USHCN Data

[mamooth]

jc, I can't say your science has been debunked, being you've never actually talked about science. You're just a mindless attack poodle for the enemies of your cult.

Keep on yipping about your imaginary victories, but the planet still thinks you're a cultist. That's got to sting, knowing how almost everyone considers you to be a kook and a fraud. How do you handle the mental strain of it? Not well, as your posts indicate.

Again, enjoy the life of humiliation you've signed on for. You've richly earned it all.

 

[jc456]

jc, I can't say your science has been debunked, being you've never actually talked about science. You're just a mindless attack poodle for the enemies of your cult.

Keep on yipping about your imaginary victories, but the planet still thinks you're a cultist. That's got to sting, knowing how almost everyone considers you to be a kook and a fraud. How do you handle the mental strain of it? Not well, as your posts indicate.

Again, enjoy the life of humiliation you've signed on for. You've richly earned it all.

Well sir, my yipping is more accurate than anything you've posted regarding the state of the planet. The fact that you sir, have no scientific evidence is again my evidence that you sir don't use science for any of your posts. All Ive asked you for is the expirement that proved the hypothesis you claim. Is that really outside the boundaries of science? Really?

The lack of that proof makes you losing!!!! So excuse me while I have a chuckle at your expense. chuckle...........

 

[mamooth]

Since we've shown you proof over and over, you look like a dishonest cultist for pretending otherwise.

And that routine of yours has grown very boring. Got any new routines to entertain us with? Maybe you could jump through a flaming hoop, or balance a ball on your nose.

 

[jc456]

Since we've shown you proof over and over, you look like a dishonest cultist for pretending otherwise.

And that routine of yours has grown very boring. Got any new routines to entertain us with? Maybe you could jump through a flaming hoop, or balance a ball on your nose.

Every, I repeat, every post you provided with your so called evidence has been debunked on one premise and you still haven't learned that. Correlation is not causation. Models are not evidence, no matter how hard you wish to make them. Evidence is an expirement or lab data that proves that an increase of CO2 causes or drives temperatures. Sir, with all respect, you just have never provided that evidence. Now don't go away crying or anything, but when you learn the difference between correlation and causation and can finally prove your claim, you sir are LOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Correlation is not causation.

You're the only one who has ever used that tactic. And we all agree, your use of that tactic shows that your science stinks.

Models are not evidence, no matter how hard you wish to make them.

Sure they are. After all, gravity is just a model as well, but we use that. You need to explain why you've developed such a selective model-hate in this one very specific case. But we don't even need the models. Models are just icing on the cake.

Evidence is an expirement or lab data

The IR absorption and emission spectrums of CO2 have been well-quantified in the lab. I've already provided such links. They were ignored.

that proves that an increase of CO2 causes or drives temperatures.

We directly measure outward longwave radiation decreasing in the CO2 bands. We measure the downward longwave radiation increasing. Those are smoking guns. Thus, deniers pretend they don't exist.

So far, the only conceivable explanation for those direct measurements is because greenhouse gases are warming the earth. If you've got an alternate theory, publish it and collect your Nobel Prize.

Sir, with all respect, you just have never provided that evidence

Of course we have. You've just pretended not to see it, over and over.

 

[Kosh]

I am always bewildered by the lack of interest in temperature dataset adjustments. does everyone just believe that the adjustments are correct and carried out in an evenhanded fashion? does no one care that anytime you actually inspect a specific example that the adjustments seem at odds with what is supposed to be done according to the explanations of the algorithms?

The only wonder is why real scientists don't boot these AGW Frauds off campus and out of the labs. Oh right, they wouldn't be caught dead in a lab.

Need to do away with tenure and get the AGW cult leaders out of the grant money process.

 

[Kosh]

Correlation is not causation.

You're the only one who has ever used that tactic. And we all agree, your use of that tactic shows that your science stinks.

Models are not evidence, no matter how hard you wish to make them.

Sure they are. After all, gravity is just a model as well, but we use that. You need to explain why you've developed such a selective model-hate in this one very specific case. But we don't even need the models. Models are just icing on the cake.



The IR absorption and emission spectrums of CO2 have been well-quantified in the lab. I've already provided such links. They were ignored.

that proves that an increase of CO2 causes or drives temperatures.

We directly measure outward longwave radiation decreasing in the CO2 bands. We measure the downward longwave radiation increasing. Those are smoking guns. Thus, deniers pretend they don't exist.

So far, the only conceivable explanation for those direct measurements is because greenhouse gases are warming the earth. If you've got an alternate theory, publish it and collect your Nobel Prize.

Sir, with all respect, you just have never provided that evidence

Of course we have. You've just pretended not to see it, over and over.

And yet not one cult member has been able to provide one link with datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

AGW is religion not based on science, yet they still want to argue that is science.

 

[jc456]

Correlation is not causation.

You're the only one who has ever used that tactic. And we all agree, your use of that tactic shows that your science stinks.

Models are not evidence, no matter how hard you wish to make them.

Sure they are. After all, gravity is just a model as well, but we use that. You need to explain why you've developed such a selective model-hate in this one very specific case. But we don't even need the models. Models are just icing on the cake.



The IR absorption and emission spectrums of CO2 have been well-quantified in the lab. I've already provided such links. They were ignored.

that proves that an increase of CO2 causes or drives temperatures.

We directly measure outward longwave radiation decreasing in the CO2 bands. We measure the downward longwave radiation increasing. Those are smoking guns. Thus, deniers pretend they don't exist.

So far, the only conceivable explanation for those direct measurements is because greenhouse gases are warming the earth. If you've got an alternate theory, publish it and collect your Nobel Prize.

Sir, with all respect, you just have never provided that evidence

Of course we have. You've just pretended not to see it, over and over.

I will update this at a later date, FYI. I have to run.

 

[jc456]

Was able to get this before I left. I was waiting on something so I updated this during the wait.

Correlation is not causation.

You're the only one who has ever used that tactic. And we all agree, your use of that tactic shows that your science stinks.

See you can't help yourself from the lies. Each and everyone of the posters who disagrees with you agrees with me, so your claim of all does not cut the cheese here. Loser!!!!!!!!!!!!

Models are not evidence, no matter how hard you wish to make them.

Sure they are. After all, gravity is just a model as well, but we use that. You need to explain why you've developed such a selective model-hate in this one very specific case. But we don't even need the models. Models are just icing on the cake.



The IR absorption and emission spectrums of CO2 have been well-quantified in the lab. I've already provided such links. They were ignored.

There is no direct causation that you can document to state what the temperatures are from 120PPM of CO2. It isn't documented so again you lose.

that proves that an increase of CO2 causes or drives temperatures.

We directly measure outward longwave radiation decreasing in the CO2 bands. We measure the downward longwave radiation increasing. Those are smoking guns. Thus, deniers pretend they don't exist.

So far, the only conceivable explanation for those direct measurements is because greenhouse gases are warming the earth. If you've got an alternate theory, publish it and collect your Nobel Prize.

There is no direct causation that you can document to state what the temperatures are from 120PPM of CO2. It isn't documented so again you lose. BTW, I don't have to collect a Nobel prize, I just want to see the evidence that shows the temperatures from 120PPM of CO2. You can't provide it otherwise you would have. So IR this and IR that, the problem is you have no idea how warm each increment of CO2 might even be. So you have no proof there is any at all. Greenhouse gas is the ability to absorb, I don't expect that the IRbeing retransmitted in all directions means added heat to the surface. I just don't. You would have to prove that piece to me. You can't, so hence my apprehension.

Sir, with all respect, you just have never provided that evidence

Of course we have. You've just pretended not to see it, over and over.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

 

[westwall]

What to compare the data of warming to? How about glacial recession, world wide? I have seen that up close and personal in the Cascades, Sierras, and Rockies. How about the melting of the continental ice caps? Greenland and Antarctica? The thawing of the permafrost in Siberia, and the North American Arctic? What about the fact that almost certainly the whole of the Arctic Ocean will be open water by 2030, far sooner than 2100 date that the 'alarmists' were talking about less than two decades ago.

And 90% of that occurred BEFORE 1900

 

[mamooth]

See you can't help yourself from the lies. Each and everyone of the posters who disagrees with you agrees with me, so your claim of all does not cut the cheese here. Loser!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've never said or implied the correlation between CO2 and temperature proves causation. None of the rational people here have. The only person here talking that way is you. It's a dishonest strawmen you build because you can't address what people actually say.

By the way, can you make it clear for everyone, that you're saying there _is_ a temperature increase? Deniers tend to flip-flop in mid-paragraph between "there's no warming" and "The warming is natural", so for future reference, I'd like to pin you down to one position.

There is no direct causation that you can document to state what the temperatures are from 120PPM of CO2. It isn't documented so again you lose.

And that's why you're called a denier. You see evidence that contradicts your religion, you pretend it's not there, and it's back to your mantras.

So IR this and IR that, the problem is you have no idea how warm each increment of CO2 might even be.

Sure we do. Go look up "climate sensitivity". You don't seem familiar with the science at all.

Greenhouse gas is the ability to absorb, I don't expect that the IRbeing retransmitted in all directions means added heat to the surface.

Then you're lacking in basic common sense, being that "down towards the surface" is clearly a direction.

That's how I can tell most deniers lack a physics background. They can never set up a problem correctly.

I just don't.

Sadly for you, the real world doesn't care if you don't understand it.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to come up with a theory that explains the observed physical world as well as AGW theory does. And that's not happening. The deniers aren't coming up with any theories at all. Hence, nobody takes them seriously, other than fellow cult members.

 

[westwall]

See you can't help yourself from the lies. Each and everyone of the posters who disagrees with you agrees with me, so your claim of all does not cut the cheese here. Loser!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've never said or implied the correlation between CO2 and temperature proves causation. None of the rational people here have. The only person here talking that way is you. It's a dishonest strawmen you build because you can't address what people actually say.

By the way, can you make it clear for everyone, that you're saying there _is_ a temperature increase? Deniers tend to flip-flop in mid-paragraph between "there's no warming" and "The warming is natural", so for future reference, I'd like to pin you down to one position.

There is no direct causation that you can document to state what the temperatures are from 120PPM of CO2. It isn't documented so again you lose.

And that's why you're called a denier. You see evidence that contradicts your religion, you pretend it's not there, and it's back to your mantras.



Sure we do. Go look up "climate sensitivity". You don't seem familiar with the science at all.

Greenhouse gas is the ability to absorb, I don't expect that the IRbeing retransmitted in all directions means added heat to the surface.

Then you're lacking in basic common sense, being that "down towards the surface" is clearly a direction.

That's how I can tell most deniers lack a physics background. They can never set up a problem correctly.

I just don't.

Sadly for you, the real world doesn't care if you don't understand it.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to come up with a theory that explains the observed physical world as well as AGW theory does. And that's not happening. The deniers aren't coming up with any theories at all. Hence, nobody takes them seriously, other than fellow cult members.

Bullshit. Your whole tall tale is based on that. Almost every chart you present is a correlational chart showing CO2 rising along with temperatures. Better get your lies straight there....admiral...

 

[mamooth]

Bullshit. Your whole tall tale is based on that. Almost every chart you present is a correlational chart showing CO2 rising along with temperatures. Better get your lies straight there....admiral...

Excellent, a straightforward provable claim on your part! To prove you're not lying and I am, you can simply show where I posted such a chart.

Of course, since I've never done such a thing, that will be a bit difficult for you. Ooh, sucks to be you.

Now, if you were a mature and honest person, you could simply admit making a mistake and save some face. But being how you're pathologically incapable of admitting any error, we'll get to see you flail about now, until you go into sulk mode.

Deniers, take a lesson from Westwall's misery. Do you really want to end up like Westwall? That's what choosing the path of the idiot vendetta leads you to.

 

[westwall]

"Vendetta" Paranoid much...admiral? The whole meme of the CAGW movement is correlation equals causation. Tell me if these look familiar to you!

Causes of Climate Change

 

[daveman]

I am always bewildered by the lack of interest in temperature dataset adjustments. does everyone just believe that the adjustments are correct and carried out in an evenhanded fashion? does no one care that anytime you actually inspect a specific example that the adjustments seem at odds with what is supposed to be done according to the explanations of the algorithms?

The Troo Beleevers will not question the high priests.

 

[daveman]

Deniers, while you're thinking up creative new conspiracy theories, the science has simply moved on without you. You're not even visible in the rear view mirror. If anyone brings you up, it's just to say "remember those kooks we used to laugh at? Whatever happened to them?".

If you'd like to be something other then irrelevant, you need to do some science. Sitting here preaching to the choir isn't going to accomplish anything, other than earning you brownie points with your cult. If that's your goal, keep at it, but understand how you've become irrelevant to those outside the cult.

You sound desperate.

You should be.

 

[Kosh]

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans

 

[IanC]

Earth's temperature has not risen significantly since 1998 and has cooled by 0.5oC since early 2007. Even the United Nations has quietly admitted this. This is completely contrary to the CO2 caused global warming theory, which states that the earth's temperature should be quickly rising because atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly. The UN and those who support the CO2 warming theory claim that the cooling is just a temporary glitch and earth's temperature will began to rise again in a year or two. However, as explained, a majority of scientists now believe that we are in for a 15 to 35 year cooling cycle that has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with solar activity and temperature oscillations of the oceans

Kosh- you really have to stop using that graph. it is out of date. there has not been 0.5C cooling since 2007.

 

[SSDD]

Since we've shown you proof over and over, you look like a dishonest cultist for pretending otherwise.

Which is it, have you shown proof or is science not about proof. You and yours claim both depending on the situation...much like all of climate science...more/less rain...more/less snow...warmer/cooler...and now it is proof/not about proving.

 

[Crick]

I'd like to point out that this bit of amateur 'analysis' includes not the slightest attempt to ascertain the affect the noted adjustments had on these data's ACCURACY. We are still looking at the assumption that any adjustment must have been made to make a false case for global warming. He spends not one second examining the justifications and explanations that NOAA HAS provided.

the main point of this exercise is to show people how much of the data is fabricated out of the algorithms. how many people would know that >10% of all values presented by USHCN were infilled estimates? how many people know that in 2013, last year!, that more than 20% of the stations that make up the official record had no readings at all!!!

if you wish to believe that poorly sited station data can be mathematically manipulated to produce more accurate data, which is then attributed to a well sited station, then I suppose you dont understand error ranges.

a teaspoon of shit sitting on a gallon of ice cream can be somewhat fixed. but not after you mix it all together. then you just have a gallon of shit

To mimic SSDD, neither interpolation nor extrapolation is fabrication is it, Ian?

To make use of your imagery, you seem to be saying that you would prefer a tea spoon of shit between two scoops of ice cream to two scoops of ice cream with some ice cream spread between them. I guess everyone is entitled to their own tastes.