Can Anyone Say Maunder Minimum?

[edthecynic]

I KNOW what he did to erase the "hiatus" which was to make an unjustified adjustment to a set of low resolution data upward.

Repeating your lie does NOT make it any less a LIE, it only makes you a serial liar.
Dr Bates specifically said Karl did NOT manipulate the data in any way.
Either you are a liar or Dr Bates is a liar, and you have already proven you are a liar.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

You are STILL ignoring what Dr. Bates stated about Dr. Karl's paper, straight from Dr. Bates own post:

The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown). The paper also drew the attention of the Chairman of the House Science Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, who questioned the timing of the report, which was issued just prior to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan submission to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.

In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.

bolding mine

 

[HenryBHough]

Food supplies are already tightening. Food prices are already rising. Watched a crew changing shelf prices upward by average 3% early Sunday morning when there were few withesses.....errrrr...."shoppers".......in the store. It'll be a slow rise; a big single jump would attract too much attention.

 

[toobfreak]

It was the warmest Arctic winter on record
Can anyone say continued warming? You silly asses continue to bray that we are cooling and all we see is warming. As verified by ground stations and satellites monitored by various nations and agencies.

I hear Trump is planning on opening the first Golfing resort country club north of the Arctic Circle in a few years. I've already bought my shares and the plans look spectacular and at night, I can sit out sipping a Mai Tai under the stars while watching the Aurora Borealis play overhead.

 

[edthecynic]

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

You are STILL ignoring what Dr. Bates stated about Dr. Karl's paper, straight from Dr. Bates own post:

You are still lying. I'm not ignoring anything, but you are ignoring what I said and then repeating what I already said as if I never said it to try to muddy the waters and deflect from Dr Bates saying that there was NO manipulation of the data in any way by Karl. So I highlighted what I actually said at the top of this string so even you can't miss it.

BTW, here is link to an excellent article about how the Senate committee and ALL of your denier sources ran with the lie about Karl even after the lie was exposed. You won't be honest enough to read it, but it also has the below quotes from Bates where he not only said the data was not manipulated he also said he knew lying scum deniers would pervert and abuse it. He sure had you pegged! It is also a perfect example of how the Right always lie in packs each citing the other pack liars as confirmation of their lies.

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science | Dana Nuccitelli

The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger’ (in this case, a NOAA-thing burger) as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News:

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.

Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

And this is how the lying scum GOP titled their press release:
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

You are STILL ignoring what Dr. Bates stated about Dr. Karl's paper, straight from Dr. Bates own post:

You are still lying. I'm not ignoring anything, but you are ignoring what I said and then repeating what I already said as if I never said it to try to muddy the waters and deflect from Dr Bates saying that there was NO manipulation of the data in any way by Karl. So I highlighted what I actually said at the top of this string so even you can't miss it.

BTW, here is link to an excellent article about how the Senate committee and ALL of your denier sources ran with the lie about Karl even after the lie was exposed. You won't be honest enough to read it, but it also has the below quotes from Bates where he not only said the data was not manipulated he also said he knew lying scum deniers would pervert and abuse it. He sure had you pegged! It is also a perfect example of how the Right always lie in packs each citing the other pack liars as confirmation of their lies.

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science | Dana Nuccitelli

The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger’ (in this case, a NOAA-thing burger) as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News:

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.

Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

And this is how the lying scum GOP titled their press release:
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Once again you ignore what Dr. Bates said in his own words. He said a lot more in the link I posted too which you are DELIBERATELY ignoring because he makes clear he does have a problem with Dr. Karl's paper through his handling of the data.

You are full of dishonest crap.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Link us to some data sets that show much lower temperatures or even a reliable report that states that is the case.

You have been shown this before and you ignored it.

Here it is from UAH6 showing that the Arctic region by the MONTH was much cooler than the misleading one day claims made by Old Rocks.

Your link leads me to global data, not regional or polar data; and that data show warming.

You link to imaginary "data sets" showing 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

You hid the decline by adding in a whole new data set: the imaginary warming "trapped" in the ocean.

 

[edthecynic]

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

You are STILL ignoring what Dr. Bates stated about Dr. Karl's paper, straight from Dr. Bates own post:

You are still lying. I'm not ignoring anything, but you are ignoring what I said and then repeating what I already said as if I never said it to try to muddy the waters and deflect from Dr Bates saying that there was NO manipulation of the data in any way by Karl. So I highlighted what I actually said at the top of this string so even you can't miss it.

BTW, here is link to an excellent article about how the Senate committee and ALL of your denier sources ran with the lie about Karl even after the lie was exposed. You won't be honest enough to read it, but it also has the below quotes from Bates where he not only said the data was not manipulated he also said he knew lying scum deniers would pervert and abuse it. He sure had you pegged! It is also a perfect example of how the Right always lie in packs each citing the other pack liars as confirmation of their lies.

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science | Dana Nuccitelli

The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger’ (in this case, a NOAA-thing burger) as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News:

The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.

Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:

I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.

And this is how the lying scum GOP titled their press release:
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Once again you ignore what Dr. Bates said in his own words. He said a lot more in the link I posted too which you are DELIBERATELY ignoring because he makes clear he does have a problem with Dr. Karl's paper through his handling of the data.

You are full of dishonest crap.

Still trying to weasel out of your lie.
It was I who told you Bates said the data was not manipulated and that his only complain't was the archival of the data. You then denied ever saying that Bates had a problem with Karl's paper and I then posted a quote from YOU saying that Bates HAD a problem with Karl's paper.

You lie so much you can't keep track of them.

The final fact remains, Karl did NOT manipulate the data in any way and all on this thread who say otherwise are liars.

Here is another Dr Bates quote from a different interview:
No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org

Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.

 

[edthecynic]

You link to imaginary "data sets" showing 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

No matter how many times you lie is exposed, you just keep on repeating it.
It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That

There have been many, it is your willful refusal to counter any of it with your replies is why you are the fool here.

You have no idea what the obvious failure of his paper are since you NEVER investigated the claims on them.

That is why you remain ignorant.

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

That is all you say, while ignoring what Dr. Bates says over and over.

You are one stupid man.

 

[edthecynic]

That

First they attacked Karl et al with a fake graph using 2 (TWO) different baselines, but the same people who have a shit fit about the resolution of tree ring data had no problem. Then that denier lie was thoroughly exposed, they pulled the graph and then lied about what Dr Bates said. Bates said more than once that Karl did NOT in any way manipulate the data, his objection was ONLY to the archival process, but the lying scum GOP Senate committee and the denier echo chamber falsely claimed Dr Bates accused Karl of manipulating the data. After being caught blatantly lying twice, why would an honest person want to waste time with whatever new lies you scum have fabricated. If you could have actually debunked Karl, you would have done it with the "truth" FIRST rather than LIE twice first.

It is clear that neither You or Old Rocks have a clue to what Dr. Karl did to make it go away. Hint: he made unjustified adjustments to the sea temperature data.

The whole this is moot anyway since even using HIS result still destroys the AGW conjecture, since warming rate is LESS than 1/2 the predicted/projected warming rate as published in the IPCC reports.

You guys are so far behind the curve, it is hilarious!

Dr Bates say you are worthless lying scum. Be proud, be very proud.

Translation: I can only offer baseless insults, in order to avoid addressing my helpful hints I have posted

Dr. Bates was actually critical of how Dr. Karl was handling his data archives, didn't criticize the paper itself. I haven't attacked Dr. Bates at all because what he did was proper.

Still LYING!

I posted what Dr. Bates wrote in a blog presentation. He makes clear he is not happy with the Karl paper.

That is all you say, while ignoring what Dr. Bates says over and over.

You are one stupid man.

And yet this "stupid man" was able to catch and prove you a liar.
What does that say for your intellect???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You link to imaginary "data sets" showing 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

No matter how many times you lie is exposed, you just keep on repeating it.
It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

where's the ******* data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree????????????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many reading must you take with a thermometer that is 5 degrees plus or minus to get a confidence to a tenth of a degree???

 

[Sunsettommy]

You link to imaginary "data sets" showing 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

No matter how many times you lie is exposed, you just keep on repeating it.
It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

where's the ******* data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree????????????

The moron who write this IDIOTIC crap, doesn't know the difference between precision and accuracy:

He wrote this garbage,

"It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree."

The ignoramus isn't even aware of the KNOWN error range for mercury thermometers that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to attain the level of a tenth of a degree.

 

[edthecynic]

You link to imaginary "data sets" showing 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

No matter how many times you lie is exposed, you just keep on repeating it.
It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

where's the ******* data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree????????????

Right in front of your face!

 

[edthecynic]

How many reading must you take with a thermometer that is 5 degrees plus or minus to get a confidence to a tenth of a degree???

Hey pinhead, it is nearly impossible for a REAL scientist to get a thermometer that far off. What all REAL scientists do first is calibrate their thermometers by putting it in Ice water and marking the reading and then putting it in boiling water and marking that reading. 100 steps between the two marks gives you a very accurate Celsius thermometer.

 

[edthecynic]

You link to imaginary "data sets" showing 1880 temperatures accurate to a tenth of a degree.

No matter how many times you lie is exposed, you just keep on repeating it.
It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree.

where's the ******* data set from 1880 that's accurate to a tenth of a degree????????????

The moron who write this IDIOTIC crap, doesn't know the difference between precision and accuracy:

He wrote this garbage,

"It is not individual temperatures that are accurate to a tenth of a degree, it the AVERAGE of all the global temperatures that is accurate to a tenth of a degree."

The ignoramus isn't even aware of the KNOWN error range for mercury thermometers that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to attain the level of a tenth of a degree.

Hey dumb ass, he was talking about data SETS (PLURAL) which is an average which will produce 10th of a degree even if all the readings are whole numbers.

And mercury in glass thermometers are extremely accurate.

The application of mercury (1714) and Fahrenheit scale (1724) for liquid-in-glass thermometers ushered in a new era of accuracy and precision in thermometry, and is still to this day regarded as one of the most accurate thermometers available.
- Grigull, Ulrich (1966). Fahrenheit, a Pioneer of Exact Thermometry. (The Proceedings of the 8th International Heat Transfer Conference, San Francisco, 1966, Vol. 1, pp. 9-18.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many reading must you take with a thermometer that is 5 degrees plus or minus to get a confidence to a tenth of a degree???

Hey pinhead, it is nearly impossible for a REAL scientist to get a thermometer that far off. What all REAL scientists do first is calibrate their thermometers by putting it in Ice water and marking the reading and then putting it in boiling water and marking that reading. 100 steps between the two marks gives you a very accurate Celsius thermometer.

What the **** does that have to do with the BS "accurate to a tenth of a degree 120 years ago" data set?

 

[edthecynic]

How many reading must you take with a thermometer that is 5 degrees plus or minus to get a confidence to a tenth of a degree???

Hey pinhead, it is nearly impossible for a REAL scientist to get a thermometer that far off. What all REAL scientists do first is calibrate their thermometers by putting it in Ice water and marking the reading and then putting it in boiling water and marking that reading. 100 steps between the two marks gives you a very accurate Celsius thermometer.

What the **** does that have to do with the BS "accurate to a tenth of a degree 120 years ago" data set?

Thermometers have been accurate since the 1700s.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No lab work, altered data...yeah, I'm convinced