Global warming over the last 16 years

[Saigon]

Belief in the AGW hypothesis is based on one of two things, money in the case of scientists who depend on grant money for a living, or political leanings for those who don't. It isn't based on hard evidence, it isn't based on observable experiments, it isn't even based on real observation...it is based on an assumtion that correlation somehow constitutes causation.

Yeah, I have a hard time accepting that you believe that. Or that anyone else believes that.

If scientists working with coal or nuclear had never made any money out of their professions it still wouldn't make up a strong case.

It's just out-and-out nonsense to suggest that literally hundreds of research centres around the world all produce similar results as some giant conspiracy to get funding. No one believes that. Nobody.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I am not using altered records.

Are you sure? How are you sure? There is plenty of evidence of alteration...what makes you think the record you are using is pristine? Which record are you using?

As I explained earlier - with Finnish climate I use Finnish records, conducted by Finnish research units using Finnish data.

By all means explain where they are altered.

You see why you don't have a strong case with this?

It's just laughable to suggest all of these research centres are part of some evil conspracy.

 

[SSDD]

It's just out-and-out nonsense to suggest that literally hundreds of research centres around the world all produce similar results as some giant conspiracy to get funding. No one believes that. Nobody.

I don't really believe it is a conspiracy. What has happened to climate science is an error cascade. If you aren't familiar with what that is or how much of a problem one can cause, look at the medical research community.

An error cascade happens when some bit of unproven science is accepted as fact and is then in turn used as support for other papers and referenced by papers after that and after that and after that till that bit of unproven science has become an intergal part of a whole field of research. If that bit of unproven science is wrong, then everything that has been built upon it is wrong.

The error cascade in climate science began with Trenberth's energy budget. There isn't one scrap of actual observable evidence to support it and in fact, it represents the earth as a flat disk, that does not rotate, which is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day. That model is the basis upon which every climate model runs and it is nothing like reality. All of climate science is built upon that energy budget and as a piece of science it is laughable.

Feel free to convert me to your side by proving that energy budget is correct.

 

[westwall]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says

Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday.

2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

Not according to Hansen (who PROVIDES the data to NOAA I might add). According to him 2012 was the 9th warmest....really, you should at least make an attempt to stay abreast of things.

"Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

 

[SSDD]

As I explained earlier - with Finnish climate I use Finnish records, conducted by Finnish research units using Finnish data.

I asked you where they get their data. Finland does not have its own worldwide surface station network so the data comes from somewhere. Where exactly?

 

[westwall]

Belief in the AGW hypothesis is based on one of two things, money in the case of scientists who depend on grant money for a living, or political leanings for those who don't. It isn't based on hard evidence, it isn't based on observable experiments, it isn't even based on real observation...it is based on an assumtion that correlation somehow constitutes causation.

Yeah, I have a hard time accepting that you believe that. Or that anyone else believes that.

If scientists working with coal or nuclear had never made any money out of their professions it still wouldn't make up a strong case.

It's just out-and-out nonsense to suggest that literally hundreds of research centres around the world all produce similar results as some giant conspiracy to get funding. No one believes that. Nobody.

Hundreds? Dream on, there are maybe 50 worldwide why do you think the same names are allways being bandied about? Once again you pull a number out of some fantasy land that bears no relationship to reality.

And yes, they use altered data all the time....only now there are people finding it and challenging them on those practices...

"A few weeks ago, Hansen was caught massively altering the temperature record in Iceland – to produce a non-existent warming trend, and disappear that pesky warm 1930s and 1940s."


Hansen Covering His Tracks In Iceland | Real Science

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

I am not using altered records.

Are you sure? How are you sure? There is plenty of evidence of alteration...what makes you think the record you are using is pristine? Which record are you using?

As I explained earlier - with Finnish climate I use Finnish records, conducted by Finnish research units using Finnish data.

By all means explain where they are altered.

You see why you don't have a strong case with this?

It's just laughable to suggest all of these research centres are part of some evil conspracy.

I suggest you listen to one of your own then...

"Three years ago both scientific circles and the rest of us were flabbergasted by the so-called Climategate scandal. The personal e-mail messages of some Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) researchers were leaked to the public. Some of the correspondence was from the time when the 2001 IPCC report was being finalised. The messages revealed that the researchers were wondering how the ‘problematic’ Medieval Warm Period could be concealed. In later messages the scientists contemplated, why temperatures did not go up during the first decade of the millennium, and what they could possibly do about this issue."



FINNISH MEP QUESTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE | Roger Helmer MEP

 

[longknife]

If there's so much globull warming, why did I spend the last two weeks below the Tropic of Cancer wearing a sweater to fend off the chill?

 

[Saigon]

As I explained earlier - with Finnish climate I use Finnish records, conducted by Finnish research units using Finnish data.

I asked you where they get their data. Finland does not have its own worldwide surface station network so the data comes from somewhere. Where exactly?

Oh dear...I remember now why I so rarely bother with these threads...this stuff really is just so obvious, isn't it?

Finland conducts its own research into its own climate, and draws its own conclusions. Most countries do this.

They also share that data.

Apparently, the hundreds (Yes Westwall, hundreds!) or research units and Universities who conduct this research are all involved with some massive conspiracy to fake that data.

Except, of course, such a conspiracy would be impossible to pull off in the real world, even if scientists did want to perform such a stunt.

Honestly - is there anyone at all who believes such a presposterous theory?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Why do you consider a politician to be an expert on climate?

 

[Saigon]

If there's so much globull warming, why did I spend the last two weeks below the Tropic of Cancer wearing a sweater to fend off the chill?

Because you lack the intelligence to understand what climate change means.

Ignorance is not always the best excuse.

 

[SSDD]

Oh dear...I remember now why I so rarely bother with these threads...this stuff really is just so obvious, isn't it?

Perhaps you don't come around so much because of all the questions you can't answer. Of course, Finland takes its own temperature, but where does it get the data they use from the rest of the globe? Are you saying that they have their very own global surface stations network? It is an easy question if you aren't trying to dodge.

If you are trying to say that Finland's climate mirrors the climate of the whole earth and therefore data from within Finland is all that is necessary for their climate scientists who interpolate into a set of global climate data then you make my argument for me.

 

[SSDD]

If there's so much globull warming, why did I spend the last two weeks below the Tropic of Cancer wearing a sweater to fend off the chill?

Because you lack the intelligence to understand what climate change means.

Ignorance is not always the best excuse.

Being duped, willingly or not is an even worse excuse.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Why do you consider a politician to be an expert on climate?

I don't. However she has a brain and uses it. You all claim that unless you're a climatologist you can't possibly understand what they have to say and that is utter horse shit. I can teach any graduate level class that a PhD in climatology cares to offer. On the other hand there is not one single graduate level geology class that a climatology professor could teach so who is more qualified in the field of science?

You see that's where your high priest mantra falls apart. I am a "hard" scientist. That means everything I do MUST be measurable. Climatology on the other hand is a "soft" science, which means they get to be subjective.

Put into a sporting analogy, my science is the track and field side of the olympics which means the winner is the one who was fastest or highest etc. Climatology is the gymnastics side where "judges" determine who wins based on how they viewed the performance...and there's NEVER any discord with that process is there....

 

[westwall]

If there's so much globull warming, why did I spend the last two weeks below the Tropic of Cancer wearing a sweater to fend off the chill?

Because you lack the intelligence to understand what climate change means.

Ignorance is not always the best excuse.

Pot meet kettle. You look at the last 30 years and ignore all that went on before and you claim to understand what climate change means...you're the moron here fool.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Right. So your source is someone who agrees with you - not someone with any background in science, nor knowledge of science.

And any source who does have a background in science will be ignored.

Fundamentalism, pure and simple.

 

[Saigon]

Oh dear...I remember now why I so rarely bother with these threads...this stuff really is just so obvious, isn't it?

Perhaps you don't come around so much because of all the questions you can't answer. Of course, Finland takes its own temperature, but where does it get the data they use from the rest of the globe? Are you saying that they have their very own global surface stations network? It is an easy question if you aren't trying to dodge.

If you are trying to say that Finland's climate mirrors the climate of the whole earth and therefore data from within Finland is all that is necessary for their climate scientists who interpolate into a set of global climate data then you make my argument for me.

Try reading my comment again and thinking it through.

It is NOT difficult.

And no - that is obviously not what I am trying to say.

In all seriousness man, I am more than happy to answer questions, but I'd prefer you read my comments first.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Westwall -

Right. So your source is someone who agrees with you - not someone with any background in science, nor knowledge of science.

And any source who does have a background in science will be ignored.

Fundamentalism, pure and simple.

We've established that AGW is not science, don't mix the two together

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

What we established is that you will ignore all science presented which establishes that human acitivity is a factor in climate change, and that you only pretend to want a lab test.

We also established that you do not require lab tests of other concepts.

Westwall is the same - he'll take the word of a politician, but ignore the word of anyone trained in the topic. It's fundamentalism, right out of the American Taliban playbook.

 

[longknife]

If there's so much globull warming, why did I spend the last two weeks below the Tropic of Cancer wearing a sweater to fend off the chill?

Because you lack the intelligence to understand what climate change means.

Ignorance is not always the best excuse.

Name calling is a clear sign of a Leftist who cannot deal with reality or bother to attempt to discuss a topic in an intelligent manner,

Have a nice day;.