To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[SSDD]

A graph prepared by an un named someone on a warmer blog? Are you serious hairball? Let me guess...you are...you will accept anything from anyone so long as it supports your point of view.

And it doesn't go unnoticed that your....whoever....chose two data sets while the one I provided was the average of 4 data sets and two satellite sets...if your...whoever....had shown a graph using all available data....it would look like the one I posted and not like a cherrypicked graph produced for fear mongers.

 

[SSDD]

Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris

LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...

so what is the plan?

the plan....as always is to generate some splashy headlines and then not speak about it when nothing happens.

 

[Carla_Danger]

At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore. And those emails sure got squelched. Gotta throw the on AGW.

Yep!

They are in full delete mode these days. Failed predictions are being deleted all over the place..

One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet

AR5 has hockey sticks coming out the kazoo and if you want to talk about failed predictions, let's talk about all of YOURS. Where is the model that can recreate the last 50 years without inlcuding AGW? What's been YOUR personal record with el Nino predictions Billy?

Your signature is hilarious!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.

And by "Crap" you mean it accurately portrays the readings and refuses to make the necessary adjustments to stop being a DENIER!!!. right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My my my but you are quite the lying idiot aren't you? Have you bothered to look at the radiosonde data next to the satellite data?

Of course I have. Unlike you, I look at real data instead of fraud blogs. You and Spencer are lying about it. The radiosonde/weather balloon temperatures disagree with the satellite model temperatures, and agree very closely with the surface station data and the climate models.

Of course you haven't...or perhaps you have and just can't lying about what you saw. Here, have another look.

That's just mystery dots on a page. No sources, no references to where the balloon data came from. Unlike Spencer, I'll give the exact source of where to get the weather balloon temperature data.

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The link to the data is right there, the data in text format. Anyone can download it. It's the 85 stations of the global RATPAC network, specifically designed to have global coverage, and to use consistently calibrated instruments. There have been thousands of other balloon launching sites in the past, but they've had major problems concerning no consistency among instruments and calibration. I'm guessing Spencer must have searched among those thousands of sites and cherrypicked madly until he found something to match his other fudging.

Yep...they sure do....and look at how closely the measurements follow the satellites....especially since about 2002....seems that the satellite record is correct

The balloon temperatures diverge wildly from the satellite model output temperatures. Not a surprise, since the convoluted satellite model has such a history of sucking, while the balloon and surface station temperatures are direct, simple and consistent. Only deniers still cling to those failed satellite models, because all of the good data says deniers are completely wrong.

while the surface record has been tampered beyond recognition...

The total modifications to the surface record have made the warming look _smaller_. If scientists did no corrections at all, the warming would look bigger. Your conspiracy theory is flatly contradicted by reality.

And again, look at how closely they track the radiosonde (actual measurement) data....especially, as I said since about 2002. Far more accurate than the surface record.

Let's look at the actual data, as opposed to Spencer's mystery dots. Tamino here did the plotting for us.

Ted Cruz: Just Plain Wrong

As the graphs show, the satellites started diverging from the balloons around 2000, and the divergence has now grown to the point where the output of the satellite models is ridiculously low. There's clearly a significant drift issue with the satellites.

That can't happen with the surface measurements and balloons, of course, since those come from thousands of independent instruments. If one instrument drifts off, cross-checking with other instruments reveals the problem. As the satellite measurements come from just one or two instruments with nothing good to cross check too, drift is a serious problem. That's why nobody of any intelligence trusts the satellite data over the good data.

When the satellite data and radiosonde data are so close, why does one need to choose. It is the climate models that are the epic failure...

In summary, the weather balloon temperature trends and surface temperature trends agree very closely with each other, and with the climate models, demonstrating how good the models have been. The satellite model temperature trend disagrees with everything, demonstrating how bad that model output is.

SSDD, you've got a choice to make now. Previous to this post, you could have used ignorance as your excuse as to why you pushed Spencer's fraud. You can't use that excuse any more. Will you still back the fraud now, thus announcing to everyone that you're actively and deliberately endorsing the fraud?

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question? If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

 

[Dot Com]

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.

^ that

CrusaderFrank

 

[Dot Com]

At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore. And those emails sure got squelched. Gotta throw the on AGW.

Yep!

They are in full delete mode these days. Failed predictions are being deleted all over the place..

One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet

AR5 has hockey sticks coming out the kazoo and if you want to talk about failed predictions, let's talk about all of YOURS. Where is the model that can recreate the last 50 years without inlcuding AGW? What's been YOUR personal record with el Nino predictions Billy?

Your signature is hilarious!

It is

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.

^ that

CrusaderFrank

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question? If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

^ this!

 

[mamooth]

A graph prepared by an un named someone on a warmer blog?

I gave you the NOAA source of the raw data for the graph. If I'm lying, you can easily prove it. Just show where that data doesn't match the graph.

But if you're lying, we know what you'll do. You'll scream insults and run. You can proceed to do that now.

Are you serious hairball? Let me guess...you are...you will accept anything from anyone so long as it supports your point of view.

I linked to the actual raw data.

You linked to no data.

You did what a fraud would do. The readers can make their own conclusions.

And it doesn't go unnoticed that your....whoever....chose two data sets while the one I provided was the average of 4 data sets

That might pass muster with your fellow cultists, but not with the reality-based community. We realists understand that saying you have 4 data sets does not mean you actually have 4 good data sets. It just means you plotted some mystery dots.

If you and Spencer aren't frauds, then you need to prove it by linking to your mystery data sets.

.if your...whoever....had shown a graph using all available data....

Which is exactly what was done, plotting the global RATPAC data set.

(Given how badly you're getting humiliated here, don't you think it's time to give up?)

 

[Vigilante]

SEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY... Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Ice Free in Five Years - The Gateway Pundit

 

[Dot Com]

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.

^ that

CrusaderFrank

According to NOAA, "The temporal homogeneity of many radiosonde time series is questionable due to historical changes in instruments and measurement practices. This may make them unsuitable for the study of long-term climate variations, such as through trend analysis."

What does "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" mean? In other words, we didn't like the reading so we reserve the right to edit them out in favor of reading more in line with our theory. So how reliable are the "historical changes in instruments and measurement practices" from 10, 20 30 years ago? Does all the data come into question? If you find a financial report where the auditor is saying some of the number today are different than the were a few years ago, you know you're looking at a fraud

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

^ this!

I see what you did there

CrusaderFrank

 

[SSDD]

I gave you the NOAA source of the raw data for the graph. If I'm lying, you can easily prove it. Just show where that data doesn't match the graph.

A single cherry picked data set...my graph uses all 4 available data sets...if yours were not a cherry picked graph, it would be the same as mine. Of course that would assume that you were even capable of honesty...we all know that you aren't.

 

[Billy_Bob]

At least we don't see the hockey stick crap anymore. And those emails sure got squelched. Gotta throw the on AGW.

Yep!

They are in full delete mode these days. Failed predictions are being deleted all over the place..

One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet

AR5 has hockey sticks coming out the kazoo and if you want to talk about failed predictions, let's talk about all of YOURS. Where is the model that can recreate the last 50 years without inlcuding AGW? What's been YOUR personal record with el Nino predictions Billy?

Your signature is hilarious!

Cricks lies and half truths heralded by a moron as hilarious.. Birds of a feather..


Cricks crap is just that, crap! Hey Crick where are your predictions and cognitive thought? Oh thats right.. you two do as you are told..

 

[Crick]

Still waiting to see a successfully hindcasting model that does not use AGW. I've asked that question a half dozen times in the last week and have not received ONE SINGLE FUCKING RESPONSE.

Now why would THAT be?

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting to see a successfully hindcasting model that does not use AGW. I've asked that question a half dozen times in the last week and have not received ONE SINGLE FUCKING RESPONSE.

Now why would THAT be?

I gave you one crick...you didn't like it? Unlike you....I can provide material to support what I think...you believe in the AGW hypothesis but can't even provide empirical evidence to prove the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis.

Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists.. | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mamooth]

Ah, the David Evans/JoNova "Force X Notch Filter" babbling. Those not in the cult just laughed at how sad Evans' science was. Even most other deniers were embarrassed at how bad it was. But SSDD's faith is strong here, and reality won't be able to challenge it.

Evans was astounded that the 11-year solar cycle doesn't show in temperature records, and concluded the climate must have a notch-filter around that 11-year frequency. The cause? A mysterious "Force X". What is Force X? Evans didn't say. SSDD, can you update us? Did Evans ever reveal what the magical Force X was?

Evans displays the "specialists fallacy". His experience is with Fourier Transforms and filters, so he assumes every phenomenon in the universe is explainable solely in those terms. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So, a year ago, upon putting out his "model". Evans declared temperatures would stay level before sharply dropping. In that past year, temperatures shot up. Hence, his model is disproved. So SSDD, got any models that haven't failed hard?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah, the David Evans/JoNova "Force X Notch Filter" babbling. Those not in the cult just laughed at how sad Evans' science was. Even most other deniers were embarrassed at how bad it was. But SSDD's faith is strong here, and reality won't be able to challenge it.

Evans was astounded that the 11-year solar cycle doesn't show in temperature records, and concluded the climate must have a notch-filter around that 11-year frequency. The cause? A mysterious "Force X". What is Force X? Evans didn't say. SSDD, can you update us? Did Evans ever reveal what the magical Force X was?

Evans displays the "specialists fallacy". His experience is with Fourier Transforms and filters, so he assumes every phenomenon in the universe is explainable solely in those terms. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So, a year ago, upon putting out his "model". Evans declared temperatures would stay level before sharply dropping. In that past year, temperatures shot up. Hence, his model is disproved. So SSDD, got any models that haven't failed hard?

And when you say, "temperatures shot up" you mean AFTER you include the 93% of the "excess heat" that was adsorbed by the oceans, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ah, the David Evans/JoNova "Force X Notch Filter" babbling. Those not in the cult just laughed at how sad Evans' science was. Even most other deniers were embarrassed at how bad it was. But SSDD's faith is strong here, and reality won't be able to challenge it.

Evans was astounded that the 11-year solar cycle doesn't show in temperature records, and concluded the climate must have a notch-filter around that 11-year frequency. The cause? A mysterious "Force X". What is Force X? Evans didn't say. SSDD, can you update us? Did Evans ever reveal what the magical Force X was?

Evans displays the "specialists fallacy". His experience is with Fourier Transforms and filters, so he assumes every phenomenon in the universe is explainable solely in those terms. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

So, a year ago, upon putting out his "model". Evans declared temperatures would stay level before sharply dropping. In that past year, temperatures shot up. Hence, his model is disproved. So SSDD, got any models that haven't failed hard?

D'oh!!

 

[mamooth]

I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.

Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.

In climate news, NASA GISS shows the November 2015 global average temperature anomaly at +1.05C, the hottest November ever, and just behind the October 2015 anomaly of +1.06C. 2015 will shatter the old record for hottest year, barring a sudden supervolcano or major asteroid impact.

And that's why the "no warming!" cranks look completely insane and pathologically dishonest now. Seriously deniers, just stop faking the data. Nobody is falling for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm thinking I should write a Frank-simulator script. It wouldn't be hard. Make some lists of his stock nonsense phrases, then have the script choose from them randomly and piece them together.

Hmm. Maybe that's what Frank is. That is, there is no actual person behind the account, just a script generating semi-random nonsense.

In climate news, NASA GISS shows the November 2015 global average temperature anomaly at +1.05C, the hottest November ever, and just behind the October 2015 anomaly of +1.06C. 2015 will shatter the old record for hottest year, barring a sudden supervolcano or major asteroid impact.

And that's why the "no warming!" cranks look completely insane and pathologically dishonest now. Seriously deniers, just stop faking the data. Nobody is falling for it.

And when you say, "Warmest EVAH!!!" you mean AFTER you include the 93% of the "excess heat" that was adsorbed by the oceans, right?