Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Crick]

The caption is bullshit

 

[mamooth]

I said it because the most memorable stuff you posted 5 years ago were pictures of a sub reactor control room you copied from the Smithsonian Web Site and posted as "proof".

Keep on digging deeper with those lies.

The topic being discussed there was your insane claim that 1960s era reactors were controlled by digital computers running the type of modern software packages that you were familiar with. I posted that image as an example what a control room for that era of reactor actually looked like. There wasn't a single IC chip anywhere in it. Everything was analog. Being that images of reactor control rooms from actual ships are classified, no matter how obsolete the ship is, it's only possible to post images of museum pieces like that one.

Bullshit of that magnitude tends to be more memorable 5 years later than Navy ship or Navy sub reactor.

Are you willing to now admit your loopy claim of digital computers running 1960s reactors was bullshit, or will you continue to run?

Anyway you said there was no difference:
That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar. Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read,

That quote from me states there was a distinct difference. If you're going to lie like that, it's really stupid to include the quote that directly refutes your lie.

So when are you going to show me which instrument can measure the absorption of 1 part per BILLION CO2?

I'm sure some IR spectrometers could actually handle that task. But then, the whole topic there is a buttload of stupid by you. You're raging that a chart used ppb instead of ppm divided by a thousand. It's the same thing, dumbass. As long as you're above the quantum level, you can just scale smoothly.

 

[polarbear]

I said it because the most memorable stuff you posted 5 years ago were pictures of a sub reactor control room you copied from the Smithsonian Web Site and posted as "proof".

Keep on digging deeper with those lies.

The topic being discussed there was your insane claim that 1960s era reactors were controlled by digital computers running the type of modern software packages that you were familiar with. I posted that image as an example what a control room for that era of reactor actually looked like. There wasn't a single IC chip anywhere in it. Everything was analog. Being that images of reactor control rooms from actual ships are classified, no matter how obsolete the ship is, it's only possible to post images of museum pieces like that one.

Bullshit of that magnitude tends to be more memorable 5 years later than Navy ship or Navy sub reactor.

Are you willing to now admit your loopy claim of digital computers running 1960s reactors was bullshit, or will you continue to run?

Anyway you said there was no difference:
That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar. Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read,

That quote from me states there was a distinct difference. If you're going to lie like that, it's really stupid to include the quote that directly refutes your lie.

So when are you going to show me which instrument can measure the absorption of 1 part per BILLION CO2?

I'm sure some IR spectrometers could actually handle that task. But then, the whole topic there is a buttload of stupid by you. You're raging that a chart used ppb instead of ppm divided by a thousand. It's the same thing, dumbass. As long as you're above the quantum level, you can just scale smoothly.

Hahaha you said the teletype was the only difference. Thanks for reminding me about your screwy definition of digital computing. "There wasn't a single IC chip anywhere in it. Everything was analog."
You call yourself a "nuclear engineer" saying it can`t be a computer because there were no microchips and never heard of analog computers. Even the vintage teletype used digital logic already. The only difference is that it`s hardwired logic instead of programmable.
And now you rant : "I'm sure some IR spectrometers could actually handle that task"...and that it won`t make a difference if its a part per billion or per million...as long as its above the quantum level.
So go ahead and show me one of these...
As usual the bulk of your reply is verbal garbage thank god minus the spittle you can`t hit me with but amply substitute for with your usual foaming loud-mouth crap.
Maybe its all the beatings that you got because of it is why you are totally unhinged,

 

[SSDD]

That is why you are wasting your time trying to educate these stupid silly uneducated low information Environmental Wackos that have bought this AGW scam. They quote discredited science and falsified conclusions.

If the whole world says a person is wrong, that person then has two choices.

A. They can act like a rational person, assume that the rest of humanity probably knows more than they do, and research the issue further.

B. Or, they can act like a person consumed with narcissism and paranoia, and immediately declare how they know better than everyone, and that nearly every human on the planet is obviously plotting against them.

You chose option B, the standard cultist response. And then you wonder why you're not taken seriously.

There is a third option...and it is repeated over and over throughout the history of science...a recent example is Dan Schectman..the whole scientific world stood against him...drummed him out of the scientific societies he belonged to...ridiculed him...laughed at him...told him he was wrong....He believed quasi crystals existed...the rest of the scientific world didn't...he got a nobel prize for their discovery not so long ago....

Cultists don't believe they can be wrong...they ignore evidence to the contrary...you ignore everything that contradicts your beliefs...you don't learn...sorry hairball...yet again, history, and observable evidence proves you wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is why you are wasting your time trying to educate these stupid silly uneducated low information Environmental Wackos that have bought this AGW scam. They quote discredited science and falsified conclusions.

If the whole world says a person is wrong, that person then has two choices.

A. They can act like a rational person, assume that the rest of humanity probably knows more than they do, and research the issue further.

B. Or, they can act like a person consumed with narcissism and paranoia, and immediately declare how they know better than everyone, and that nearly every human on the planet is obviously plotting against them.

You chose option B, the standard cultist response. And then you wonder why you're not taken seriously.

There is a third option...and it is repeated over and over throughout the history of science...a recent example is Dan Schectman..the whole scientific world stood against him...drummed him out of the scientific societies he belonged to...ridiculed him...laughed at him...told him he was wrong....He believed quasi crystals existed...the rest of the scientific world didn't...he got a nobel prize for their discovery not so long ago....

Cultists don't believe they can be wrong...they ignore evidence to the contrary...you ignore everything that contradicts your beliefs...you don't learn...sorry hairball...yet again, history, and observable evidence proves you wrong.

There is a third option...and it is repeated over and over throughout the history of science...a recent example is Dan Schectman..the whole scientific world stood against him...drummed him out of the scientific societies he belonged to...ridiculed him...laughed at him...told him he was wrong....

Is that you? The one soldier fighting against the lie of two way flow of radiation?
The whole world is wrong and you're gonna fight, fight, fight until you're proven right.

You and your dimmer switch.

Wow.

 

[Crick]

I said it because the most memorable stuff you posted 5 years ago were pictures of a sub reactor control room you copied from the Smithsonian Web Site and posted as "proof".

Keep on digging deeper with those lies.

The topic being discussed there was your insane claim that 1960s era reactors were controlled by digital computers running the type of modern software packages that you were familiar with. I posted that image as an example what a control room for that era of reactor actually looked like. There wasn't a single IC chip anywhere in it. Everything was analog. Being that images of reactor control rooms from actual ships are classified, no matter how obsolete the ship is, it's only possible to post images of museum pieces like that one.

Bullshit of that magnitude tends to be more memorable 5 years later than Navy ship or Navy sub reactor.

Are you willing to now admit your loopy claim of digital computers running 1960s reactors was bullshit, or will you continue to run?

Anyway you said there was no difference:
That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar. Replace the teletype with a desk, and that's where I sat. I knew what every gauge, light and switch was, what it was supposed to read,

That quote from me states there was a distinct difference. If you're going to lie like that, it's really stupid to include the quote that directly refutes your lie.

So when are you going to show me which instrument can measure the absorption of 1 part per BILLION CO2?

I'm sure some IR spectrometers could actually handle that task. But then, the whole topic there is a buttload of stupid by you. You're raging that a chart used ppb instead of ppm divided by a thousand. It's the same thing, dumbass. As long as you're above the quantum level, you can just scale smoothly.

I can testify that the maneuvering room panels of 598 and 637 class submarines (and everything prior back to Nautilus) were entirely analog.

 

[mamooth]

Hahaha you said the teletype was the only difference.

Agaion, you're just lying openly, as the quote demonstrates. "That's from a submarine, as I can tell from the ring bus on the Electrical Control Panel, but the EOS on a cruiser looked very similar." "Similar" is not "the same".

Thanks for reminding me about your screwy definition of digital computing. "There wasn't a single IC chip anywhere in it. Everything was analog." You call yourself a "nuclear engineer" saying it can`t be a computer because there were no microchips and never heard of analog computers.

So now you're telling everyone that analog computers are digital computers. Wow.

Even the vintage teletype used digital logic already. The only difference is that it`s hardwired logic instead of programmable.

Hardwired digital logic is not a digital computer. A light switch is hardwired digital logic, but it's not a computer. In general, to be a "computer", something requires the ability to be programmed in software.

Let's go over the past that you're raving about, as some might not know.

I once made an offhand comment that I knew about heat flow, as I used to run reactors.

You, Westwall, and gslack, also known as "Team Dickless", decided to start spitting on my military record and declaring I was a fraud. I especially enjoyed your threats to call the RCMP on me for ... something, even though I live in the USA.

In order to show what a big fraud I was, you asked me a supposed gotcha question what software controlled the turbine generators. I pointed out since everything was analog-controlled, your question was stupid. You still haven't answered my question. What digital computers do you say were running your modern generator-control software in 1960?

Oh, this is off-topic enough, so if you want me to respond, start a thread in the military forums, where your statements can be judged by the other vets. I'm not afraid of that. I know you are.

 

[Crick]

You call yourself a "nuclear engineer" saying it can`t be a computer because there were no microchips and never heard of analog computers. Even the vintage teletype used digital logic already. The only difference is that it`s hardwired logic instead of programmable.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaa. Analog computers are just that fool: A N A L O G

God are you stupid.

 

[polarbear]

You call yourself a "nuclear engineer" saying it can`t be a computer because there were no microchips and never heard of analog computers. Even the vintage teletype used digital logic already. The only difference is that it`s hardwired logic instead of programmable.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaa. Analog computers are just that fool: A N A L O G

God are you stupid.

Now isn`t that typical. This idiot has to fabricate a statement that I supposedly made so that he can give himself the better grade. As if I said anything to the effect that analog computers are not analog.
Amazing what you put together there from 3 separate statements. You must have a hell of a time to assemble something simple that comes in a box with a set of instructions.
I am beginning to wonder if you and that phony "nuclear engineer" are one and the same person. Same methods, falsifying other people`s statements, same lame insults and the same rousing self-applause.
Naah unfortunately not. There are plenty of morons just like you that do what you do every day all day long, posting your garbage because its the only thing you can do.

 

[Crick]

Yes, god, that stupid.

 

[SSDD]

You call yourself a "nuclear engineer" saying it can`t be a computer because there were no microchips and never heard of analog computers. Even the vintage teletype used digital logic already. The only difference is that it`s hardwired logic instead of programmable.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaa. Analog computers are just that fool: A N A L O G

God are you stupid.

Now isn`t that typical. This idiot has to fabricate a statement that I supposedly made so that he can give himself the better grade. As if I said anything to the effect that analog computers are not analog.
Amazing what you put together there from 3 separate statements. You must have a hell of a time to assemble something simple that comes in a box with a set of instructions.
I am beginning to wonder if you and that phony "nuclear engineer" are one and the same person. Same methods, falsifying other people`s statements, same lame insults and the same rousing self-applause.
Naah unfortunately not. There are plenty of morons just like you that do what you do every day all day long, posting your garbage because its the only thing you can do.

It's their M.O. twist what you said into something you didn't and then argue against their version of what you said. You spend more time correcting what they said, and bringing forward your own statements than you do actually addressing the issue, which is what they want in the first place since actually arguing the science is always going to be a losing proposition for them.

 

[Crick]

This conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. This crap grew from on an ad-hominem attack on a poster. That would be YOUR MO.

The world's climate scientists, as reported in the IPCC's assessment reports, have amassed mountains of evidence that the globe is warming, that humans are responsible and that the threat is real, severe and imminent. The contentions of deniers are based on the assumption that almost every single one of the thousands of degreed scientists doing climate research around the world are either universally incompetent or all involved in a massive and perfectly maintained conspiracy to lie to the public in order to obtain research funding. No one of reasonable intelligence (say, 8th grade or above) can find such a contention reasonable. That almost every single denier is very conservative politically and hold strongly antagonistic feeling towards liberals, tells me that they are allowing their political biases to strongly influence whatever rational judgement they actually possess.

 

[polarbear]

You call yourself a "nuclear engineer" saying it can`t be a computer because there were no microchips and never heard of analog computers. Even the vintage teletype used digital logic already. The only difference is that it`s hardwired logic instead of programmable.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaaa. Analog computers are just that fool: A N A L O G

God are you stupid.

Now isn`t that typical. This idiot has to fabricate a statement that I supposedly made so that he can give himself the better grade. As if I said anything to the effect that analog computers are not analog.
Amazing what you put together there from 3 separate statements. You must have a hell of a time to assemble something simple that comes in a box with a set of instructions.
I am beginning to wonder if you and that phony "nuclear engineer" are one and the same person. Same methods, falsifying other people`s statements, same lame insults and the same rousing self-applause.
Naah unfortunately not. There are plenty of morons just like you that do what you do every day all day long, posting your garbage because its the only thing you can do.

It's their M.O. twist what you said into something you didn't and then argue against their version of what you said. You spend more time correcting what they said, and bringing forward your own statements than you do actually addressing the issue, which is what they want in the first place since actually arguing the science is always going to be a losing proposition for them.

Exactly ! But if you zero in on something they actually did say they pretend not to know what you are talking about. Then you are supposed to post the entire & exact quote and not just your version of what they said, as they keep doing. That`s how liars have been doing it ever since mankind began to adjudicate.

 

[Crick]

The world's climate scientists, as reported in the IPCC's assessment reports, have amassed mountains of evidence that the globe is warming, that humans are responsible and that the threat is real, severe and imminent. The contentions of deniers are based on the assumption that almost every single one of the thousands of degreed scientists doing climate research around the world are either universally incompetent or all involved in a massive and perfectly maintained conspiracy to lie to the public in order to obtain research funding. No one of reasonable intelligence (say, 8th grade or above) can find such a contention reasonable. That almost every single denier is very conservative politically and hold strongly antagonistic feeling towards liberals, tells me that they are allowing their political biases to strongly influence whatever rational judgement they actually possess.

 

[polarbear]

This conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread topic. This crap grew from on an ad-hominem attack on a poster. That would be YOUR MO.

The world's climate scientists, as reported in the IPCC's assessment reports, have amassed mountains of evidence that the globe is warming, that humans are responsible and that the threat is real, severe and imminent. The contentions of deniers are based on the assumption that almost every single one of the thousands of degreed scientists doing climate research around the world are either universally incompetent or all involved in a massive and perfectly maintained conspiracy to lie to the public in order to obtain research funding. No one of reasonable intelligence (say, 8th grade or above) can find such a contention reasonable. That almost every single denier is very conservative politically and hold strongly antagonistic feeling towards liberals, tells me that they are allowing their political biases to strongly influence whatever rational judgement they actually possess.

That "mass of evidence" is better described as a mess of evidence. Anyone with the ability to make a rational judgement is aware of how much cheating was involved to fabricate the low pre industrial temperatures in order to exaggerate any small increase in temperature after that.
It does take a complete idiot to actually believe that this "mass of evidence" a bunch of dickheads fabricated to shape the hockey stick function qualifies as science. It started out with the lead fraud artist Mann and his ridiculous tree ring thermometer supposedly accurate to a fraction of a degree and mushroomed to a "mass of evidence" forwarded by his supporters. They came up with all kinds of so called "proxy thermometers".
The word "proxy" is supposed to fool us that tree rings, bugs in the mud etc are representing temperature just as good as it can be done with modern instruments.
Anybody can read modern instruments. A thermometer does not care who is looking at it, but that is not so with all these "proxy thermometers". Only the right kind of witch doctor can read the chicken bone magic.
The 97% of the chicken bone magicians who declared allegiance to Michael Mann does not make their pile of bullshit a "mass of evidence" for anyone else but the most gullible and stupid.
These people refuse to accept any hard evidence and throw fits if you do....like the kind of fits Mann and his cronies threw when their emails got hacked.

 

[Crick]

As previously stated, you have NO evidence of this charge of falsified temperature data and it requires a massive and completely unbelievable conspiracy. The MBH 98 and 99 data have been reproduced by several other researchers. No one has ever claimed that proxy data are as accurate as modern thermometers. Note the error bars on the data in question. If you don't like proxies, then you simply have NO way of estimating temperatures prior to the invention and wide use of the thermometer.

You're simply ranting. You haven't presented ANYTHING that even resembles evidence. All you have are unsubstantiated assertions.

 

[IanC]

Crick is unable or unwilling to understand the weaknesses of proxy reconstructions.

Mann's hockey stick is the result of two types of error. Data that is not fit for purpose like stripbark pines or the Tiljander cores. And/or methodologies that vastly inflate the significance of outliers, a la MBH98,99.

 

[Crick]

Hello Ian. Long time no see.

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

• Eugene R. Wahl
• Caspar M. Ammann

Article
First Online: 31 August 2007

• 70 Shares
  
• 589 Downloads
  
• 49 Citations

Abstract
The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05∘), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

 

[IanC]

I don't particularly want to drag up the details of that yet again.

Amman and Wahl wrote a rebuttal that was referenced by the IPCC but couldn't get published. In direct violation of IPCC rules.

Anyone who wants a history and links can simply Google "The Jesus Paper" by Montford.

 

[Crick]

Amman and Wahl wrote a rebuttal of what? McKittrick and his alliterative little sidekick?