CDZ The Little Ice Age Has Begun - What Should We Do?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by boedicca, Dec 24, 2016.

  1. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    15,712
    Thanks Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +8,540
    I note you posted no data to back up your claim.

    In contrast, I backed up my claim with hard data.

    I can do that because all the data says you're making stuff up, and I'm telling the truth.

    Here, let me do some more of the thing that you pseudoscience cultists hate the most, which is use actual data. This comes from Karl 2015. Not how the the corrections make the past look warmer, which makes the warming look smaller.

    If you'd like, scientists could use nothing but raw data, which would make the warming look bigger. Is that what you want?


    [​IMG]
     
  2. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    15,712
    Thanks Received:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +8,540
    No, almost all of the 1970s cooling papers come from Dr. Reid Bryson, who was one of the most hardcore deniers until he died. The CIA paper you like to show was entirely based on Bryson's bad work, as was the media hype. Meanwhile, most everyone else in the science was predicting warming. The good scientists have been consistently right in predicting warming for 40 years now, and the deniers have been consistently wrong by predicting cooling all that time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    28,259
    Thanks Received:
    3,290
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,656
    LIAR!
     
  4. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    28,259
    Thanks Received:
    3,290
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,656
    LIAR!
     
  5. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    28,259
    Thanks Received:
    3,290
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,656
    LIAR!
     
  6. Yarddog
    Offline

    Yarddog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    Messages:
    5,536
    Thanks Received:
    1,371
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,573

    Tuscon Arizona
     
  7. westwall
    Online

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    44,754
    Thanks Received:
    8,998
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +25,072





    Oh? you forgot Paul Ehrlich already? I can see why you would....


    [​IMG]
     
  8. westwall
    Online

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    44,754
    Thanks Received:
    8,998
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +25,072




    Go home until you come up with something more substantial than a juvenile invective.
     
  9. westwall
    Online

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    44,754
    Thanks Received:
    8,998
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +25,072








    Yes, you provide "hard data" that is not. It is "corrections". Corrections aren't data. The highlighted section is the lie.

    "First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (1517). This is particularly important because much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (supplementary materials). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) data set version 4, which we used in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction that is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4. [IPCC (1) used a global analysis from the UK Met Office that found the same average ship-buoy difference globally, although the corrections applied in that analysis were equal to differences observed within each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with better-known instrument characteristics and automated sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13).
     
  10. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    28,259
    Thanks Received:
    3,290
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +6,656
    You first HYPOCRITE!!!
     

Share This Page