Post the Experiment

[Crick]

dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR. Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said. If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar. I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.

You wish for proof that a spectrometer can measure spectral levels of infrared radiation? Jc, it's become obvious you haven't got jack shit. Show us the website you're talking about or apologize.

dude,

you're such a liar.

You kiss your mother with that mouth? Have you no shame? Do you tell your priest about this in confession?

Never can you ever supply one piece of data to support your statements.

I have given you fucking REAMS of data. You choose to ignore all of it. You're pulling this Grade A BULLSHIT because I gave you data that you couldn't handle; that just flat out showed you were wrong and stupidly so.

I have asked a really simple question as a result of your post.

You have attempted to deflect the discussion away from your embarrassing failures and every single reader here knows it.

That is to prove a spectrometer reads what you said.

Where's your proof that thermometers read correctly? Maybe they're all upside down. Where's your proof that rulers are able to accurately measure sea level? Where's your proof that your keyboard actually puts up the messages here that you type? Maybe it's making up new ones on its own. Jesus, jc, stop being such a stupid ass!

And that sir would take a statement from a manufacturer of one to prove your post.

You can't trust those assholes. They just want to SELL the things. They want to make money off of them. They'd murder mothers and babies to make a sale, everyone knows it. Right?

I don't need to prove anything. i merely stated i didn't see a website that backs up your statement. So I've asked you to lead me to the promised land.

God, you stupid ass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat. Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left. It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right. The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere. Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum". Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates. There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum". From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.

Crick you need to update this, apparently the water does not reradiate the energy its absorbs

 

[jc456]

dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR. Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said. If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar. I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.

You wish for proof that a spectrometer can measure spectral levels of infrared radiation? Jc, it's become obvious you haven't got jack shit. Show us the website you're talking about or apologize.

dude,

you're such a liar.

You kiss your mother with that mouth? Have you no shame? Do you tell your priest about this in confession?

Never can you ever supply one piece of data to support your statements.

I have given you fucking REAMS of data. You choose to ignore all of it. You're pulling this Grade A BULLSHIT because I gave you data that you couldn't handle; that just flat out showed you were wrong and stupidly so.

I have asked a really simple question as a result of your post.

You have attempted to deflect the discussion away from your embarrassing failures and every single reader here knows it.

That is to prove a spectrometer reads what you said.

Where's your proof that thermometers read correctly? Maybe they're all upside down. Where's your proof that rulers are able to accurately measure sea level? Where's your proof that your keyboard actually puts up the messages here that you type? Maybe it's making up new ones on its own. Jesus, jc, stop being such a stupid ass!

And that sir would take a statement from a manufacturer of one to prove your post.

You can't trust those assholes. They just want to SELL the things. They want to make money off of them. They'd murder mothers and babies to make a sale, everyone knows it. Right?

I don't need to prove anything. i merely stated i didn't see a website that backs up your statement. So I've asked you to lead me to the promised land.

God, you stupid ass.

For once I'd expect you to back some thing you said. But alas, you're Just one More nut job

BTW, it still makes you a liar!

 

[jc456]

here we are 8/7/2015, another month gone by and still no experiment that will prove a warmers claim. How interesting.

 

[jc456]

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 9/10/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 9/10/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

They wont because they can not.. Funny how real life and empirical evidence show it a lie..

 

[jc456]

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 10/9/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 10/9/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

Yes the months tick by and not a single fact is found to support the CAGW lie. There has been no warming for 18 years 8 months but the potential for about three months to be above normal (due to the current El Nino) will be touted as proof of man made global warming. But the following La Nina will lay it waste by mid spring and the pause will again lengthen substantially. But by then the COP power grab will be done and no one will call these liars on their bull shit.

 

[jc456]

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 11/5/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where's the experiment controlling for variations in CO2?

Bueller?

Anyone?

 

[jc456]

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 12/15/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

Thanks Frank,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science = settled, just don't ask for the experiments because they don't have any

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

 

[jc456]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.

 

[IanC]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

I'm curious Frank. Do you not believe in the Greenhouse Effect, or disbelieve that CO2 plays a part in it, or just doubt that any further change in CO2 will have a measurable effect?

 

[IanC]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.

Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.

My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.

 

[jc456]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.

Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.

My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.

well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was. Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.

for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all. Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched. Now I'd like a why question answered.

 

[IanC]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.

Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.

My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.

well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was. Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.

for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all. Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched. Now I'd like a why question answered.

Did you read Karl2015? They explained what they did. Obviously they had reasons for what they did, legitimate or not.

I think it is a travesty that the temp datasets have been manipulated over the last decade to show support for the 'Consensus'. I don't think impartial statisticians would come up with the same methods.

I could live with just about any methodology, as long as it didn't change every few months.


BTW, Watts just released a report at the AGU showing the trend at good stations was 2/3s of the bad station trend. An interesting side bar is that there has been less of a difference over the last15 years. Is it because there hasn't been a change to amplify? Or is it the CRN is now a backup system. Or what?

 

[jc456]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.

Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.

My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.

well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was. Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.

for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all. Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched. Now I'd like a why question answered.

Did you read Karl2015? They explained what they did. Obviously they had reasons for what they did, legitimate or not.

I think it is a travesty that the temp datasets have been manipulated over the last decade to show support for the 'Consensus'. I don't think impartial statisticians would come up with the same methods.

I could live with just about any methodology, as long as it didn't change every few months.


BTW, Watts just released a report at the AGU showing the trend at good stations was 2/3s of the bad station trend. An interesting side bar is that there has been less of a difference over the last15 years. Is it because there hasn't been a change to amplify? Or is it the CRN is now a backup system. Or what?

No I haven't read it.

I did find this statement from skeptical science as they talked about the report and they stated this winner:

We know that temperatures measured by ship sensors are often warmer than temperatures measured by buoys,

My curiosity goes to this set of questions immediately,

*Are they recording the temperature of the ocean at the same point and time?
*are they both at the same depth?
*Did anyone ever compare the two different devices in order to benchmark the difference readings between the two different devices?

Ian, Have you ever taken two different thermal devices and read different temperatures from the same source.

for instance, take a glass of water, take a mercury thermometer and take a reading and then take a digital thermometer and take a reading?

I know that in the course of my life, I've had my temperature taken with both and they have always given the same 98.6 when I wasn't ill.

So again, logically, why would one thermometer sensor run warmer than another? And from there I'm sorry, I don't buy any of it. someone can post on this board till forever and I will have not moved one inch from my position that it is all fixed.

 

[IanC]

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science

adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so. So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model. Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.

Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects.

My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.

well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was. Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.

for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all. Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched. Now I'd like a why question answered.

Did you read Karl2015? They explained what they did. Obviously they had reasons for what they did, legitimate or not.

I think it is a travesty that the temp datasets have been manipulated over the last decade to show support for the 'Consensus'. I don't think impartial statisticians would come up with the same methods.

I could live with just about any methodology, as long as it didn't change every few months.


BTW, Watts just released a report at the AGU showing the trend at good stations was 2/3s of the bad station trend. An interesting side bar is that there has been less of a difference over the last15 years. Is it because there hasn't been a change to amplify? Or is it the CRN is now a backup system. Or what?

No I haven't read it.

I did find this statement from skeptical science as they talked about the report and they stated this winner:

We know that temperatures measured by ship sensors are often warmer than temperatures measured by buoys,

My curiousity goes to these sets of questions immediately,

*Are they recording the temperature of the ocean at the same point and time?
*are they both at the same depth?
*Did anyone ever compare the two different devices in order to benchmark the difference readings between the two different devices?

Ian, Have you ever taken two different thermal devices and read different temperatures from the same source.

for instance, take a glass of water, take a mercury thermometer and take a reading and then take a digital thermometer and take a reading?

I know that in the course of my life, I've had my temperature taken with both and they have always given the same 98.6 when I wasn't ill.

So again, logically, why would one thermometer sensor run warmer than another? And from there I'm sorry, I don't buy any of it. someone can post on this board till forever and I will have not moved one inch from my position that it is all fixed.

Good questions. It's hard to keep thermometers calibrated exactly. Each type of thermometer has its own strengths and weaknesses.

For SSTs the change from buckets to intakes to buoys have caused a lot of problems. One of the criticisms of Karl15 was the choice to adjust the offset and trend of good quality bouy data to the poor intake data. Ocean temps are poorly sampled in both area and time. The numbers can be pushed around a lot depending on how you calculate them. Every few years a new and 'improved' method comes along and the old results are consigned to the trash, making comparisons difficult.

Stability in method may be more important than having the 'best' method. When changes due to different methods often make larger adjustments than the trend you are trying to measure.....