Post the Experiment

[jc456]

January 12, now 2016, and still no experiment posted.

No answer to questions asked as well.

Thanks Ian for the banter last month.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

CRN has become their undoing.. They can no longer justify their aberrant and multiple upon multiple corrections at a whim. CRN now is right on par with UAH and RSS which labels the HCN and its massive adjustments as unreliable. The HCN and all of their adjusted BS has now become the unreliable outlier by over 2 deg C. The faithful have nowhere to run now. CO2 is now show to NOT be coupled with water vapor and it is not the positive forcing they claimed. In fact CO2 is now shown to be almost a zero factor with water vapor now releasing more energy at TOA balancing the thermal reserve.

The potential of CO2 in the lab is not being seen in our atmosphere. The question we need to answer is why?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.....

Keeping the RAW unchanged/uncorrected data available to all would be the best step. If you want to make changes to the data you explain why and how you do it but you leave the historical data intact without modification. Both RSS and UAH have the original data unchanged. The agencies who extrapolate the data into temp are the ones responsible for their actions and output. The US CRN also has this type of data policy as it should be.

The methods used to create other data sets/extrapolations needs to be their own to justify. This goes back to repeatable and reliable science. without this kind of transparency you get what we have today, a cluster fuck that no one trusts and politicians use for their own agendas.

 

[mamooth]

The raw data is right here.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

I've pointed to that data many times before, yet many deniers still choose to lie outright and pretend it's not available. Lying is kind of what they do. It's all they do. For example, jc and frankhere keeps lying about no experiment, despite having experiments shown to him over and over.

Basically, it's not possible to be an honest person and be a hardcore denier. One can be honest and maintain a lukewarmer position, but all of the hardcore deniers here are pathologically dishonest cult pissguzzlers.

 

[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

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?

I'm curious Ian, is English not your first language?

The "Theory" states that increase CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and have catastrophic effect on our climate. We've been asking for the lab work showing the expected "Warming" from the 120PPM increase.

You'd think that with CO2 being so powerful, they could show us a 4F increase from the instant 120PPM increase, maybe 3F from a 100PPM increase, etc

 

[IanC]

Lol, Frank you need to broaden your science history. The 'Theory' started when someone measured how much sunshine hits the Earth. The numbers don't add up. There has to be a reason why the surface is warm enough to radiate 400W even though the Sun is only adding 165W.

You seem to want to ignore the main question and instead complain about the idiots who have hijacked the 'Theory' to promote catastrophe. Fair enough, carry on.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

Until water re-nucleates at high altitude it does not release its photons (IR) to space. Very little IR is radiated by water vapor during its transport to above cloud top layers. Something that alarmists refuse to acknowledge becasue it shows that water vapor acts as a negative forcing. This stops a mid-troposphere hot spot from occurring.. AGW = DEAD

 

[Billy_Bob]

The raw data is right here.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

I've pointed to that data many times before, yet many deniers still choose to lie outright and pretend it's not available. Lying is kind of what they do. It's all they do. For example, jc and frankhere keeps lying about no experiment, despite having experiments shown to him over and over.

Basically, it's not possible to be an honest person and be a hardcore denier. One can be honest and maintain a lukewarmer position, but all of the hardcore deniers here are pathologically dishonest cult pissguzzlers.

That data is the "produced raw data" 'Produced' meaning they have quality controlled it and made changes.. The only dishonest piece of shit here is you, hairball.

 

[jc456]

ah, so here we are 3/3/2016 and still no experiment that demonstrates what 120 PPM of CO2 does to warming.

Can you say crickets?

 

[jc456]

ah, so here we are 4/3/2016 and still no experiment that demonstrates what 120 PPM of CO2 does to warming.5

Can you say crickets?

BTW, they can also now explain with less LWIR coming off the surface how is it that it's getting warmer? So where is the heat actually at that causes catastrophic conditions? Please help us,

 

[jc456]

Well looky, looky, we are now in July, th 14th day of 2016, and still not one experiment that demonstrates the magical properties of CO2 with regard to temperature.

Nothing that can challenge this experiment:

CO2

Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.

Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.

Winning

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well looky, looky, we are now in July, th 14th day of 2016, and still not one experiment that demonstrates the magical properties of CO2 with regard to temperature.

Nothing that can challenge this experiment:

CO2

Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.

Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.

Winning

The Bottle is a DENIER!!! and the results must be adjusted accordingly

 

[mamooth]

Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.

What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory.

jc, if you weren't a 'tard, you would have understood that. However, you are a retard, so you fell for it hard.

Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.

Everyone is certainly very impressed with your obsessive lifelong devotion to pathologically lying, and with your inability to locate your balls, and with your rise to stardom in loser-American community.

Now, not all deniers are dishonest eunuchs. Just most of them.

 

[jc456]

Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.

What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory.

jc, if you weren't a 'tard, you would have understood that. However, you are a retard, so you fell for it hard.

Any day folks, any day. I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.

Everyone is certainly very impressed with your obsessive lifelong devotion to pathologically lying, and with your inability to locate your balls, and with your rise to stardom in loser-American community.

Now, not all deniers are dishonest eunuchs. Just most of them.

What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory.

Well of course not. It is to show that there isn't one. Success. Adding CO2 to air will cool the air. baddabing.

You should really stop showing your stupid side.

Oh, and I still noticed you haven't provided an experiment that disprove what I posted. That's called WINNING