Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[mamooth]

What hard data would make a cult member like you drop your beliefs?

Here's a quick sampling. I could find more.

1. A decrease in CO2 levels (over the long term. All of these are over the long term.)
2. A decrease in temperatures
3. A decrease in sea level.
4. An increase in stratospheric temperature
5. A decrease in backradiation
6. An increase in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands.
7. A lack of increase in specific humidity
8. Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
9. Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
10. Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

Toms and tons of hard evidence has been posted which directly discredits all your claims.

No, nobody has posted any such evidence. They've only posted little red herrings or bad propaganda. If you've got some new info we should be aware of, please post it.

None of your predictions have come true.

The models and predictions have been excellent. As I know the real science, I know anyone saying otherwise is pushing a falsehood. Your stories can only fool other cultists. They can't fool honest and informed people.

Yet, you stubbornly continue to defend the one true faith.

Your turn. Tell us now what hard data could falsify your beliefs.

 

[bripat9643]

I just posted tons data that says it is true.

No, you posted a couple cherrypicks of dubious origin from a conspiracy blog.

Unless I posted every one, you would keep saying that. So you're whine amounts to saying "nuh-uhn!"

 

[mamooth]

You lie like a rug. You know that's not true.

It's absolutely true. The hard evidence backs me up here.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2
---
Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures

The linear trend from 1880 to 1998 was 0.65°C century−1 for the full dataset and the slightly higher 0.70°C century−1 for the rural-only subset.
---

Urban area are heat islands. As they grow, they get warmer. Even school children know that.

The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says.

You just made the cause of the AGW cult explicit: You simply refuse to accept facts.

I told the truth, and I proved I told the truth. Rural areas have been warming slightly faster. Can you accept that fact?

 

[bripat9643]

You lie like a rug. You know that's not true.

It's absolutely true. The hard evidence backs me up here.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2
---
Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures

The linear trend from 1880 to 1998 was 0.65°C century−1 for the full dataset and the slightly higher 0.70°C century−1 for the rural-only subset.
---

Urban area are heat islands. As they grow, they get warmer. Even school children know that.

The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says.

You just made the cause of the AGW cult explicit: You simply refuse to accept facts.

I told the truth, and I proved I told the truth. Rural areas have been warming slightly faster. Can you accept that fact?

Urban Heat Island Effect Can Be Up To 9°C , Says NASA

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.​

 

[daveman]

You mean the data skewed by people with a vested interest in "proving" their pre-conceived conclusion to take advantage of suckers like you to push the political agenda?

You're gullible. Not everyone is.

Flat-earthers tell me that as well. It's very difficult to tell deniers apart from flat-earthers, as all cultists sound alike.

How do we know you're the cultist, and not us?

We just ask "What hard data could conceivably falsify your beliefs?".

No denier has ever answered that question with anything except evasions. There is literally no data that could falsify their beliefs, because those beliefs are religious and faith-based.

In stark contrast, we've made long lists of the hard data that could falsify our beliefs. That's how hard science works.

Speaking of cults:

2005: Margo Kingston, in Australia’s Daily Briefing, said: “Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.”

2006: Bill McGuire, at University College, London, said: “We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And, to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.”

2006: The Grist.com website called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. The article was later retracted.

2006: Heidi Cullen featured Dave Roberts, who said online, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” The remark was not later retracted.

2006: Mark Lynas, a “green” columnist, wrote: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.”

2006: Spiked Online reported that when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”

2007: Ellen Goodman, in the Boston Globe, said: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

2007: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at global warming skeptics, saying: “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.” The penalty for treason is death.

2007: Yvo de Boer, secretary general of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible”.

2007: Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, a UN special climate envoy, said: “It’s completely immoral even to question” the UN’s scientific opinion on climate.

2008: Dr James Hansen of NASA demanded that skeptics be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2008: David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, said government leaders skeptical of global warming should be “thrown into jail”.

2008: Alex Lockwood, a British journalism professor, said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

2009: A writer at Talking Points Memo said global warming “deniers” should be executed or jailed. He later retracted this remark.

2010: James Lovelock, inventor of the “Gaia hypothesis”, told The Guardian: “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

2010: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Penn State University, declared that skeptics, who had caused “a 25-year delay in acting to stop climate change”, may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2010: A video from the “10:10 campaign” showed climate skeptic children being blown up by their teacher in class, and their classmates were spattered with their blood and guts.

2011: An Australian journalist said climate skeptics should be “branded” with cattle-irons to mark them out from the rest of the population.

2011: Another Australian journalist said skeptics should be “gassed”.

2012: Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria, recommended the death penalty for skeptics. He later withdrew.

2012: Dr. Donald Brown, Professor of “Climate Ethics” at Widener University School of Law, again declared that skeptics may be guilty of a “new crime against humanity”. The penalty for crimes against humanity is death.

2014: Dr Lawrence Torcello, assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, wrote that people who disagreed with him should be sent to jail.

2014: During a February cold snap, the New York Times ran a cartoon headed “Self-Destructing Sabers for Dispatching Climate-Change Deniers” and showing a climate skeptic being stabbed with an icicle.

2014: The gawker.com website said: “Those denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics.”

2014: The host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show promoted Soviet-style re-education for climate skeptic politicians by conducting an on-air poll on the question “Should climate-denying Republicans be forced to take a basic earth science course?”

2015: Katie Herzog at Grist.com on 16 January wrote: “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.”

2015: Comment on the webpage of the Brisbane Times about a category 5 cyclone along the Queensland coast on 19/20 February: “These type of weather events could happen further south in future and be more intense with global warming … if anyone has to suffer out of this one I hope it is a climate change denier, if anyone.” Downloaded fromhttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cyclone-marcia-live-coverage-20150219-13iuaw.html.

2015: The Australian Capital Territory’s Arts Fund gave $18,793 “to assist with costs of the creative development of a new theatre work, Kill Climate Deniers”.
​

Protip: If you have science on your side, you don't need to threaten people to agree with you.

 

[daveman]

You lie like a rug. You know that's not true.

It's absolutely true. The hard evidence backs me up here.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUVRI>2.0.CO;2
---
Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures

The linear trend from 1880 to 1998 was 0.65°C century−1 for the full dataset and the slightly higher 0.70°C century−1 for the rural-only subset.
---

Urban area are heat islands. As they grow, they get warmer. Even school children know that.

The urban heat islands did their warming long ago. In recent times, they haven't warmed any faster than rural areas. That's what the hard data says.

You just made the cause of the AGW cult explicit: You simply refuse to accept facts.

I told the truth, and I proved I told the truth. Rural areas have been warming slightly faster. Can you accept that fact?

This just in; huge areas of concrete and asphalt don't get warmer any more even though the planet is.

That is absolutely ludicrous, and flies in the face of reason.

But then -- that's climate "science" for you.

 

[Crick]

You may have missed the point that the majority of concrete and asphalt has been down for a long time. It is no longer growing at the rate it once did.

 

[daveman]

You may have missed the point that the majority of concrete and asphalt has been down for a long time. It is no longer growing at the rate it once did.

So...CO2 keeps on absorbing more solar radiation -- but asphalt doesn't.

Remind me -- why am I supposed to take you seriously?

 

[Crick]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

 

[mamooth]

Urban Heat Island Effect Can Be Up To 9°C , Says NASA

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.​

The point here is flying over the heads of you and Dave.

Nobody denies UHI exists.

Imagine a station in Central Park in NYC. NYC has been totally surrounding it for over 100 years. The UHI effect has been there for over 100 years. It didn't just suddenly become a UHI area.

That's how things work. Once the UHI effect is in place, it doesn't keep accelerating the local warming. That's why urban areas have the same warming trend as rural areas.

And that's why your "But the warming is a UHI artifact!" conspiracy theory is a steaming pile. I suggest you move on to your next debunked conspiracy theory.

 

[bripat9643]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

Which probably explains why so-called global warming has come to a complete halt for the last 20 years.

 

[bripat9643]

Urban Heat Island Effect Can Be Up To 9°C , Says NASA

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.​

The point here is flying over the heads of you and Dave.

Nobody denies UHI exists.

Imagine a station in Central Park in NYC. NYC has been totally surrounding it for over 100 years. The UHI effect has been there for over 100 years. It didn't just suddenly become a UHI area.

That's how things work. Once the UHI effect is in place, it doesn't keep accelerating the local warming. That's why urban areas have the same warming trend as rural areas.

And that's why your "But the warming is a UHI artifact!" conspiracy theory is a steaming pile. I suggest you move on to your next debunked conspiracy theory.

You're obviously an idiot. Cities grow, which means the UHI effect increases.

 

[SSDD]

You may have missed the point that the majority of concrete and asphalt has been down for a long time. It is no longer growing at the rate it once did.

You obviously aren't aware of suburban sprawl...the concrete and asphalt businesses are booming..

 

[daveman]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

See, the problem here is your inability to use language correctly. Is English perhaps your second language?

 

[SSDD]

1. A decrease in CO2 levels (over the long term. All of these are over the long term.)

Why would you expect a decrease in CO2 levels? The earth is in the process of exiting an ice age..Warmer oceans release more CO2 than cold oceans...then there is the fact that a greening earth releases more CO2 than a cold earth.

2. A decrease in temperatures

It is presently cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. When you look at regional temperature histories, most show cooling over the long term. It is only in the highly manipulated, adjusted, homogenized, and infilled global record short to medium term warming is seen. As you can see...long term cooling is evident world wide

3. A decrease in sea level.

The only thing that would result in a decrease in sea level is the onset of an ice age...the fact is that sea level has been increasing for better than 10,000 years and the rate has leveled out to a few mm per year. There is a disconnect between satellite measurements and tide gages which science has yet to work out.

4. An increase in stratospheric temperature

Why would you expect to see an increase in stratospheric temperature with the sun going quiet?

5. A decrease in backradiation

There is no back radiation...but do feel free to provide a measurement of specific wavelengths made without a cooled instrument.

6. An increase in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands.

Outgoing long wave has been increasing for some time

7. A lack of increase in specific humidity

Climate science predicts both increasing and decreasing humidity....why would you pick one over the other?

8. Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR

Of course CO2 absorbs IR...but there is no observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...do feel free to post such evidence if you believe it exists.

9. Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before

How about half a million undersea volcanoes that science was completely unaware of till very recently? And then there is the fact that the long term temperature trend is dropping...

10. Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

There isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which suggests that the climate change we are experiencing is anything but natural variability...but again..do feel free to provide such evidence if you think it exists.


You have yourself a nice little fallacy going there hairball...but like all of climate science ...it is shot full of holes, falsehoods, and assumptions...

 

[Crick]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

See, the problem here is your inability to use language correctly. Is English perhaps your second language?

And what error do you see in my language Dave?

 

[daveman]

The total amount of asphalt is not growing as quickly as in the past. The rate of CO2 increase is still accelerating.

See, the problem here is your inability to use language correctly. Is English perhaps your second language?

And what error do you see in my language Dave?

You said CO2 generates energy. You said asphalt doesn't heat up as much as it used to.

 

[Crick]

This is from post #62 in this thread

This is from Hadley and GHCN

Bripat9643, where did these graphs come from?

 

[mamooth]

Why would you expect a decrease in CO2 levels?

I don't. As usual, you're clueless about the topic being discussed. I'm discussing what could falsify AGW theory, not what I expect to happen.

It is presently cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

That's a meaningless evasion, being that the point being discussed is how as temperatures have suddenly shot up with no natural explanation. The fact that climate has changed naturally in the past does not prevent humans from changing climate now.

The only thing that would result in a decrease in sea level is the onset of an ice age...

An ice age is not necessary. Sustained cooling global temperatures would decrease sea level.

Why would you expect to see an increase in stratospheric temperature with the sun going quiet?

Again, you seem confused. I don't expect to see it. That would only happen if increased solar activity was driving the observed global warming, and it's not.

There is no back radiation...

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Outgoing long wave has been increasing for some time

No;. You're confusing total OLR with OLR in specific bands.

Climate science predicts both increasing and decreasing humidity....why would you pick one over the other?

It predicts overall increasing specific humidity. And that's observed.

Of course CO2 absorbs IR...

And according to you, the energy absorbed then vanishes into the ether. That's why nobody pays attention to you.

How about half a million undersea volcanoes that science was completely unaware of till very recently?

As there's no evidence the number of volcanoes has changed in the past few decades, your claim would not count as a new factor.

And then there is the fact that the long term temperature trend is dropping...

No, the hard data flatly contradicts that strange claim.

There isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which suggests that the climate change we are experiencing is anything but natural variability...

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing OLR in the GHG bands have no natural explanation, thus your "It's natural!" theory is conclusively disproved.

So, your tried, you failed. The usual.

 

[mamooth]

You're obviously an idiot. Cities grow, which means the UHI effect increases.

You're just not getting it. UHI is local. Once urbanization grows to the station, that's it. It gets one UHI bump, which is always corrected for. It doesn't keep getting hotter as the urbanization spreads further outwards.

And you're evading my simple question. What hard data could possibly falsify your beliefs? As you haven't named any, I can only assume that there is literally no hard data that could falsify your beliefs, being that your beliefs are entirely religious in nature.