Global warming over the last 16 years

[CrusaderFrank]

Climategate demonstrated the fraud. Yet people still bitterly cling to the failed theory of AGW.

Climatigate may have been a fraud, but this has nothing to do with whether global warming is actually happening or not. There is no logical connectivity, so get the **** off it. There exists still evidence for agw , and that is what is important.

Not in all East Angelia have we seen faith such as this! Your faith has warmed, er I mean climate changed your planet

 

[edthecynic]

and yet you think I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada. there is obviously no opportunity for bias and shading with so many northern thermometers, right?

Again, if those abandoned temp stations hold the proof that there is no global warming, why don't you deniers simply man them and prove it once and for all?????

You don't because you know you would only confirm global warming, so it is essential that you don't and just continue with your conspiracy theories! You have no data so all you have are conspiracy theories.

there is an obvious disconnect between what I am saying and what you are hearing.

I am saying that the methodologies of data collection, collation, and adjustment leave serious doubts about the accuracy of the temperatures and the trends in temperature.

you are saying that all of the bad station siting, poor documentation, seemingly biased increase of recent temps and cooling of past temps, reducing of the number of reporting temperature stations, and reckless infilling of temperature grids from readings that are up to thousands of kilometers away somehow doesnt matter to the accuracy of the temps and trends.

in a way your belief is worse than my scepticism. I want science to succeed by using proper methods. you dont care about the science, and would be quite happy get the 'right' results by misrepresentation.


accidentally getting the right answer by improper methods is just luck not science.

I care about climate science. I hate the way some of these guys are making a mockery of the scientific principles that have led to an explosion of knowledge that has changed the world.

No, I'm saying if you deniers really believe the data was so flawed, as scientists you would have collected your own data and prove the flawed data wrong. That's what real scientists do, not simply claim all data they don't like is flawed and based on that claim alone deny the existence of global warming.

If you remember, the only deniers who collected data, Spencer and Christy, were caught fudging their data to claim global cooling. The honest scientists did not simply claim their data was flawed, they proved it was flawed both by showing accurate data from another source and exposing that among other things Christy and Spencer, promoted by deniers as the foremost experts on satellite data, used the opposite sign to calculate diurnal satellite drift.

 

[edthecynic]

Climategate demonstrated the fraud. Yet people still bitterly cling to the failed theory of AGW.

Climatigate may have been a fraud, but this has nothing to do with whether global warming is actually happening or not. There is no logical connectivity, so get the **** off it. There exists still evidence for agw , and that is what is important.

I see we have another fraud denier. Welcome to the party.

I see we have another Misinformation Voter swallowing the bullshit "climategate" hoax. Welcome to the party.

 

[SSDD]

Again - find a research unit you trust in a country you trust. Perhaps find one in a northern latitude since that seems to be an issue for you. Norway, Finland, Russia (Svalbard), Alaska and Sweden all conduct research which might be useful.

Which nation's scientists are immune to the corrupting influence of money and fame?

Also, I have no idea why both you and SSDD seem to assume any recalculation of results means fraud and malicious intent. In all likelihood, it is about ensuring the results are more accurate, and discounting any results which may be compromised by external influences.

What possible rational purely scientific reason could there be for cooling the temperatures of 754 months prior to 1960 while at the same time warming the temperatures of 570 months since 1958? One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out that one and your precious Finland climate service is getting its world wide data from these people.

And I will ask again, which research unit could you possibly trust when they are all getting their data from the same few worldwide sources which are known to be altered. Maybe Finland's records (from within its borders) remain unaltered although I highly doubt it but since they do not own a global surface stations network they must get temperature data from outside of their country from someone who does and those records have been altered.

 

[SSDD]

You don't because you know you would only confirm global warming, so it is essential that you don't and just continue with your conspiracy theories! You have no data so all you have are conspiracy theories.

Warming isn't the issue. Climate change isn't the issue. The issue is whether man and his activities are responsible and that is where the warmist argument breaks down. You invent this strawman claiming that skeptics deny climate change when in realitiy we are skeptical of man, and a whisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere being responsible and we remain skeptical because you don't have the first shred of actua empirical evidence to support the claim.

 

[percysunshine]

Climatigate may have been a fraud, but this has nothing to do with whether global warming is actually happening or not. There is no logical connectivity, so get the **** off it. There exists still evidence for agw , and that is what is important.

I see we have another fraud denier. Welcome to the party.

I see we have another Misinformation Voter swallowing the bullshit "climategate" hoax. Welcome to the party.

Anthropogenic Glogal Warming threads would best be moved to the Conspiracy Theory forum. It really is an Area 51 topic.

 

[SSDD]

No, I'm saying if you deniers really believe the data was so flawed, as scientists you would have collected your own data and prove the flawed data wrong. That's what real scientists do, not simply claim all data they don't like is flawed and based on that claim alone deny the existence of global warming.

That is exactly what the surface stations project was about and it has proven empirically that the data is flawed.

NOAA's own CRN network proves the data is flawed.

 

[edthecynic]

You don't because you know you would only confirm global warming, so it is essential that you don't and just continue with your conspiracy theories! You have no data so all you have are conspiracy theories.

Warming isn't the issue. Climate change isn't the issue. The issue is whether man and his activities are responsible and that is where the warmist argument breaks down. You invent this strawman claiming that skeptics deny climate change when in realitiy we are skeptical of man, and a whisp of a trace gas in the atmosphere being responsible and we remain skeptical because you don't have the first shred of actua empirical evidence to support the claim.

Actually, warming is the issue, as the title of this thread clearly suggests, and as deniers have been claiming the globe has been cooling for almost 2 decades now. Even now, when they have shifted to denying man's involvement, they still hint that there is no warming, again as the title of this thread shows.

As I have pointed out, there has been no sustained cooling cycle in 100 years, even though all the natural temperature forcings have continued to go through their natural up and down cycles over the entire period.

Something not related to the natural cycles is overpowering the natural cycles that cause cooling and adding to the natural cycles that cause warming, and man is an obvious candidate. There might be others and I am open to any other candidates you might have to offer.

 

[edthecynic]

No, I'm saying if you deniers really believe the data was so flawed, as scientists you would have collected your own data and prove the flawed data wrong. That's what real scientists do, not simply claim all data they don't like is flawed and based on that claim alone deny the existence of global warming.

That is exactly what the surface stations project was about and it has proven empirically that the data is flawed.

NOAA's own CRN network proves the data is flawed.

Satellite data confirms the ground data is accurate, and as has been pointed out, since the warming trends are found using anomalies and not raw temperature, even bad siting does not make the data inaccurate enough to change the trend from warming to cooling. That is why real scientists use anomaly data rather than raw temperature data like deniers do.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, warming is the issue, as the title of this thread clearly suggests, and as deniers have been claiming the globe has been cooling for almost 2 decades now. Even now, when they have shifted to denying man's involvement, they still hint that there is no warming, again as the title of this thread shows.

This thread was brought on by hansen, priestking of the warmers finally acknowledging that the warming trend has been absent for the past decade and a half.

As I have pointed out, there has been no sustained cooling cycle in 100 years, even though all the natural temperature forcings have continued to go through their natural up and down cycles over the entire period.

And what makes you think that there is supposed to be cooling cycle at any predictable time? Because it has happend within a very narrow geological window of your choosing?

Something not related to the natural cycles is overpowering the natural cycles that cause cooling and adding to the natural cycles that cause warming, and man is an obvious candidate. There might be others and I am open to any other candidates you might have to offer.

So you are saying that the present climate is unprecedented in the history of the world? Is that your claim? Becasuse if you are, then you are truely clueless. Science has barely scratched the surface insofar as natural cycles go. We really don't have a clue. We believe we have some understanding of the larger forces, but even where they are concened, our knowledge is sketchy and mostly incomplete. With regard to the smaller forces, we don't have a clue. To claim that because the climate isn't following some order within a very small geological window must mean that we are doing it is just plain silly considering the volumes that we have yet to learn with regard to how energy moves through our system.

When you can point to something that is entirely uprecedented in the history of the earth, let me know.

By the way, Roy Spencer acknowledges that the satellite data undergoes "interpretation" just like the surface record and it is well known that part of that interpretation is an attempt at correcting known problems with the satellite. There isn't much way, however, to assure that the corrections are correct. As with everything else in cliamte science it is just a guess.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, warming is the issue, as the title of this thread clearly suggests, and as deniers have been claiming the globe has been cooling for almost 2 decades now. Even now, when they have shifted to denying man's involvement, they still hint that there is no warming, again as the title of this thread shows.

This thread was brought on by hansen, priestking of the warmers finally acknowledging that the warming trend has been absent for the past decade and a half.

As I have pointed out, there has been no sustained cooling cycle in 100 years, even though all the natural temperature forcings have continued to go through their natural up and down cycles over the entire period.

And what makes you think that there is supposed to be cooling cycle at any predictable time? Because it has happend within a very narrow geological window of your choosing?

Something not related to the natural cycles is overpowering the natural cycles that cause cooling and adding to the natural cycles that cause warming, and man is an obvious candidate. There might be others and I am open to any other candidates you might have to offer.

So you are saying that the present climate is unprecedented in the history of the world? Is that your claim? Becasuse if you are, then you are truely clueless. Science has barely scratched the surface insofar as natural cycles go. We really don't have a clue. We believe we have some understanding of the larger forces, but even where they are concened, our knowledge is sketchy and mostly incomplete. With regard to the smaller forces, we don't have a clue. To claim that because the climate isn't following some order within a very small geological window must mean that we are doing it is just plain silly considering the volumes that we have yet to learn with regard to how energy moves through our system.

When you can point to something that is entirely uprecedented in the history of the earth, let me know.

By the way, Roy Spencer acknowledges that the satellite data undergoes "interpretation" just like the surface record and it is well known that part of that interpretation is an attempt at correcting known problems with the satellite. There isn't much way, however, to assure that the corrections are correct. As with everything else in cliamte science it is just a guess.

Everything else you posted is as accurate as what I highlighted. The correct SIGN to use for calculating diurnal satellite drift is not a "GUESS."
Guess again!

 

[SSDD]

Everything else you posted is as accurate as what I highlighted. The correct SIGN to use for calculating diurnal satellite drift is not a "GUESS."
Guess again!

Calculating the drift is more than just a sign and you know it....or should anyway.

 

[edthecynic]

Everything else you posted is as accurate as what I highlighted. The correct SIGN to use for calculating diurnal satellite drift is not a "GUESS."
Guess again!

Calculating the drift is more than just a sign and you know it....or should anyway.

Again, with a Straw Man! Where did I say calculating the diurnal satellite drift was "JUST" a sign?????

And Spencer and Christy, being the FOREMOST experts on satellite data, should know which sign to use, but somehow these TWO experts BOTH used the wrong sign which just happened to turn global warming into global cooling. I know that a sign is involved in the calculation and that it should be as obvious to the FOREMOST experts on satellite data which sign, + or -, to use as it was to the lesser non-experts who got the sign right. Deniers then attacked those who used the correct sign, accusing them of cooking the data. Christy and Spencer refused to recheck their work, three guesses why and the first two don't count, forcing others to invest their time and money into checking their work. Once their data was corrected and it matched both the other satellite data and the ground stations, suddenly all satellite data was flawed. It seems that any data that does not support the deniers is by definition "flawed."

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Please acknowledge that your statement:

At best the cult of AGW enjoys 25% support.

is false.

No, I won't. Based on what I see in the comments section of the papers and newsmagazines when I see them the overwhelming response is sceptical. I am being generous with the 25% estimate.

You can quote your bullshit biased news agency polls anytime you like, but I look at the real world and the real world calls it like it see's it. And the real world says you all are full of horse dung.

For further support I refer you to noted warmist Randy Olsen and his warmist website....

"Next month I’m doing a week-long visit to Brown University. On Wednesday February 13 I’ll be giving a talk titled, “CLIMATE SKEPTICS: There here, they’re “queer,” get used to them” — with the “queer” part meaning out of the ordinary. The title is prompted by a run-in with a climate scientist last month who was STILL spouting the old 2006 line of, “we need to ignore them and they will go away.” That didn’t work. They ALREADY succeeded. Catch up with the times. There is no climate legislation today. The “ignore them” strategy failed. Move on."

http://thebenshi.com/2013/01/24/259-debating-morano-why-oh-why/

 

[SSDD]

Christy and Spencer refused to recheck their work, three guesses why and the first two don't count, forcing others to invest their time and money into checking their work.

Untrue...Spencer, while I don't agree with him as he is a believer in backradiaton did correct his work as soon as the error was pointed out to him.

The point is that the satellite data is being massaged because the satellite can no longer provide accurate data according to Spencer himself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's changed from "Global Warming" To "Climate Change" and nobody is supposed to notice

Shhhhhhhh.

 

[edthecynic]

Christy and Spencer refused to recheck their work, three guesses why and the first two don't count, forcing others to invest their time and money into checking their work.

Untrue...Spencer, while I don't agree with him as he is a believer in backradiaton did correct his work as soon as the error was pointed out to him.

The point is that the satellite data is being massaged because the satellite can no longer provide accurate data according to Spencer himself.

Again you are just making stuff up.

Spencer put out his cooked data in 1996 and by 1998 Wentz published his paper that said Spencer's error was due satellite drift. Spencer did nothing. In 2000 Prabhakara also found satellite drift errors. Spencer again did nothing. It was always outside sources who corrected Spencer's errors, Mears at RSS who corrected his drift errors which Spencer did not fully correct until 2005 and Qiang Fu of the University of Washington who came up with a method of removing the spurious stratospheric cooling as a result of the satellite drift, the Fu Method, which Spencer fought tooth and nail.

 

[SSDD]

Again you are just making stuff up.

I can only suppose you are getting your info from places like skeptical science (what a laugh) who only post fiction.

Here, quoted from Christy, J. R. and R. W. Spencer, 2005: Correcting Temperature Data Sets. 11 November 2005: 972. Science. DOI:10.1126/science.310.5750.972

“We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1. This adjustment is within our previously published error margin of ± 0.05 K/decade.”



If you are interested in an honest account as opposed to the dishonest smear by skeptical science (that name makes me laugh every time I hear it) here is a link to what Pelkie Sr. had to say:

Pielke Sr. on Skeptical Science?s attacks on Spencer and Christy | Watts Up With That?

 

[edthecynic]

Christy and Spencer refused to recheck their work, three guesses why and the first two don't count, forcing others to invest their time and money into checking their work.

Untrue...Spencer, while I don't agree with him as he is a believer in backradiaton did correct his work as soon as the error was pointed out to him.

The point is that the satellite data is being massaged because the satellite can no longer provide accurate data according to Spencer himself.

Again you are just making stuff up.

Spencer put out his cooked data in 1996 and by 1998 Wentz published his paper that said Spencer's error was due satellite drift. Spencer did nothing. In 2000 Prabhakara also found satellite drift errors. Spencer again did nothing. It was always outside sources who corrected Spencer's errors, Mears at RSS who corrected his drift errors which Spencer did not fully correct until 2005 and Qiang Fu of the University of Washington who came up with a method of removing the spurious stratospheric cooling as a result of the satellite drift, the Fu Method, which Spencer fought tooth and nail.

Again you are just making stuff up.

I can only suppose you are getting your info from places like skeptical science (what a laugh) who only post fiction.

Here, quoted from Christy, J. R. and R. W. Spencer, 2005: Correcting Temperature Data Sets. 11 November 2005: 972. Science. DOI:10.1126/science.310.5750.972

“We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is +0.123 K/decade, or +0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1. This adjustment is within our previously published error margin of ± 0.05 K/decade.”



If you are interested in an honest account as opposed to the dishonest smear by skeptical science (that name makes me laugh every time I hear it) here is a link to what Pelkie Sr. had to say:

Pielke Sr. on Skeptical Science?s attacks on Spencer and Christy | Watts Up With That?

I got nothing from Skeptical Science, but since you condemn them they must be honest and I will be sure to check them out.

But thank you for confirming that Spencer did not correct his errors until 2005 even though Wentz published in 1998. BTW, Watt's Up With That has less credibility than you!

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

It's interesting that you demand scientists display integrity and honety in their research findings - but refuse to do so yourself.

Here once again we see that you are presented with solid evidence in the form of two different polls conducted by different independent organisations - and reject both in favour of blind faith.

You are wrong, you clearly know that you are wrong, and anyone who looks at the research will see that you are wrong. But admitting it is apparently beyond you.