What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
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?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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?

They added the real temperatures to the proxies, to hide the decline in the proxies.
I even posted a picture on Wednesday, post #296.

1630101653849.png




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?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
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
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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?

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?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Get back to me when you actually have something to say.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
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.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.

Yeah, Markey looked like an idiot.
No surprise.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
So, what did you intend to convey with that clip?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
So, what did you intend to convey with that clip?

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.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
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
1630211040214.png


Well...
1630213300580.png


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
1630212202665.png


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:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.
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

  • 1630211145649.png
    1630211145649.png
    296.8 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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
View attachment 532016

Well...
View attachment 532028

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
View attachment 532022

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?

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.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
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?
Unresponsive
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.
Unresponsive
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.
Likely aerosol effects on the planet's albedo from WWII and its economic aftermath
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?
There was no hiatus
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.
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.
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?
Yes and I imagine Markey did as well. He simply chose not to reward Steyn for being an asshole.
Mark Steyn has no qualifications whatsoever to speak to the topic of global warming.

Neither does Markey.
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.
Repeatedly interrupting a US senator speaking in committee was astounding

It was awesome.
I guess then that you're impressed by people acting like assholes.
Steyn said nothing of value

Deflating that pompous windbag was awesome! Senators should be questioned like that when
their ignorance becomes that obvious.
What did he say that made you think he needed to be hectored like that?
The AMS has consistently been an outlier among climate scientists.

Impossible......there is consensus. Like Markey said, 97%.
Probably a good number for 2015, but its higher now.
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?
No. That was the point.
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.
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
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.

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
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
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.


1630271838839.png


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.


They adjusted the data?
LOL!
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
A correction. But, hey, you go ahead through life and assume that every statement that you don't like is a lie. I'm certain that will guarantee your life will be a bed of roses.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
A correction. But, hey, you go ahead through life and assume that every statement that you don't like is a lie. I'm certain that will guarantee your life will be a bed of roses.

They "corrected" the data? Did Mann show them how?

LOL!
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
16,322
Reaction score
1,988
Points
290
Location
N/A
Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working on global warming, including those that lean towards your way of thinking Todd, how many are still claiming that warming stopped in 2000?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,322
Reaction score
16,526
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Out of the tens of thousands of scientists working on global warming, including those that lean towards your way of thinking Todd, how many are still claiming that warming stopped in 2000?

How could they.....the data has been "adjusted".
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top