begin to confirm the theory. All "experimentation" in climate science is the result of highly questionable computer models. I would like to see even one example of an actual experiment that even begins to demonstrate agw claims.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

As a hypothesis, agw barely makes the grade. I am not aware of any actual experiments that it is the basis of. It has done little more than spawn a couple of generations of computer models designed for no other purpose than to give the appearance of validation to the hypothesis. They have certainly proven to be worthless in terms of predicting future climate trends or even replicating known past trends.

It's a 100% fail as science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

Spencer is a member of the right wing, Heartland Institute, which has opposed environmental regulations for over 25 years, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, funded by oil and gas interests, a big proponent of intelligent design, a "scientific adviser" to the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance", and a favorite on the Limbaugh and Beck shows.

You sound like Rdean.

What does that have to do with exposing how the Decline Hiders are manipulating data to fit their foregone conclusion?

 

[IanC]

Seems that Dr. Spencer's latest examination of USHCN reveals that virtually all of the warming claimed by the church of CAGW is the result of tampering with the temperature record.

USHCN Surface Temperatures, 1973-2012: Dramatic Warming Adjustments, Noisy Trends « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Clip: Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.

The next logical step in Dr. Spencer's personal growth is to step on up and acknowldege that the evidence shows that CO2 does not, in fact, have any effect on the global temperature and that he was mistaken when he eroneously claimed that cooler objects could, in fact, further warm warmer objects.

Spencer is correct to point out that much of the warming trend is from arbitrary and poorly processed adjustments. an audit of stations and their data and conditions by an independent agency is long past due. as it stands, different datasets are adjusted by one source, then imported and adjusted again by a different dataset until temps have been homogenized into a meaningless mess.

Spencer is also correct (hence wirebender is wrong) to state that cooler objects can change the equilibrium of a system so that the original source of energy flows differently. CO2 has an effect on surface temperatures by restricting heat loss into space, the actual warming is done by the sun. there is no conflict with the second law of thermodynamics because the energy involved for heating is not coming from the atmosphere.


Someone else brought up Spencer's belief in intelligent design. some people mistakenly think that this is a disbelief in evolution but it is not. once the original spark of life is present only then can evolution proceed to change it. there is no reasonable means in the theory of evolution to produce that spark of life so that means there is something else necessary to explain the emergence of life on this planet.

 

[wirebender]

Spencer is a member of the right wing, Heartland Institute, which has opposed environmental regulations for over 25 years, a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute, funded by oil and gas interests, a big proponent of intelligent design, a "scientific adviser" to the "Interfaith Stewardship Alliance", and a favorite on the Limbaugh and Beck shows.

Circumstantial ad hominem? Is that really the best you can do? No comment on his findings even though a plethora of examples of data tampering are readily and easily available?

Either you can answer to the accusations being made or you can't. Thus far, it is apparent that you can't. Typical.

 

[wirebender]

Spencer is also correct (hence wirebender is wrong) to state that cooler objects can change the equilibrium of a system so that the original source of energy flows differently. CO2 has an effect on surface temperatures by restricting heat loss into space, the actual warming is done by the sun. there is no conflict with the second law of thermodynamics because the energy involved for heating is not coming from the atmosphere.

Since CO2 is clearly increasing but temperatures are not, it is more than obvious that the above statement is nothing more than the kook aid talking. It certainly isn't backed by anything even remotely resembling empirical evidence.

 

[IanC]

Spencer is also correct (hence wirebender is wrong) to state that cooler objects can change the equilibrium of a system so that the original source of energy flows differently. CO2 has an effect on surface temperatures by restricting heat loss into space, the actual warming is done by the sun. there is no conflict with the second law of thermodynamics because the energy involved for heating is not coming from the atmosphere.

Since CO2 is clearly increasing but temperatures are not, it is more than obvious that the above statement is nothing more than the kook aid talking. It certainly isn't backed by anything even remotely resembling empirical evidence.

I think the MODTRAN calculations of the radiative fluxes do more than a passable job of describing the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. of course these are instantaneous effects so the other modifying feedbacks of the atmosphere/land/ocean/clouds/circulation patterns/etc are not taken into account so the calculated ~1c per doubling is probably closer to ~0.5C. but the effect is there no matter what the eventual change in temperature at the surface is, even if it ended up being cancelled out completely by other mechanisms.


the people drinking the 'kook aid' are those that accept bizarre positive feedback numbers that are as rare as hen's teeth in nature and are not applicable to Earth's climate system which does an admirable job of keeping the temperature stable despite many changeable inputs.

 

[wirebender]

I think the MODTRAN calculations of the radiative fluxes do more than a passable job of describing the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is clear that you don't "think" much at all ian. MODTRAN calculations are of no more value than any of the other piss poor computer models that pass for climate science these days. By your own admission they are nothing more than a description of a hypothetical effect that, while maybe great on paper, is simply not seen in the real world.

If you did not have such high blood kook aid levels in your system, you would realize that you are defending the output of computer models as if they were actual data; which, by the way, is one of the primary dysfunctions of climate pseudoscience today.

Being nothing more than a computer model, written with the usual array of assumptions and bias, it is rubbish in - rubbish out as usual. The model is based on flawed physics and unproven assumptions regarding the energy cycle of the earth and therefore the output is flawed as proven by the comparison of the output to actual observation.

Tell me ian what does the 2nd law of thermodynamics say about the transfer of energy from cool objects to warm objects? It is an easy, honest question. Can you manage an answer that even approaches honesty?

 

[IanC]

MODTRAN is just a program that uses measured data for the optical effects of gases, built up from many layers to resemble the atmosphere. if you dont think we can do that then you must think that satellite temperature data is completely useless as well.

as far as your question about 2LOTD....you did understand my comment that explicitly states that it is the sun that warms the surface right? the atmosphere affects the equilibrium temperature by restricting heat loss, not by actively heating the surface.

the earth has an open system where energy comes in, then goes out. the surface is not a special place to measure the temperature except to us humans for practical purposes.