Has there been a hiatus

[jc456]

What jc leaves out there is that the IPCC included a section explaining why the hiatus wasn't a hiatus. Not very honest of him, to lie big by pretending the IPCC said there was a hiatus.

Yo lied, jc. You need to apologize to everyone for lying. If you don't, then by your own standards, everyone will have to assume everything you say is a lie. I mean, if you'll lie so proudly and so big about that, what wouldn't you lie about?

well if there wasn't a pause, why the 'excess heat' claim?
IPCC stated:
"the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

What is it you call that?

 

[mamooth]

A slightly reduced rate of warming. Which is a very distinctly different thing from a pause or hiatus.

English. Learn it.

 

[jc456]

A slightly reduced rate of warming. Which is a very distinctly different thing from a pause or hiatus.

English. Learn it.

where is the word 'slightly' in what I posted?

Talk about disingenuous, changed words. Now that is lying to the limit there friends.

 

[jc456]

Hey, tooth, why'd they state '15' years? Isn't that ~what has been stated in this forum? BTW, you called me out fool. Now apologize to ME!!!!!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

It's a simple yes or no question. FCT, do you believe the 1941-1975 hiatus is not real?

No way to tell since they've ADJUSTED DOWN the very HIGH temperatures of the 1940s.. You NEED to suppress those to make the "monthly hottest" records that are being carried by the media.. Given OLDER VERSIONS of the US temperature record -- that "hiatus" after the 40s is much less pronounced because when you push the PEAK DOWN -- you hide the decline after the peak as well.

JUST GO LOOK AT THE FLASHING GIFF Graphs that are ON THE LAST PAGE.

DO YOU SEE ADJUSTMENTS THERE?? And what they DO to the claims that can be made about TODAY'S temperatures?? I need an answer to that..

You can WATCH the 1940s get cooler all the time if you want. THOSE adjustments go down. But there are PLENTY and MORE of up adjustments later on these records..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, tooth, why'd they state '15' years? Isn't that ~what has been stated in this forum? BTW, you called me out fool. Now apologize to ME!!!!!!!!!

Mooth is a reality DENIER!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Here..

I KNOW it's 2 graphs and you can't read them.. But the way you MAKE the 40s thru 60s LOOK LIKE a hiatus is you PUSH DOWN the highest highs in the late 30s to early 40s...

BTW -- cause I'm sure you're not gonna figure it out.. The chart with the LOWER 40s data and HIGHER 90s data IS THE MANGLED FUCKED WITH data...

 

[jc456]

Hey, tooth, why'd they state '15' years? Isn't that ~what has been stated in this forum? BTW, you called me out fool. Now apologize to ME!!!!!!!!!

Mooth is a reality DENIER!!

AMEN!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Flac, as your conspiracy theory is only supportable if you engage in a brazen cherrypicking fallacy, it's not much of a conspiracy theory.

The full global adjustments make the current warming look smaller. Therefore, the conspiracy theory is nonsense, being that it makes statements which are completely contrary to reality.

 

[jc456]

Flac, as your conspiracy theory is only supportable if you engage in a brazen cherrypicking fallacy, it's not much of a conspiracy theory.

The full global adjustments make the current warming look smaller. Therefore, the conspiracy theory is nonsense, being that it makes statements which are completely contrary to reality.

you lie, I don't trust your statement, you have a history of lying. So, just post up those dataset records liar.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac, as your conspiracy theory is only supportable if you engage in a brazen cherrypicking fallacy, it's not much of a conspiracy theory.

The full global adjustments make the current warming look smaller. Therefore, the conspiracy theory is nonsense, being that it makes statements which are completely contrary to reality.

Not a true statement in that post cat..

 

[flacaltenn]

Just so that Mammy can't claim he's never seen adjustments to any of Temp. data go UP...

And for Crick's graph reading benefit -- these are not TEMPERATURES. They are the COOKED adjustments to the temperatures.

Note ---- They CHANGE drastically over time and always favor making a hockey stick out of the raw temperature measurements for the benefit of the cause.

That's not a conspiracy on my part or the part of the skeptics. Not my imagination -- I'm certain.

Not a conspiracy ---- MIGHT BE a crime.. This is exactly why that Duke Dr. Brown calls the outcome of these adjustments "highly improbable".. It strains credulity...

 

[flacaltenn]

And just so Mammy doesn't think this happened to JUST the US temperature record..

Apparently at inspection -- A similar "correction" over history has been applied to other stations around the world.
Looks like the ONLY thermometers they trust were made between 1970 and 1985 !!!!!!! Entirely strange that no "corrections" in a long series adjustments had an effect on those sturdy thermometers... Or the people reading them in that area were BETTER at it than any other time in history..

This NEEDS some sunlight. And if they CONTINUE to monkey with the "pause" -- there will be an all-out battle over RELEASING their methods .....

 

[mamooth]

As usual, when Flac's cherrypicking fallacy gets highlighted, he simply doubles down on the cherrypicking. He very badly wants everyone to forget that he's deliberately pretending the ocean adjustments aren't part of the global average, being the ocean adjustments make the overall warming look smaller.

Flac, how does you conspiracy theory work that in? According to your conspiracy theory, the scientists go to elaborate lengths to make the warming on land look a little bigger ... and then they totally wipe out all that hard evil work by throwing in the adjustments that make the ocean warming and total warming look smaller. If the supposed goal is to make the warming look bigger, why throw in those ocean adjustments that make the total warming look smaller? Doing no adjustments at all would make the warming look bigger, so why not do that?

I know how to explain it. The explanation is that the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is obvious nonsense. Being that's the simplest theory which explains all of the observed data, Occam's says it's most like to be correct.

 

[jc456]

As usual, when Flac's cherrypicking fallacy gets highlighted, he simply doubles down on the cherrypicking. He very badly wants everyone to forget that he's deliberately pretending the ocean adjustments aren't part of the global average, being the ocean adjustments make the overall warming look smaller.

Flac, how does you conspiracy theory work that in? According to your conspiracy theory, the scientists go to elaborate lengths to make the warming on land look a little bigger ... and then they totally wipe out all that hard evil work by throwing in the adjustments that make the ocean warming and total warming look smaller. If the supposed goal is to make the warming look bigger, why throw in those ocean adjustments that make the total warming look smaller? Doing no adjustments at all would make the warming look bigger, so why not do that?

I know how to explain it. The explanation is that the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is obvious nonsense. Being that's the simplest theory which explains all of the observed data, Occam's says it's most like to be correct.

you have any actual reply to that post? Seems like a flame, shuck and jive for my liking. so what is it that he's exactly cherry picking. State what it is. Can you? Or is it more shuck and jiving for attention?

 

[flacaltenn]

As usual, when Flac's cherrypicking fallacy gets highlighted, he simply doubles down on the cherrypicking. He very badly wants everyone to forget that he's deliberately pretending the ocean adjustments aren't part of the global average, being the ocean adjustments make the overall warming look smaller.

Flac, how does you conspiracy theory work that in? According to your conspiracy theory, the scientists go to elaborate lengths to make the warming on land look a little bigger ... and then they totally wipe out all that hard evil work by throwing in the adjustments that make the ocean warming and total warming look smaller. If the supposed goal is to make the warming look bigger, why throw in those ocean adjustments that make the total warming look smaller? Doing no adjustments at all would make the warming look bigger, so why not do that?

I know how to explain it. The explanation is that the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is obvious nonsense. Being that's the simplest theory which explains all of the observed data, Occam's says it's most like to be correct.

So now you got nothing.. Is that it? You lost on no UP adjustments,, now you're making assertions on the ocean?
Don't claim you've never seen adjustments that simply skip thru the 60s and 70s and go DOWN to cool the 40s and UP to warm the 2000s...

 

[mamooth]

So now you got nothing.. Is that it? You lost on no UP adjustments,

I never made any such claims. You're now declaring victory over your strawman. Well done.

now you're making assertions on the ocean

I'm stating the simple facts. If you include the ocean adjustments -- and the scientists always do include them -- the past looks warmer, thus the current warming looks smaller.

Don't claim you've never seen adjustments that simply skip thru the 60s and 70s and go DOWN to cool the 40s and UP to warm the 2000s...

Again, the cherrypicking. You don't seem to grasp the fallacy of it. If you're not looking at the whole world, it's just cherrypicked crap.

You being emotionally blocked from processing the truth doesn't matter. The world's scientists do understand the truth, therefore they know the denier conspiracy theory is garbage.

 

[jc456]

So now you got nothing.. Is that it? You lost on no UP adjustments,

I never made any such claims. You're now declaring victory over your strawman. Well done.

now you're making assertions on the ocean

I'm stating the simple facts. If you include the ocean adjustments -- and the scientists always do include them -- the past looks warmer, thus the current warming looks smaller.

Don't claim you've never seen adjustments that simply skip thru the 60s and 70s and go DOWN to cool the 40s and UP to warm the 2000s...

Again, the cherrypicking. You don't seem to grasp the fallacy of it. If you're not looking at the whole world, it's just cherrypicked crap.

You being emotionally blocked from processing the truth doesn't matter. The world's scientists do understand the truth, therefore they know the denier conspiracy theory is garbage.

so like always no response. shuck and jive bubba girl. Why no adjustments in the 60s and 70s I believe was the question. Why not answer it? Hey, and better yet, let's see these linky thingy's that actually back up your story. seems you never once put one up; come on bubba girl show us them linky thingys

 

[Crick]

Just so that Mammy can't claim he's never seen adjustments to any of Temp. data go UP...

And for Crick's graph reading benefit -- these are not TEMPERATURES. They are the COOKED adjustments to the temperatures.

Note ---- They CHANGE drastically over time and always favor making a hockey stick out of the raw temperature measurements for the benefit of the cause.

That's not a conspiracy on my part or the part of the skeptics. Not my imagination -- I'm certain.

Not a conspiracy ---- MIGHT BE a crime.. This is exactly why that Duke Dr. Brown calls the outcome of these adjustments "highly improbable".. It strains credulity...

Did you miss my post with Roy Spencer's comments about the satellite data on which Brown is basing his accusations?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just so that Mammy can't claim he's never seen adjustments to any of Temp. data go UP...

And for Crick's graph reading benefit -- these are not TEMPERATURES. They are the COOKED adjustments to the temperatures.

Note ---- They CHANGE drastically over time and always favor making a hockey stick out of the raw temperature measurements for the benefit of the cause.

That's not a conspiracy on my part or the part of the skeptics. Not my imagination -- I'm certain.

Not a conspiracy ---- MIGHT BE a crime.. This is exactly why that Duke Dr. Brown calls the outcome of these adjustments "highly improbable".. It strains credulity...

Did you miss my post with Roy Spencer's comments about the satellite data on which Brown is basing his accusations?

Has not much to do with Brown's comments. which were on the SURFACE adjustments. The two satellite records aren't the ones doing the diverging over time. And there's not a huge number of people and manhours spent going back and revising 30 year old simple thermometer readings constantly.. It's that "Changes to the GISS US temperature chart since 1999" ANd the thousands of foreign examples on the Web that is the issue..