Have you noticed this?

[skookerasbil]

Look what a large portion of the extent readings are below the baseline average.

With the exception of about ten days in 2012, the extents values during these five months, haven't gone above the baseline average in five years.

Yet another thread of fAiLs0n!!!


A joke.

 

[mamooth]

Note: It says "Presumed ice edge." That's another way of saying they don't really know where the iced edge was.

Yep, it's an educated guess, based on incomplete data.

And it's a whole lot better than anything your side has offered. If you've got better data, show it to us. If you don't, then what are you whining about? This all came about become someone said he had proof of low ice levels long ago. Fine, show us that proof. It will just need to be more impressive than the data I've offered. And considering that I've seen it before, and it's a couple newspaper clippings, that's not going to happen.

 

[skookerasbil]

All scientists factor THIS >>>


Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic | Watts Up With That?


.....into their studies.


But NOT people who study climate science!!!!


Hmmm.......sounds like bogus to me!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Note: It says "Presumed ice edge." That's another way of saying they don't really know where the iced edge was.

Yep, it's an educated guess, based on incomplete data.

And it's a whole lot better than anything your side has offered. If you've got better data, show it to us. If you don't, then what are you whining about? This all came about become someone said he had proof of low ice levels long ago. Fine, show us that proof. It will just need to be more impressive than the data I've offered. And considering that I've seen it before, and it's a couple newspaper clippings, that's not going to happen.

Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.[/SIZE]


"Climate change", ie: global warming wouldn't even exist if not for bogus data rigged by the phonies working the green agenda with all their special interests!!



Stunning admission ? and a new excuse for ?the pause? ? ?lousy data? | Watts Up With That?

 

[Crick]

All scientists factor THIS >>>
Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic | Watts Up With That?
.....into their studies.
But NOT people who study climate science!!!!
Hmmm.......sounds like bogus to me!!!

Are you really that stupid?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We don't know why the solar atmosphere is 200 times hotter than it should be, we don't know how our magnetic field works and the last theory accounting for the presence of the Moon died a silent death, all we know for certain is the AGWcult has a hunch bordering on a strong gut feeling that an additional wisp of CO2 will end life on Earth and they would be happy to kill you for your disbelief....for your own good, of course

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

So you've decided modern science can't be trusted; that we don't actually have a clue how the universe works.

Are you going to be worshipping spirits or demons?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you've decided modern science can't be trusted; that we don't actually have a clue how the universe works.

Are you going to be worshipping spirits or demons?

I didn't say that. I never said that. You're the Cult member. You're the Climactic Jihadist that has absolutely FAITH in the CO2 molecule as driver of climate and destroyer of Earth

Real scientist have the humility to acknowledge that when the data fails their theory, it's time to get a new theory, one that better explains the observations.

The AGWCult is the only branch of "Science" that screams "CONSENSUS!!!" ever louder the more the observations make mockery of their theory.

I laugh when you tell us that the deep ocean ate your global warming. It's silly, pathetic, vapid, lame -- it's all that, but it's not science.

 

[Crick]

So you've decided modern science can't be trusted; that we don't actually have a clue how the universe works.

Are you going to be worshipping spirits or demons?

I didn't say that. I never said that.

I think you did.

You're the Cult member. You're the Climactic Jihadist that has absolutely FAITH in the CO2 molecule as driver of climate and destroyer of Earth

I have no faith at all. I have very close to every single climate scientist on the planet telling me that the world is getting warmer and that human activity is the primary cause. That sort of thing is the opposite of faith. Now when you see the surface temperature heating slow down a little and conclude that global warming has ended or conclude that it was never dependent on greenhouse gases at all - that's an exercise of faith.

Real scientist have the humility to acknowledge that when the data fails their theory, it's time to get a new theory, one that better explains the observations.

They probably do - though I'm not sure that humility is the proper descriptive. So I'm quite certain that if the data ever fails their theory, they'll think real hard about why that happened. In the meanwhile, I bet that humility - or whatever we ought to call it - should allow you deniers to admit that you never had a working idea in the first place. Don't let excessive pride take you down any harder than need be.

The AGWCult is the only branch of "Science" that screams "CONSENSUS!!!" ever louder the more the observations make mockery of their theory.

The observations do no such thing. And the reason you might hear about the global warming consensus more than you'd expect is cause we've all been hearing your fossil-fuel-industry SCAM that there's a great, ongoing debate among climate scientists whether or not the basics of AGW are correct. The consensus exists and because it does, the claim that there's any debate or any uncertainty about the basics are complete bullshit and the reason you're spouting complete bullshit is because the fossil fuel industry has spent many millions of dollars hitting you from all sides with BAD INFORMATION to convince you of precisely that point.

I laugh when you tell us that the deep ocean ate your global warming. It's silly, pathetic, vapid, lame -- it's all that, but it's not science.

That's not my phrase, its yours. And I now have three studies all showing the same thing. I also have what looks to be a truly kick ass El Nino erupting out of the Eastern Pacific with what may well be a record breaking Pacific hurricane season. They call all that sort of stuff EVIDENCE. It's the basis of SCIENCE. It's the opposite of FAITH.

You've had some competition, Frank, but I think you're still holding on to that trophy for most consistently, multiplicatively and broadly wrong.

Congratulations.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This year probably won't be lower then the 4th or 5th lowest. Not going to convince many.

 

[skookerasbil]

All scientists factor THIS >>>
Standard Deviation, The Overlooked But Essential Climate Statistic | Watts Up With That?
.....into their studies.
But NOT people who study climate science!!!!
Hmmm.......sounds like bogus to me!!!

Are you really that stupid?

Yep s0n.....as stoopid as tens of thousands of Masters level and PHd scientists!!!!

 

[daveman]

Look what a large portion of the extent readings are below the baseline average.

With the exception of about ten days in 2012, the extents values during these five months, haven't gone above the baseline average in five years.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that will restore the ice.

 

[daveman]

And no one but AGW deniers has posted in your thread in weeks. It is nothing but an echo chamber. I personally think management ought to delete it. There's no "discussion" taking place there.

Yes, that's the typical progressive response to inconvenient things: Make them go away. Data, facts, people...doesn't matter.

 

[daveman]

Note: It says "Presumed ice edge." That's another way of saying they don't really know where the iced edge was.

Yep, it's an educated guess, based on incomplete data.

And it's a whole lot better than anything your side has offered. If you've got better data, show it to us. If you don't, then what are you whining about? This all came about become someone said he had proof of low ice levels long ago. Fine, show us that proof. It will just need to be more impressive than the data I've offered. And considering that I've seen it before, and it's a couple newspaper clippings, that's not going to happen.

Well, the data from the satellites in the 1800's was stored on cylindrical wax records, and they weren't suited for long-term data storage. Plus, physical limitations forced very low data density rates. For instance, here is a collection of records containing a primitive MP3 of a young woman saying, "Norbert, I do believe I've dropped my parasol out of the carriage!"

Here's Thomas Edison with the first production data cylinder drive:

Also, satellite data reception technology was still in its infancy. Wire antennae were carried aloft by balloons. Unfortunately, solar flares would generate sufficient current in the antenna to ignite the hydrogen envelope:

Finally, satellite launch technology was also very primitive. The first launchers were surplus cannon:

Ironically, the coal-fired steam locomotives required to move these launchers into position contributed to global warming. Oh, the hubris of man!

Orbital mechanics being only partially understood, some satellites failed to achieve orbit. One launch, however, reached escape velocity and impacted on the moon:

Sadly, an ambitious yet ill-advised manned mission to recover the satellite did not meet with success. RIP, Bob.

Given the technological limitations, it's no surprise the satellite data record from the 1800s is spotty at best.

 

[Crick]

If you put all that together Dave, I'm impressed.

Regarding global warming you still don't know what you're talking about and you're talking about it 3 miles out in left field. But for this, I'm impressed.

 

[skookerasbil]

Note: It says "Presumed ice edge." That's another way of saying they don't really know where the iced edge was.

Yep, it's an educated guess, based on incomplete data.

And it's a whole lot better than anything your side has offered. If you've got better data, show it to us. If you don't, then what are you whining about? This all came about become someone said he had proof of low ice levels long ago. Fine, show us that proof. It will just need to be more impressive than the data I've offered. And considering that I've seen it before, and it's a couple newspaper clippings, that's not going to happen.

Well, the data from the satellites in the 1800's was stored on cylindrical wax records, and they weren't suited for long-term data storage. Plus, physical limitations forced very low data density rates. For instance, here is a collection of records containing a primitive MP3 of a young woman saying, "Norbert, I do believe I've dropped my parasol out of the carriage!"

Here's Thomas Edison with the first production data cylinder drive:

Also, satellite data reception technology was still in its infancy. Wire antennae were carried aloft by balloons. Unfortunately, solar flares would generate sufficient current in the antenna to ignite the hydrogen envelope:

Finally, satellite launch technology was also very primitive. The first launchers were surplus cannon:

Ironically, the coal-fired steam locomotives required to move these launchers into position contributed to global warming. Oh, the hubris of man!

Orbital mechanics being only partially understood, some satellites failed to achieve orbit. One launch, however, reached escape velocity and impacted on the moon:

Sadly, an ambitious yet ill-advised manned mission to recover the satellite did not meet with success. RIP, Bob.

Given the technological limitations, it's no surprise the satellite data record from the 1800s is spotty at best.

Dave......LMBO.......how much of a hoot is this forum??!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

“Climate change” is a theory for which there is “no scientific proof at all” says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a “combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one.”


Moore?s Law: CO2 Good; Climate Change Bunk; Greens Follow Religious Fundamentalism | Watts Up With That?



fake data is ghey

 

[Crick]

fake data is ghey

And you're an ignorant bigot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look what a large portion of the extent readings are below the baseline average.

With the exception of about ten days in 2012, the extents values during these five months, haven't gone above the baseline average in five years.

Another chart not showing "Wider and wider swings with an overall warming trend"

 

[skookerasbil]

fake data is ghey

And you're an ignorant bigot.

Naaaah s0n.....you're just a hopeless PC asshole like the hopeless PC assholes that get offended by the world "Redskins" ( all 246 of them ). You people have the backbone of a Hershey bar......jump off a 50 foot cliff due to offensive words.


Trust me s0n.....people who know you re laughing their asses off at you behind your back......nobody respects limpwristers except other limpwristers.