When the El Nino fades....

[IanC]

Hahahaha, you nailed it!

Crick has post after post after post where he declares himself right and therefore anyone who disagrees is stupid by default. And anyone asking him to explain himself is just wasting his time. (Actually they're wasting their own time because he seldom explains anything in his own words, it only gets himself tied in knots)

 

[Crick]

I call people stupid when the post stupidity. Do you agree with Elektra on these points? Do you believe wind farms use more fossil fuels than fossil fuel plants of the same capacity? Do you believe offshore windmills represent a huge risk of oil spills? Do you believe it is impossible to make steel or cement without fossil fuels? Do you believe he has proven I was drunk for any of my recent posts

 

[elektra]

I call people stupid when the post stupidity. Do you agree with Elektra on these points? Do you believe wind farms use more fossil fuels than fossil fuel plants of the same capacity? Do you believe offshore windmills represent a huge risk of oil spills? Do you believe it is impossible to make steel or cement without fossil fuels? Do you believe he has proven I was drunk for any of my recent posts

Crick, again you are changing my premise, I stated you must increase the use of Oil and Hydrocarbons to manufacture. As much as wish that was not what I stated that is what I stated. Did I state Windmills are huge risk for ships, no, I simply stated they are a risk and posted a story that confirms a ship did crash into one and create an Oil Slick.
Today it is impossible to make steel without Coke, which comes from Coal. You stated otherwise Crick. Cement is the same, using more energy than any other industry.

Crick you must see that if you build the World's Largest Solar Farm you are going to have to increase the use of Hydrocarbons to accomplish that. Now that you are not drunk, maybe you can remember. I hope so because if you reply contrary again and we have ruled out Crick not being drunk, by Cricks own words than Crick must be STUPID.

 

[Crick]

I call people stupid when the post stupidity. Do you agree with Elektra on these points? Do you believe wind farms use more fossil fuels than fossil fuel plants of the same capacity? Do you believe offshore windmills represent a huge risk of oil spills? Do you believe it is impossible to make steel or cement without fossil fuels? Do you believe he has proven I was drunk for any of my recent posts

Crick, again you are changing my premise, I stated you must increase the use of Oil and Hydrocarbons to manufacture. As much as wish that was not what I stated that is what I stated. Did I state Windmills are huge risk for ships, no, I simply stated they are a risk and posted a story that confirms a ship did crash into one and create an Oil Slick.
Today it is impossible to make steel without Coke, which comes from Coal. You stated otherwise Crick. Cement is the same, using more energy than any other industry.

Crick you must see that if you build the World's Largest Solar Farm you are going to have to increase the use of Hydrocarbons to accomplish that. Now that you are not drunk, maybe you can remember. I hope so because if you reply contrary again and we have ruled out Crick not being drunk, by Cricks own words than Crick must be STUPID.

I don't care if the thing had to be built with toothpicks and castor oil, the end result will be much LESS hydrocarbons burned. To think otherwise is idiocy.

 

[Crick]

And basic cement and steel may be made without coal or petroleum as a FUEL.

Both have become too valuable as a material resource to continue burning them for heat.

 

[Crick]

the US pristine network doesnt show much warming. anyone wanna fetch the latest data?

Why don't you fetch the global numbers while you're at it?

 

[elektra]

I call people stupid when the post stupidity. Do you agree with Elektra on these points? Do you believe wind farms use more fossil fuels than fossil fuel plants of the same capacity? Do you believe offshore windmills represent a huge risk of oil spills? Do you believe it is impossible to make steel or cement without fossil fuels? Do you believe he has proven I was drunk for any of my recent posts

Crick, again you are changing my premise, I stated you must increase the use of Oil and Hydrocarbons to manufacture. As much as wish that was not what I stated that is what I stated. Did I state Windmills are huge risk for ships, no, I simply stated they are a risk and posted a story that confirms a ship did crash into one and create an Oil Slick.
Today it is impossible to make steel without Coke, which comes from Coal. You stated otherwise Crick. Cement is the same, using more energy than any other industry.

Crick you must see that if you build the World's Largest Solar Farm you are going to have to increase the use of Hydrocarbons to accomplish that. Now that you are not drunk, maybe you can remember. I hope so because if you reply contrary again and we have ruled out Crick not being drunk, by Cricks own words than Crick must be STUPID.

I don't care if the thing had to be built with toothpicks and castor oil, the end result will be much LESS hydrocarbons burned. To think otherwise is idiocy.

As you dictate, once again, as everyone knows, it always makes sense to manufacture millions of little power plants that sometimes work, instead of one that always work. No waste in that.

 

[IanC]

the US pristine network doesnt show much warming. anyone wanna fetch the latest data?

Why don't you fetch the global numbers while you're at it?

What an asinine suggestion. There are no pristine global numbers to fetch.

What people don't realize is just how pathetic thermometer coverage of the globe is. How many stations in Africa? How long have they been running and how many gaps. Yet the continent is much more important to global temps than the US, even though the data is miserable, because it is such a large land area.

When a problem is found in good data what does the climate science establishment say? "It doesn't matter", it makes no difference to the global average.

The areas with good coverage show little warming especially before adjustments, the areas with poor or practically no coverage show the most warming because the numbers are estimated. Estimated by those who wish to find warming.

I don't know what the answer is. The US pristine data show no warming at the same time that global temps have soared. Most of the warming is actually comprised of adjustments.

 

[SSDD]

I don't know what the answer is. The US pristine data show no warming at the same time that global temps have soared. Most of the warming is actually comprised of adjustments.

The US pristine data show no warming while the US adjusted data shows the same rate of warming as the global adjusted data....is there any reason whatsoever, that a rational person would not suspect that if the US pristine network were extended globally, it would show no warming globally? What would make someone think (other than blind faith) that if the US pristine data show no warming while the adjusted data shows the same warming as the global data that maybe the US adjusted data is a bit off but the global data is still correct?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't know what the answer is. The US pristine data show no warming at the same time that global temps have soared. Most of the warming is actually comprised of adjustments.

The US pristine data show no warming while the US adjusted data shows the same rate of warming as the global adjusted data....is there any reason whatsoever, that a rational person would not suspect that if the US pristine network were extended globally, it would show no warming globally? What would make someone think (other than blind faith) that if the US pristine data show no warming while the adjusted data shows the same warming as the global data that maybe the US adjusted data is a bit off but the global data is still correct?

Anyone with any reasonable training in science would come to this conclusion. But hey, were talking about alarmists with a political agenda. No lie is to big to get people to give up their freedoms without using a gun to do it. This is why using feelings to dictate your belief's is a fools folly.

 

[Crick]

What an asinine suggestion. There are no pristine global numbers to fetch.

There most certainly are. All the major dataholders maintain raw data and make it available to the public. The contention that it is not is simply another denier lie dreamed up by the folks at Exxon Mobil.

What people don't realize is just how pathetic thermometer coverage of the globe is. How many stations in Africa? How long have they been running and how many gaps. Yet the continent is much more important to global temps than the US, even though the data is miserable, because it is such a large land area.

I fully agree that the US temperature record, while having some value for its relative accuracy, is not particularly important because it represents such a small portion of the globe. I wonder, then, why you posted US data?

When a problem is found in good data what does the climate science establishment say? "It doesn't matter", it makes no difference to the global average.

What good data do you believe indicate problems in the 'belief' that the world is warming at a rate unprecedented in human history? And when you have identified such data, let us know who has said "it makes no difference to the global average. And, then, perhaps, you could explain to us why you believe it does.

The areas with good coverage show little warming especially before adjustments, the areas with poor or practically no coverage show the most warming because the numbers are estimated. Estimated by those who wish to find warming.

So you have chosen to presume bias before finding the evidence. Got it.

I don't know what the answer is. The US pristine data show no warming at the same time that global temps have soared. Most of the warming is actually comprised of adjustments.

You still have YET to show a single instance in which you have ANY science indicating that adjustments should NOT have been made - that they did NOT make the data MORE accurate. THAT might be a good place to start, but hey, I'm just filled with bias so you can write my comments off at the get go, right Ian?

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't know what the answer is. The US pristine data show no warming at the same time that global temps have soared. Most of the warming is actually comprised of adjustments.

The US pristine data show no warming while the US adjusted data shows the same rate of warming as the global adjusted data....is there any reason whatsoever, that a rational person would not suspect that if the US pristine network were extended globally, it would show no warming globally? What would make someone think (other than blind faith) that if the US pristine data show no warming while the adjusted data shows the same warming as the global data that maybe the US adjusted data is a bit off but the global data is still correct?

Anyone with any reasonable training in science would come to this conclusion. But hey, were talking about alarmists with a political agenda. No lie is to big to get people to give up their freedoms without using a gun to do it. This is why using feelings to dictate your belief's is a fools folly.

Silly Billy, you don't even have unreasonable training in science. If fact, judging from your posts, you have zero training in any science. And you are the one bringing politics into the discussion.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dropping like a rock...

 

[Billy_Bob]

And that is two different sources..

 

[Crick]

View attachment 66041

Dropping like a rock...

What is dropping like a rock? Ever occur to you to fashion your graphs with labels?

 

[Crick]

And that is two different sources..

With whom do you think you're arguing? Of course the el Nino is coming to a close. That's been the mainstream prediction for months now. They don't last forever. Do you think any of us have forgotten that YOU'VE been claiming this el Nino would never get started, that it was going to end long before 2015 was done and that we've actually been in a La Nina all this time? We ALL know - based solely on YOUR statements, that you're an ignorant fool who couldn't make an accurate prediction if your life depended on it.

 

[IanC]

the US pristine network doesnt show much warming. anyone wanna fetch the latest data?

I posted this graph a month ago. because I use my phone for commenting it is difficult to get up-to-date graphs sometimes. this graph was only up to about halfway through 2015. perhaps the last 6 or 8 months makes a big difference, perhaps not. like I said, anyone wanna fetch the up-to-date graph? (eg- I dont like to use truncated data when I know a fuller dataset is available. )

next, what do I mean by pristine? the CRN stations have multiple instruments and carefully selected environments therefore they need NO adjustments, although there are still arbitrary choices made in how much weighting, etc are used in compiling a national average.

crick demanded that I produce pristine global data. it does not exist. there are good, medium and poor data available but often the better data are adjusted to the mediocre data as I have pointed out on numerous occasions.

let us return to US measurements. what happens when we use only stations that need minimal corrections, with well sited environments, and are reasonably long term? as it happens, a group has studied station quality and put together a smaller but still representative collection of stations that meet the criteria of good or excellent designation. the conclusion is that the amount of warming in the US is a fraction of the official view.

this is from 2012, a more formal paper is still struggling through the arduous journey skeptical papers get during peer review. during the satellite era good stations show half the warming of NOAA final data. even poor stations show less warming than NOAA.

 

[IanC]

crick believes that the US data is not particularly important because it represents such a small portion of the globe.

here I will make a WAG (wild ass guess) that the US and Europe have over half of the temperature readings since the 1880's even though they only represent less than 4% of the worlds surface. even higher if you put a time length restriction of thirty years or more on the temperature series.

coverage of Africa to this day is pathetic, sparse and full of gaps yet it matters more than the US and Europe combined. crick sees no problem with that.

 

[IanC]

crick does not believe that individual problems make any difference to the attempt to quantify AGW. Reykjavic Iceland has been given spurious adjustments that make no sense. crick doesnt care and doesnt even acknowledge it. I have shown case after case of bizarre or careless mistakes. crick says they dont matter and they arent evidence that problems exist. for example the industrial town in Russia built around an aluminium smelter that is considered 'rural' because the original GPS of the temp station is now underwater because of the dam built to produce electricity for the smelter and Hansen's 'night lights' algorithm only sees darkness. that rural city is used to homogenize other stations within 1200km. doesnt matter says crick.

the Y2K problem in 2007 reduced US temps by about 0.15C, but somehow got smeared into the records BEFORE Y2K! Hansen proclaimed that it didnt matter because the effect on world temps was negligible, 'US only 2% of land mass, yada yada yada'.

Australia has its own set of problems. stations with daily minimums higher than daily maximums, monthly averages higher than any single day of the month. massive adjustments that turn cooling into warming.

BEST is the new kid on the block. Muller admitted that 1/3 of long term station records showed cooling trends. after homogenization 100% of stations now show warming trends.

 

[Crick]

So, you believe the world is not getting warmer.