In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

The data was taken from NOAA before the magic Karl Et Al made massive adjustments to it.. I noticed you cling to adjusted, modeled and molested crap.

Your own graph shows evidence of quite a bit of adjustment as well...refer to the newspaper clipping from 1989 in the post above....in 1989 NOAA clearly stated that they saw a cooling trend between the years of 1921 and 1979...that trend had already been adjusted out of existence by the time the data for your graph was used...They also said that most of the warming since 1882 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919....another trend that had already been adjusted out of existence by the time the data was used to create your graph...

There is little doubt that the temperature record has been manipulated and altered out of all reason and bears little, if any resemblance to the actual historical record if it even still exists.

There have been over 90 alterations to the historical record in the last 15 years by NOAA, NASA, and GISS, that we know about... Its been molested so badly it is no longer credible.

In my work, I have to rely on data sets taken from other papers, previously published, simply becasue the base line is so irreparably damaged. Data sets from just 15 years ago are totally unrecognizable in comparison to today's fantasy published by NOAA.

Take the graph Wei Wei is having a hard time with, that was data taken in 2008 from NOAA's own published data set. Just try to retrieve that data set today and you will find that it has been removed from the site. Only the heavily adjusted and molested data is available today.

Thank God for reputable scientists who have downloaded and kept these data sets monthly. I have been trying to get a few to publish the gradual changes done over the years. I was totally flabbergasted that there had been 90 significant changes to the record in the last 15 years...

It takes a lot of adjusting to maintain the narrative when mother nature is making you and your failed hypothesis her bitch year after year...what else can they do?....admit that they were wrong...

 

[Wuwei]

That graph has some troubling problems of its own and the fact that it came from NOAA makes it all the more troubling. In 1989 NOAA said that they had observed a decline in temperature between the years of 1921 and 1979...that decline is not evident in your graph...why not? They also stated that most of the warming since 1881 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919. Your graph doesn't reflect that trend either..why? The discrepancy between what your graph says and what NOAA said in 1989 is the result of a systematic raising of modern temperatures and an equally systematic lowering of temperatures further in the past....your graph reflects that elegantly.

Can you offer up a rational, scientifically valid reason for such drastic changes in the temperature record? Do you really believe that altering the record to that degree has made it more accurate?

I have no idea. The graph you are referring to is 27 years old. Yes I know you believe that the newer graph is fraud. You will have to look to NOAA for the answer of what has changed in the science in the last 27 years.

Furthermore the graph Billy posted goes up to 2012. The last decades of that graph differ wildly from NOAA's later graph.I can hardly see that Billy's graph, which predated the current NOAA data by almost 3 decades can have any bearing on the last three decades of what Billy's photobucket graph showed. Obviously the last 27 years did not exist back in 1989.

 

[mamooth]

Is CO2 emitted from internal combustion engines the only factor within the climate that can cause stratospheric cooling?

Any greenhouse gases could do it. So is that your admission that greenhouse gases are causing the observed global warming?

Has the stratosphere never cooled before

No.

Because I say so, the same standard you use, so you can't argue with it.

Your "natural cycles" nonsense can't explain the directly observed data, therefore your natural cycles nonsense is demonstrably wrong. It's that simple. Sucks to be you, but the evidence is what is it, and it says you're wrong.

If radiation is detected from the atmosphere with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is it back radiation at all?

No cooling required, so you do yet another faceplant into a cow patty here. The contortions you go into to deny the basic evidence are quite comical. If your kook theory wasn't so laughable, you wouldn't need to twist and evade like that.

There is no decrease in OLR...in fact, it is increasing contrary to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis...yet another failure..

Your unsourced mystery graph isn't evidence of anything except your propensity for fraud. Honest people don't post unsourced mystery graphs and refuse to identify their exact source. You do. That's because you're a fraud, and all the non-fraudulent data directly contradicts your claims.

 

[mamooth]

And as I have pointed out to you, they are measuring changes within internal thermopiles...not actual incoming or outgoing radiation...fooling yourself with instrumentation is not evidence of anything other than you don't understand the instrument.

That's right, the electronics companies are deliberately defrauding their customers with instruments that don't work, and none of their customers have figured that out. Only a supergenius like you understands the RealTruth.

Your conspiracy theory constantly keeps getting more stupid and more desperate.

So, does anybody else want to jump on SSDD's stupid wagon, and claim that all modern thermal imaging technology is fraudulent? Jump right on in if you agree with him.

 

[Crick]

But speaking of predictions, yours doesn't seem to have panned out. The 3 month plot at lasp.colorado.edu seems to be doing a u-turn after having gotten all the way down to 1360.2. Ice Age Imminent...NOT

 

[SSDD]

Any greenhouse gases could do it. So is that your admission that greenhouse gases are causing the observed global warming?

And you believe that only greenhouse gasses could cause it? Got any actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim or is it just more talking out of your ass as usual..

Has the stratosphere never cooled before

No.

Because I say so, the same standard you use, so you can't argue with it.[/quote]

Again...no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support that claim either...in fact, you are just further proving the original premise of this thread...thanks.

Your "natural cycles" nonsense can't explain the directly observed data, therefore your natural cycles nonsense is demonstrably wrong. It's that simple. Sucks to be you, but the evidence is what is it, and it says you're wrong.

Really? that's odd since there is nothing happening within the climate today that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....

No cooling required, so you do yet another faceplant into a cow patty here. The contortions you go into to deny the basic evidence are quite comical. If your kook theory wasn't so laughable, you wouldn't need to twist and evade like that.

And yet, all so called measurements of back radiation are made with instruments cooled to at least -80 F....

There is no decrease in OLR...in fact, it is increasing contrary to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis...yet another failure..

Your unsourced mystery graph isn't evidence of anything except your propensity for fraud. Honest people don't post unsourced mystery graphs and refuse to identify their exact source. You do. That's because you're a fraud, and all the non-fraudulent data directly contradicts your claims.[/QUOTE]

Sorry hairball, the graphs are real...sorry you can't handle the truth...

 

[SSDD]

And as I have pointed out to you, they are measuring changes within internal thermopiles...not actual incoming or outgoing radiation...fooling yourself with instrumentation is not evidence of anything other than you don't understand the instrument.

That's right, the electronics companies are deliberately defrauding their customers with instruments that don't work, and none of their customers have figured that out. Only a supergenius like you understands the RealTruth.

Your conspiracy theory constantly keeps getting more stupid and more desperate.

So, does anybody else want to jump on SSDD's stupid wagon, and claim that all modern thermal imaging technology is fraudulent? Jump right on in if you agree with him.

Of course they aren't....they state quite clearly how their instruments work...you idiots just don't read the documentation...


And thanks for fulfilling my original prediction....lots of bluster...name calling, logical fallacy, but not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the A in AGW.

 

[SSDD]

I have no idea. The graph you are referring to is 27 years old. Yes I know you believe that the newer graph is fraud. You will have to look to NOAA for the answer of what has changed in the science in the last 27 years.

I believe what NOAA said back in 1989, before this became a political issue...I believe what they said when keeping the data was just their job and didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in grant money riding on it...It is clear that the data have been altered to a completely unrecognizable state and it is equally clear that the alteration has been done for money and political gain.

It is interesting that you guys don't question why the data have been altered to such a degree even when presented with clear evidence of tampering and no rational scientifically valid reasons for altering data from 50 years ago and more.

 

[mamooth]

Of course they aren't....they state quite clearly how their instruments work...you idiots just don't read the documentation...

So now you say the instruments work. You point them at the sky, they give visual output corresponding to the backradiation striking the sensors. Then you say they don't measure backradiation.

In contrast, the sane people point out that they're very obviously measuring backradiation.

You're wrong, hilariously so, and now you're obviously just flailing about desperately so you don't have to admit it. I hope you're not under the impression that anyone thinks otherwise.

 

[mamooth]

And you believe that only greenhouse gasses could cause it? Got any actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim or is it just more talking out of your ass as usual..

No, that's not how science works.

"Wrong" would be your "Can you absolutely prove some magical mystery theory isn't the real cause, huh, can you? If you can't, I win!" nonsense.

"Right" would be you formulating a theory that explains the stratospheric cooling.

If you want to replace the prevailing theory that explains the observed data, you have to come up with a theory that explains the observed data _better_. So get to work.

Sorry hairball, the graphs are real...sorry you can't handle the truth...

If the graphs represent real data, then simply tell us exactly where you got them from.

If you won't, it doesn't look good for you. Honest people don't try to hide their data sources. You do, constantly. That has everyone concluding that you're engaging in deliberate fraud again.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................

The Catch 22 is that SSDD wants scientific empirical evidence, yet when it comes to science he simply dismisses the science as being wrong. He substitutes his own screwy science.

How can you argue science with one who does not believe in the science?

I believe in science...I do not believe in hoaxes...we skeptics have been told that there exists a overwhelming body of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW...this thread clearly proves that no such vast body of actual observed measured evidence gathered out in the real world exists and those bits that have been provided are strong evidence of something but that something is not the A in the AGW hypothesis.

As I have stated all along, there is no actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the A in AGW.

And you can state the the sun rises in the West as many times as you want. It will never rise in the West. And the vast majority of scientists in this and every other nation state that AGW is real. And they have the evidence. Now who to believe, some silly ass on an anonymous message board, or people that have spent decades researching in their field?

 

[Olde Europe]

So here is a whole thread purposely created for you to slap me down with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...do your worst.....I'm asking for it.

That's funny. No, really. The sad thing is, you're not a debater. You're just behaving like a spoiled brat banging the spoon on the kitchen table, whining that his cereal be fed to him, and now, goddamnit, while also spitting out everything he's being fed.

Otherwise your "contributions" (let's be charitable) on this thread amount to evidence for your gross misunderstanding of the science, evidence for your having subscribed to every bit of climate hoaxterism, and insults meted out to whoever endeavored to lend you a helping hand.

On the other hand, the record is a clear as it gets, from rising greenhouse gas concentrations since the pre-industrial era (no other causes for the earth's carbon budget to get out of balance) to concomitant rising temperatures (no other sources of climate forcing pointing into the same direction). On the other side of this we have the climate hoaxters, Exxon, Koch et. al., seeking to protect their bottom line, and their political minions and assorted useful idiots carrying their water. That's not a competition, and the result is not a "debate".

In conclusion I'd say, this thread has it's rightful place in the Flame Zone, since it has next to nothing to do with climate science, or the environment, for that matter.

 

[SSDD]

And you believe that only greenhouse gasses could cause it? Got any actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim or is it just more talking out of your ass as usual..

No, that's not how science works.

Of course it is...Since nothing is happening in the climate that hasn't happened before without the aid of man and the internal combustion engine...you must prove that this time it is due to man.....otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing. The only thing new is that you are suggesting an entirely new reason for it...some clear compelling evidence in support of your hypothesis is required to overcome the natural variability argument...and as you can see, there is neither clear, nor compelling evidence in support of the A in AGW.

If you want to replace the prevailing theory that explains the observed data, you have to come up with a theory that explains the observed data _better_. So get to work.

Natural variability as your claim that the stratosphere has never cooled (and there has been precious little cooling since the late 1990's) before is just fabricated bullshit on your part...of course it has cooled...and warmed before without the aid of man or the internal combustion engine....PROVE that this time it is different.

 

[SSDD]

And you can state the the sun rises in the West as many times as you want. It will never rise in the West. And the vast majority of scientists in this and every other nation state that AGW is real. And they have the evidence. Now who to believe, some silly ass on an anonymous message board, or people that have spent decades researching in their field?

So you say...and so you have said...I suggest that you take a look back through this thread and see how much evidence you can't produce...and what you have produced certainly supports something but not the A in AGW....nothing is happening in the climate that is outside the bounds of natural variability and in order to claim that this time, somehow man is to blame, you are going to have to come up with a very compelling body of actual observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence to overcome the natural variability argument... You have always and continue to claim that there exists this vast body of evidence but clearly neither you, nor any other warmer on this board can produce it....is it secret? If it is, on what do you base your belief?

For all the billions spend over the decades, one would expect a hell of a lot more than the piss poor bits of non supportive science you and crick have provided...Where is it? Bring it on, or admit that it just doesn't exist and that you have been bamboozled into thinking that the science is settled...Hell rocks, there is still a lively debate over Einsteins's theory of relativity and even after all these years it has not experienced a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of predictive failures going back for decades and not a shred of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of the A...and yet you guys claim that the science is settled because consensus exists?....money buys consensus very quickly...throw out a few hundred billion to physicists if they can reach consensus on the theory of relativity and see how quickly it happens.

 

[SSDD]

That's funny. No, really. The sad thing is, you're not a debater. You're just behaving like a spoiled brat banging the spoon on the kitchen table, whining that his cereal be fed to him, and now, goddamnit, while also spitting out everything he's being fed.

No...the sad thing is that this was the best response you could come up with...why bother? Clearly you can't produce even a single bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW, so you feel that you must lash out because it makes you feel bad to have it spoken in public that you are the victim of a scam.

Otherwise your "contributions" (let's be charitable) on this thread amount to evidence for your gross misunderstanding of the science, evidence for your having subscribed to every bit of climate hoaxterism, and insults meted out to whoever endeavored to lend you a helping hand.

More talk and still nothing like observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

On the other hand, the record is a clear as it gets, from rising greenhouse gas concentrations since the pre-industrial era (no other causes for the earth's carbon budget to get out of balance) to concomitant rising temperatures (no other sources of climate forcing pointing into the same direction). On the other side of this we have the climate hoaxters, Exxon, Koch et. al., seeking to protect their bottom line, and their political minions and assorted useful idiots carrying their water. That's not a competition, and the result is not a "debate".

Except that you ignore the fact that for most of earth's history the average mean global temperature has been about 8 degrees warmer than the present...and that just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of, the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm...and prior to that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm, and prior to that an ice age started when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 3000ppm and before that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm.

Your claims of the "carbon budget" being out of balance are abject ignorance when for most of earth's history atmospheric CO2 has been orders of magnitude higher than the present levels... The fact is that nothing in the climate today is even coming close to the boundaries of natural variability and your claims that man is causing it "this time" stink of politics and nothing more...the abject lack of anything like observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the real world in support of the A in AGW make my case for me...

In conclusion I'd say, this thread has it's rightful place in the Flame Zone, since it has next to nothing to do with climate science, or the environment, for that matter.

Since you don't seem to be able to produce a single bit of the requested evidence in support of the all important A in AGW...I don't doubt that you would rather see the thread disappear than watch your fellow warmers languish in their inability to provide even a little bit of real evidence.

 

[Olde Europe]

Except that you ignore the fact that for most of earth's history the average mean global temperature has been about 8 degrees warmer than the present...and that just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of, the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm...and prior to that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm, and prior to that an ice age started when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 3000ppm and before that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm.

Again, having demanded evidence you hastily spit out what you requested, and, without further ado, threw in irrelevancies, as if past CO2 levels had anything to do with our current eco system, adapted to quite different temperatures, along with other morsels the climate hoaxters fed you, with very little connection to scientifically proven fact. Also, almost compulsively, you leave behind a trail of evidence for the fact that you are just hysterically blabbing, without thought and deliberation:

Your claims of the "carbon budget" being out of balance are abject ignorance when for most of earth's history atmospheric CO2 has been orders of magnitude higher than the present levels...

So, how many "orders of magnitude higher", exactly, is 4000 compared to 400ppm? Yeah, you're doing your moniker proud.

 

[jc456]

The data was taken from NOAA before the magic Karl Et Al made massive adjustments to it.. I noticed you cling to adjusted, modeled and molested crap.

Your own graph shows evidence of quite a bit of adjustment as well...refer to the newspaper clipping from 1989 in the post above....in 1989 NOAA clearly stated that they saw a cooling trend between the years of 1921 and 1979...that trend had already been adjusted out of existence by the time the data for your graph was used...They also said that most of the warming since 1882 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919....another trend that had already been adjusted out of existence by the time the data was used to create your graph...

There is little doubt that the temperature record has been manipulated and altered out of all reason and bears little, if any resemblance to the actual historical record if it even still exists.

There have been over 90 alterations to the historical record in the last 15 years by NOAA, NASA, and GISS, that we know about... Its been molested so badly it is no longer credible.

In my work, I have to rely on data sets taken from other papers, previously published, simply becasue the base line is so irreparably damaged. Data sets from just 15 years ago are totally unrecognizable in comparison to today's fantasy published by NOAA.

Take the graph Wei Wei is having a hard time with, that was data taken in 2012 from NOAA's own published data set. Just try to retrieve that data set today and you will find that it has been removed from the site. Only the heavily adjusted and molested data is available today.

Thank God for reputable scientists who have downloaded and kept these data sets monthly. I have been trying to get a few to publish the gradual changes done over the years. I was totally flabbergasted that there had been 90 significant changes to the record in the last 15 years...

Well if you want to announce record highs, the only way to get there is to manipulate the data. Cause the actual temperatures aren't getting there. And how can one get more funding unless one shows warmest evah records? I'm just saying.

 

[jc456]

Of course they aren't....they state quite clearly how their instruments work...you idiots just don't read the documentation...

So now you say the instruments work. You point them at the sky, they give visual output corresponding to the backradiation striking the sensors. Then you say they don't measure backradiation.

In contrast, the sane people point out that they're very obviously measuring backradiation.

You're wrong, hilariously so, and now you're obviously just flailing about desperately so you don't have to admit it. I hope you're not under the impression that anyone thinks otherwise.

hahahhhahahahaahahahaha you point it at the sky and badda boom there is back radiation. funny stuff. Let's see the output of the wave that is being detected. anyone can make a digital thermometer but back radiation? Nope. Sorry, there isn't any evidence that the little number popping up on the screen is anything but a number. Your faith is commendable, but that is all it is, faith. There is no back radiation being detected. I challenge them to show the waveform and frequency on a scope and let's see it.

Here is a link for some education:

Infrared Radiation

excerpt:
"But there are issues in conducting infrared astronomy research. First of all, heat is a primary emitter of infrared radiation. So a orbiting observatory has to shield the detectors from any heat sources, and also cool the detectors using liquid helium. As the instrument itself begins to heat up during use (like your home computer gets warm while you are using it) the infrared signature can interfere with the data acquisition.

This makes doing infrared astronomy difficult as well as limiting. Since infrared observatories are mostly in space, their operational lifetimes are determined by the amount of liquid helium that is onboard. As that supply runs out, the detector will no longer be able to discern the extraterrestrial sources of infrared radiation from that of the observatory itself. At this point, if there is no mechanism for re-fueling the satellite, it is decommissioned and will eventually crash back down to Earth. (Or in the case of observatories that are not bound in orbit around Earth, they will simply continue to orbit along their designated path.)"

 

[Billy_Bob]

Is CO2 emitted from internal combustion engines the only factor within the climate that can cause stratospheric cooling?

Any greenhouse gases could do it. So is that your admission that greenhouse gases are causing the observed global warming?

Has the stratosphere never cooled before

No.

Because I say so, the same standard you use, so you can't argue with it.

Your "natural cycles" nonsense can't explain the directly observed data, therefore your natural cycles nonsense is demonstrably wrong. It's that simple. Sucks to be you, but the evidence is what is it, and it says you're wrong.

If radiation is detected from the atmosphere with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is it back radiation at all?

No cooling required, so you do yet another faceplant into a cow patty here. The contortions you go into to deny the basic evidence are quite comical. If your kook theory wasn't so laughable, you wouldn't need to twist and evade like that.

There is no decrease in OLR...in fact, it is increasing contrary to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis...yet another failure..

Your unsourced mystery graph isn't evidence of anything except your propensity for fraud. Honest people don't post unsourced mystery graphs and refuse to identify their exact source. You do. That's because you're a fraud, and all the non-fraudulent data directly contradicts your claims.

The Snageltooth shows its abject ignorance of the convective cycle and the earths own cyclical changes.

Just wow... The Stratosphere has never cooled before snageltooth? what a moron..

 

[mamooth]

.otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.

Except for that teentsy little issue of how the data contradicts the 'natural variation' theory.

"Natural variation" requires stratospheric warming go along with global warming. Instead, cooling. Your theory, destroyed.

So, are you ever going to address the issue of your ongoing fraud, and tell us where your magical mystery graphs came from?