Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Where did I say hiding the decline was about temperatures?
Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...
- Thread starter Theowl32
- Start date
Where did I say hiding the decline was about temperatures?
Right here in your very last post. "Adding them [instrument and proxy temperatures] together to hide the decline is horrible science."
The point is that neither Mike's Nature Trick nor Hide the Decline were evidence of any fraud. You need to withdraw your accusation because you've got nothing on which to base it.
Are you smoking Todd?
The point is that neither Mike's Nature Trick nor Hide the Decline were evidence of any fraud. You need to withdraw your accusation because you've got nothing on which to base it.
Are you smoking Todd?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
They added the real temperatures to the proxies, to hide the decline in the proxies.
I even posted a picture on Wednesday, post #296.
Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...
That is nothing fake about the hockey stick graph. You like mann's hockey stick? He didn't leave anything out? Didn't put any bad data in? Adding real temps to proxy temps doesn't bother you? So, Todd, what is your problem with Dr Mann? What's not to like? He tried to stop people he...
www.usmessageboard.com
The point is that neither Mike's Nature Trick nor Hide the Decline were evidence of any fraud.
The proxies stopped working, they should have just said that. Shown that.
How do you feel about Mann trying to stop skeptics from getting published?
Is that what scientists do who are winning the debate?
If I was smoking, would I stop noticing Mann's fraud?
The proxies did not stop working. As I have already explained - and as I am quite certain you have read before - the relationship between tree ring thickness and temperature changed for high altitude trees in the 1960s. One is corrected and one is not. Or are you under the impression that temperatures in the last century have plummeted?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The proxies did not stop working..... the relationship between tree ring thickness and temperature changed for high altitude trees in the 1960s.
LOL!
Or are you under the impression that temperatures in the last century have plummeted?
Are you under the impression that I am?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
This was December 8th, 2015. The list below were the highpoints I caught of this exchange. Did you want to talk about any of this in particular or would you like to go over all of them?
Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.
Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the warming that has taken place for the previous 200 years
Curry states that 40% of all observed warming took place before 1950
Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something (?)
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
Curry, speak about a survey of AMS, asking if recent changes are natural or human caused. 52% said human-caused.
Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.
Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the warming that has taken place for the previous 200 years
Curry states that 40% of all observed warming took place before 1950
Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something (?)
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
Curry, speak about a survey of AMS, asking if recent changes are natural or human caused. 52% said human-caused.
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Markey is an idiot.
The claim that there is consensus is idiotic.
If you want to refute any of the points in post #328, feel free.
Your video said nothing about consensus. That there is a very strong consensus is indisputable.
Q) Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
A) Unfortunately, Antarctica has been losing ice for the last five years so her point has become moot. I understood the explanation for increasing ice mass prior to this was from increased precipitation due to warmer air and seas.
Q) Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.
From the EPA
Well...
I still don't see it. Global warming started about 1850. Sea level would have been rising from rising temperatures. Besides, sea level looks to have been rising slowly for the last 7-8,000 years.
Q) Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the warming that has taken place for the previous 200 years
A) The IPCC position is that AGW is responsible for essentially all global warming since the Industrial Revolution or from 1760 to 1840. Prior to the IR, the world was slowly getting colder. So I don't know what she's talking about.
Q) Curry states that 40% of all observed warming took place before 1950
A) By picking 1950, Curry is able to make use of the small spike that occurred there and the lack of cooling for almost 20 years thereafter. And, of course, she was only computing up to 2015. Currently, the global temperature would plot above the title text of this graph at +1.46C
Q) Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
A) It didn't. There was no hiatus. See Karl, Thomas R.; Arguez, Anthony; Huang, Boyin; Lawrimore, Jay H.; McMahon, James R.; Menne, Matthew J.; Peterson, Thomas C.; Vose, Russell S.; Zhang, Huai-Min (26 June 2015). "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus". Science. 348(6242): 1469–1472. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5632. PMID 26044301.American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Q) Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something (?)
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
A) Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming. Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding (though senators have never had a problem interrupting their guests). Steyn said nothing of value.
Q) Curry, speaking about a survey of AMS members that asked if recent changes were natural or human caused. 52% said human-caused.
A) The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists. It perhaps should be taken into account that very few of its members possess advanced degrees or are actually research scientists. There are also studies that have found a much higher proportion of political conservatism among their membership and there is a strong correlation between political positions and positions on AGW. However, even back in 2015, when she made this statement, a majority accepted the consensus opinion on AGW. From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, here is a more current statement of the AMS official position on global warming, emphases mine:
How's that?
Q) Dr Judith Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the increase of Antarctic ice.
A) Unfortunately, Antarctica has been losing ice for the last five years so her point has become moot. I understood the explanation for increasing ice mass prior to this was from increased precipitation due to warmer air and seas.
Q) Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 and that the rate then was as great as now.
From the EPA
Well...
I still don't see it. Global warming started about 1850. Sea level would have been rising from rising temperatures. Besides, sea level looks to have been rising slowly for the last 7-8,000 years.
Q) Curry states that the IPCC has no explanation for the warming that has taken place for the previous 200 years
A) The IPCC position is that AGW is responsible for essentially all global warming since the Industrial Revolution or from 1760 to 1840. Prior to the IR, the world was slowly getting colder. So I don't know what she's talking about.
Q) Curry states that 40% of all observed warming took place before 1950
A) By picking 1950, Curry is able to make use of the small spike that occurred there and the lack of cooling for almost 20 years thereafter. And, of course, she was only computing up to 2015. Currently, the global temperature would plot above the title text of this graph at +1.46C
Q) Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
A) It didn't. There was no hiatus. See Karl, Thomas R.; Arguez, Anthony; Huang, Boyin; Lawrimore, Jay H.; McMahon, James R.; Menne, Matthew J.; Peterson, Thomas C.; Vose, Russell S.; Zhang, Huai-Min (26 June 2015). "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus". Science. 348(6242): 1469–1472. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5632. PMID 26044301.American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Q) Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something (?)
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
A) Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming. Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding (though senators have never had a problem interrupting their guests). Steyn said nothing of value.
Q) Curry, speaking about a survey of AMS members that asked if recent changes were natural or human caused. 52% said human-caused.
A) The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists. It perhaps should be taken into account that very few of its members possess advanced degrees or are actually research scientists. There are also studies that have found a much higher proportion of political conservatism among their membership and there is a strong correlation between political positions and positions on AGW. However, even back in 2015, when she made this statement, a majority accepted the consensus opinion on AGW. From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, here is a more current statement of the AMS official position on global warming, emphases mine:
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:A 2016 survey found that two-thirds of AMS members think that all or most of climate change is caused by human activity.
How's that?
Attachments
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
That there is a very strong consensus is indisputable.
There is a very strong consensus in the Mafia.
What happens when you publicly disagree with Tony Soprano?
The IPCC position is that AGW is responsible for essentially all global warming since the Industrial Revolution or from 1760 to 1840.
That's funny.
By picking 1950, Curry is able to make use of the small spike that occurred there and the lack of cooling for almost 20 years thereafter.
Wait, no warming for almost 20 years? Did AGW stop working? CO2 decrease? Weird.
Q) Curry states that the IPCC doesn't have an explanation for the flattening of the temperature curve since 2000.
A) It didn't. There was no hiatus.
Because there was no hiatus? Or because they adjusted it away like Mann hid the MWP and LIA?
Q) Senator Ed Marky (D, Ma) begins speaking about current state of climate science and global temperatures and makes some comment about Curry believing god is causing something
Yeah, Markey is a moron. Curry said nothing about God. I guess Markey felt if you didn't believe it was AGW it couldn't be natural reasons, so say it was God.
Mark Steyn interrupts and asks Markey (sitting at Sen Cory Booker's seat for some reason) if he is suggesting there is no natural variability
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey with "Do you know what the Little Ice Age was Senator?"
Steyn interrupts Sen Markey repeatedly about the weather at Plymouth Rock
Steyn interrupts with "What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
And Markey had no answers. Do you?
Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming.
Neither does Markey.
Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding
It was awesome.
Steyn said nothing of value
Deflating that pompous windbag was awesome! Senators should be questioned like that when
their ignorance becomes that obvious.
The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists.
Impossible......there is consensus. Like Markey said, 97%.
There are also studies that have found a much higher proportion of political conservatism among their membership and there is a strong correlation between political positions and positions on AGW.
Kind of like all the other scientists, eh?
However, even back in 2015, when she made this statement, a majority accepted the consensus opinion on AGW.
The consensus that man caused some (unmentioned) portion of the warming.
Unresponsive
Unresponsive
Likely aerosol effects on the planet's albedo from WWII and its economic aftermath
There was no hiatus
I believe Markey was trying to say that Curry thought global warming was the result of "acts of god", environmental effects that did not involve human action. I Markey is not a moron. Mark Steyn, on the other hand, is a club-footed charlatan.
Yes and I imagine Markey did as well. He simply chose not to reward Steyn for being an asshole.
I'm afraid that as a senator on the committee holding the hearing, he most certainly did have the qualifications to speak. And I'm sure some republican member invited Steyn to come, so he was at least permitted to be in the room. But his grasp of parliamentary procedures were obviously lacking, as were his basic manners.
I guess then that you're impressed by people acting like assholes.
What did he say that made you think he needed to be hectored like that?
Probably a good number for 2015, but its higher now.
No. That was the point.
Essentially all of it.
You know, all you deniers have a similar practice: you get some bug up your ass when you hear one of your heroes make what you believe to be a clever quip and you all pick it up and use it as if it were the unconquerable secret weapon to overthrow your enemies. Recently, it seems to have been to ask mainstream science types what percentage of global warming is being caused by man. You think that question will embarrass us so badly that we will slink away and hide under a rock. I'm sorry to disappoint you but that is not what's going to happen. ONE, the answer is "almost all the warming" and TWO, the inability to provide some exact answer to many decimal places does not weaken the argument for the validity of AGW, it simply shows that you and yours STILL fail to understand the workings of basic science, particularly concerning systems as large and complex as the Earth's climate.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Likely aerosol effects on the planet's albedo from WWII and its economic aftermath
Aerosol effects caused the temperature to spike in 1950 and then cool for 20 years?
Is that your theory?
I believe Markey was trying to say that Curry thought global warming was the result of "acts of god",
I know, trying to put words in her mouth. Disgraceful.
Mark Steyn, on the other hand, is a club-footed charlatan.
From kicking Mann's ass so much?
Yes and I imagine Markey did as well. He simply chose not to reward Steyn for being an asshole.
By failing to answer, he did reward Steyn.
I'm afraid that as a senator on the committee holding the hearing, he most certainly did have the qualifications to speak.
Don't let me stop you from listing those qualifications.
You know, all you deniers have a similar practice: you get some bug up your ass when you hear one of your heroes make what you believe to be a clever quip
Poor self-conferred Nobel Laureate Michael E Mann.....everybody is picking on him.
I guess then that you're impressed by people acting like assholes.
No, Mann and his buddies trying to stop skeptics from publishing did not impress me.
What did he say that made you think he needed to be hectored like that?
He called Curry a science denier.
Claimed that the only cause must be AGW, not natural variation.
Not answering the previous questions.
No. That was the point.
Really? Only conservatives let their politics influence their stand on AGW?
Essentially all of it.
You have any polls of climate scientists that ask that question?
"Is current global warming essentially all caused by human actions"?
Or
"What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic"?
Instead of "Are humans causing global warming"?
Recently, it seems to have been to ask mainstream science types what percentage of global warming is being caused by man.
If you're pushing for trillions in green spending, it seems like an important question.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The apparent observed slowing or decrease in the upward rate of global surface temperature warming has been nicknamed the “hiatus.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, released in stages between September 2013 and November 2014, concluded that the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998 to 2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951 to 2012.
Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014—the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.
The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Scientists report that surface temperature data no longer support the idea that the rate of global warming has slowed.
They adjusted the data?
LOL!
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
How could they.....the data has been "adjusted".
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Bruce Springsteen Opens His Tour With Rant About ‘Treasonous’ Trump- Started by j-mac
- Replies: 2
-
-
Blackity Black Black.........America Is Suffering From Black Fatigue- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 2
-
OMB is sure to make LIBs sick: Russia, Ukraine to Hold First Peace Talks in 3 years- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 3
-
