Massive data manipulation by AGW industry!

[abu afak]

LINK for your claim of a singular station in Ohio?

IAC, How many do you want.
How Dumb (or deceptive) is it to do it by State.
Cleveland to Cincin, is 250 miles.
But ie, Cleveland to Indianapolis is 112 miles.
Then for good measure you do it by Square miles in a state instead of distance between stations.
`

I was referring to the map provided by the person I was responding to. In the US according to NOAA their are 1219 stations that are considered pristine enough to be worthy of inclusion in their analyses. The US continental land mass is roughly 3.6 million sq miles. That works out to what just under 3000 sq mls per station. This impresses you? And keep in mind these stations are not equally spaced.

They have 1219 stations, app 24 per state, and only one in Ohio?
Yes, 24+ per state is plenty.
And (the Large sounding/Spin) "3000 sq miles" is just ie, a 50x60 mile area.
Sure, that's fine
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Look at the map you've posted. I live in Ohio, my state has one temp recording station for 41,000 sq/mls. I'm supposed to be impressed by this? And keep in mind the US constitutes the best system on the planet. This impresses you? I grew up just west of Cleveland. The home I grew up in was less than a quarter mile from the lake, I could get on my bike and ride to a friends home on the lake, 5 sometimes 10 degree difference. I will say your map is incomplete. the US has 1200 sites considered pristine enough to be utilized.

At this moment there is a 2 deg difference between the reported temp between the reporting station in Wooster and Cleveland, there's a 4 deg temp between Cleveland and Cincinnati, doesn't sound like much, unless you are talking about temp averages over the course of a year. The avg temp of Ohio at this moment is 16F. Even though there's a 4 deg difference between Cleveland and Cincinnati, 6 degrees between Wooster and Cincinnati. What is the predominant temp in Ohio right now? What goes into the record book?

How about Michigan. Right now there's an 8 degree difference between Gaylord, MI and Detroit. What goes into the record books? What is used for the official global avg temp? Scientifically this is crap. And again this is the best system on the planet.

Do you realize that right now the official number of trusted ground based stations on the planet is around 3000? !97,000,000 sq/mls. 30% is land, 59,000,000 sq/mls of land. That's 1 station for every 19,000 sq mls. The good news is that my state of Ohio now gets 2. What a friggin joke.

Because you know so little about statistics, you're unaware of how little you know.

Spare me the faux superiority. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

LINK for your claim of a singular station in Ohio?

IAC, How many do you want.
How Dumb (or deceptive) is it to do it by State.
Cleveland to Cincin, is 250 miles.
But ie, Cleveland to Indianapolis is 112 miles.
Then for good measure you do it by Square miles in a state instead of distance between stations.
`

I was referring to the map provided by the person I was responding to. In the US according to NOAA their are 1219 stations that are considered pristine enough to be worthy of inclusion in their analyses. The US continental land mass is roughly 3.6 million sq miles. That works out to what just under 3000 sq mls per station. This impresses you? And keep in mind these stations are not equally spaced.

It is the best of a weak list, but you are correct as the representative sample is very small for such a large country.

What I see that you starkly pointed out in post 64 that warmists ignore so irrationally are the obvious data tampering, that is visible in the first two charts.

Warmists will never admit that Hansen and others have been criminally twisting the temperature data.

 

[baileyn45]

LINK for your claim of a singular station in Ohio?

IAC, How many do you want.
How Dumb (or deceptive) is it to do it by State.
Cleveland to Cincin, is 250 miles.
But ie, Cleveland to Indianapolis is 112 miles.
Then for good measure you do it by Square miles in a state instead of distance between stations.
`

I was referring to the map provided by the person I was responding to. In the US according to NOAA their are 1219 stations that are considered pristine enough to be worthy of inclusion in their analyses. The US continental land mass is roughly 3.6 million sq miles. That works out to what just under 3000 sq mls per station. This impresses you? And keep in mind these stations are not equally spaced.

They have 1219 stations, app 24 per state, and only one in Ohio?
Yes, 24+ per state is plenty.
And (the Large sounding/Spin) "3000 sq miles" is just ie, a 50x60 mile area.
Sure, that's fine
`

Again the one in Ohio was a response to a map another cited.

1219 is the US. 3000 globally. Figure it out. The US has great coverage, not really 1 reading for 3000 sq/mls is a friggin joke. If the US has 1219, the rest of the planet has 1781. THE REST OF THE PLANET HAS 1781. Now your talking 1 for every 33,000 sq mls? Do you consider this scientifically valid? How many in Africa, ALL of Africa? How many in Siberia, ALL of Siberia? How many in Antarctica, ALL of Antarctica? If 1219 sites are in the US how heavily weighted would the data be to one area? How much infilling of missing data would be necessary to venture A GUESS.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, Global avg surface temps are a friggin joke. Never in the history of science has such made up "adjusted", "homogenized", backfilled bullshit been taken seriously. Show me I'm wrong. You could of course cite statistics like other morons' have, as if that's a replacement for actual data. Bottom line "scientifically" global avg temp are made up, manufactured bull puckey and anyone that buys this crap needs to go back to 9th grade science class. Of course today the 9th grade science class would probably punish me for questioning. Back in 1970s I would have been hammered for not questioning.

 

[skookerasbil]

East Angla

They investigated themselves

NOBODY does that

As a Level III NYS investigator, I do about 3-4 investigations a year for a 95 million dollar human services agency. Depending on the seriousness of the allegation, I coordinate with the NYS Justice Center in Albany. In many cases, the Justice Center sends in a team as I must recuse myself so as not to taint the investigation as an employee of the agency. Those are the regulations. The investigation is thus very thorough and legitimate. Doy

 

[mamooth]

Based on what? Any paleoclimatologist I've heard address these issues will say they can't tell what caused major climate swings in the distant past.

Deflection.

Tell us how us a 5% dimmer sun created such warm temperatures 500 million years ago. We can explain it perfectly, by pointing at the higher levels of CO2. Our science is accepted, because it explains all of the observed data.

Your science? You don't have any science. You just wave your hands around wildly and state that some unknown magic made it happen, and that anyone who doesn't accept your theory of magic must be part of a conspiracy. That's why we put you in the same category as Flat Earthers.

This knee jerk reaction that everything is CO2 is just not supportable.

As it's your knee jerk strawman, I agree. No one but you ever declares that CO2 is the only climate driver.

If CO2 was such a major driver, why don't we see an unending feedback loop in these past warmings?

Because positive feedback doesn't mean runaway feedback.

What we do see is the planet warms CO2 levels rise, later, the planet cools and CO2 levels fall, later. If the proxy evidence is to be believed the CO2 follows the temp, not the other way around

No, your conclusion doe not follow from your premise. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Bad uncorrected data, good corrected data? What in the hell does that mean?

It means that when there are known errors in data, and there are, honest people like us correct them, while the fraudsters on your side don't.

Care to tell me how taking historical data and changing it makes it "good corrected" data?

It's a long topic, so I'll let denier hero Judith Curry tell you. Is she a total fraud too?

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Care to enlighten us as to where the better data from 1936 was hiding? Look at the Karl study out of NOAA attacking what even the IPCC called the hiatus in temp rise from 1998 - 2012. He managed this by ignoring the "good" data from buoys and "correcting" it to match the "bad" data from ship borne readings. On top of that no one can reproduce his work because he conveniently failed to archive his data.

The answer would be that's reality-detached conspiracy babbling.

As far as "global" data, there is no global data. On this thread alone we've shown over and over that the coverage of the global data set for surface temp is a joke. Then trying to compare it to past data sets, that were even worse, is ridiculous. Same with sea level, there are all kinds of problems with the data both tidal gauges and satellites. And of course comparing the data we do have to historical data that's virtually nonexistent.

That's more reality-detached conspiracy babbling.

And yet we continually hear about how extreme our weather is becoming.

What we continually hear are these red herrings and evasions from you. You're going into bizarre contortions to justify ignoring the actual temperature record, because that record debunks your pseudoscience.

The bottom line is that none of this data is sufficient to show global avg temp over the course of a year to a tenth of a degree, to believe so is ludicrous.

When I don't understand a concept, I don't scream it must be a conspiracy. I take it to mean I should research the topic more, and do so with actual facts instead of conspiracy blogs. As I'm not a paranoid narcissist, I accept that the smartest people in their field will actually know more about a topic than I do, and more than conspiracy blogs do. Take a lesson.

Look at the map you've posted. I live in Ohio, my state has one temp recording station for 41,000 sq/mls. I'm supposed to be impressed by this?

Yes, you should. You could use hundreds of stations in Ohio, and the average results wouldn't change at all. Thus, your conspiracy theory faceplants. All you're doing here is demonstrating how little you know about the science and statistics. Your gut feeling, which is all you have, is totally wrong.

 

[Flash]

The reason why this AGW theory has no credibility is because the Environmental Wacko industry community and political nutjobs have fabricated data to cover up for the fact there is not AGW. They get caught lying all the time. Everybody from the principal scientists in the Climategate relevations to the false data put out by NASA and NOAA under the dishonest Obama Administration to the bullshit created by the UN Climate Committee.

The climate has been changing ever since the end of the last ice age. Nobody has ever disputed that. However. this man made AGW bullshit is nothing more than an enormous scam. Just think of all the stupid Moon Bat idiots that fell for it. Morons!

 

[mamooth]

The reason why this AGW theory has no credibility is because the Environmental Wacko industry community and political nutjobs

So, another denier makes it clear that to him, the issue is entirely about politics.

You never see us rational people leading off by screaming about politics. The science backs us up every time, so we talk about the science,and we "win". The science contradicts deniers every time, so they can only scream about politics and conspiracy theories.

Every denier is a member of the extreme-right-wing-fringe authoritarian political cult. Denialism is just one of the many reality-defying conspiracy theories that the cult defines to be sacred dogma. If right-wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it, being that denialism is 100% politics.

In start contrast, climate science crosses all political boundaries all across the world, because it's non-political hard science. If left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change a bit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Based on what? Any paleoclimatologist I've heard address these issues will say they can't tell what caused major climate swings in the distant past.

Deflection.

Tell us how us a 5% dimmer sun created such warm temperatures 500 million years ago. We can explain it perfectly, by pointing at the higher levels of CO2. Our science is accepted, because it explains all of the observed data.

Your science? You don't have any science. You just wave your hands around wildly and state that some unknown magic made it happen, and that anyone who doesn't accept your theory of magic must be part of a conspiracy. That's why we put you in the same category as Flat Earthers.

This knee jerk reaction that everything is CO2 is just not supportable.

As it's your knee jerk strawman, I agree. No one but you ever declares that CO2 is the only climate driver.

If CO2 was such a major driver, why don't we see an unending feedback loop in these past warmings?

Because positive feedback doesn't mean runaway feedback.

What we do see is the planet warms CO2 levels rise, later, the planet cools and CO2 levels fall, later. If the proxy evidence is to be believed the CO2 follows the temp, not the other way around

No, your conclusion doe not follow from your premise. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Bad uncorrected data, good corrected data? What in the hell does that mean?

It means that when there are known errors in data, and there are, honest people like us correct them, while the fraudsters on your side don't.

Care to tell me how taking historical data and changing it makes it "good corrected" data?

It's a long topic, so I'll let denier hero Judith Curry tell you. Is she a total fraud too?

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Care to enlighten us as to where the better data from 1936 was hiding? Look at the Karl study out of NOAA attacking what even the IPCC called the hiatus in temp rise from 1998 - 2012. He managed this by ignoring the "good" data from buoys and "correcting" it to match the "bad" data from ship borne readings. On top of that no one can reproduce his work because he conveniently failed to archive his data.

The answer would be that's reality-detached conspiracy babbling.

As far as "global" data, there is no global data. On this thread alone we've shown over and over that the coverage of the global data set for surface temp is a joke. Then trying to compare it to past data sets, that were even worse, is ridiculous. Same with sea level, there are all kinds of problems with the data both tidal gauges and satellites. And of course comparing the data we do have to historical data that's virtually nonexistent.

That's more reality-detached conspiracy babbling.

And yet we continually hear about how extreme our weather is becoming.

What we continually hear are these red herrings and evasions from you. You're going into bizarre contortions to justify ignoring the actual temperature record, because that record debunks your pseudoscience.

The bottom line is that none of this data is sufficient to show global avg temp over the course of a year to a tenth of a degree, to believe so is ludicrous.

When I don't understand a concept, I don't scream it must be a conspiracy. I take it to mean I should research the topic more, and do so with actual facts instead of conspiracy blogs. As I'm not a paranoid narcissist, I accept that the smartest people in their field will actually know more about a topic than I do, and more than conspiracy blogs do. Take a lesson.

Look at the map you've posted. I live in Ohio, my state has one temp recording station for 41,000 sq/mls. I'm supposed to be impressed by this?

Yes, you should. You could use hundreds of stations in Ohio, and the average results wouldn't change at all. Thus, your conspiracy theory faceplants. All you're doing here is demonstrating how little you know about the science and statistics. Your gut feeling, which is all you have, is totally wrong.

Are you familiar with the t8erm "bureaucratic inertia" s0n? I didnt think so....nobody in the AGW contingent has heard of it much less know what it is. Accordingly, your "research" has been well.....kinda ghey. Only naive assholes approach the study of any "field" and not fully understand its full implications.

But do go full steam ahead embracing the "experts" of any field!

 

[Flash]

 

[mamooth]

Are you familiar with the t8erm "bureaucratic inertia" s0n?

Sure. The initial bureaucratic inertia was to deny the warming, but the evidence was so overwhelming, it overcame that inertia.

So, you've just made the case for warming even stronger. Thank you.

 

[the other mike]

What just kills me about GW scare is .....

Forget the scare - we need the jobs.
Clean Energy Jobs and Planning

Govt jobs aren't jobs, they're overhead.

Nobody said a word about government jobs or even government contracts.

 

[skookerasbil]

Are you familiar with the t8erm "bureaucratic inertia" s0n?

Sure. The initial bureaucratic inertia was to deny the warming, but the evidence was so overwhelming, it overcame that inertia.

So, you've just made the case for warming even stronger. Thank you.

Oy

Incoherent s0n

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you READ the internal EXXON research?? Do you know that 40 years ago (or whenever it was written at Exxon) that those PROJECTIONS and analysis was FAR MORE ACCURATE, than ANY of the IPCC modeling or wild ass claims made in the scientific literature at that time??

That's the important point. They provided BETTER information to their corporate leaders, than an army of over-funded climate science zealots managed to pull off..

So you learned something important today.. Thank me later...

I'll remember that next time I purchase some Chinese- made solar panels from Home Depot.

WTF does that have to do with the Exxon GW memos?? You can only BUY chinese solar panels BECAUSE it's a mature technology and the market is decided SOLELY on COST and not nifty technology advantages. That should tell something about the future "advances" that are not likely to happen..

 

[skookerasbil]

Did you READ the internal EXXON research?? Do you know that 40 years ago (or whenever it was written at Exxon) that those PROJECTIONS and analysis was FAR MORE ACCURATE, than ANY of the IPCC modeling or wild ass claims made in the scientific literature at that time??

That's the important point. They provided BETTER information to their corporate leaders, than an army of over-funded climate science zealots managed to pull off..

So you learned something important today.. Thank me later...

I'll remember that next time I purchase some Chinese- made solar panels from Home Depot.

WTF does that have to do with the Exxon GW memos?? You can only BUY chinese solar panels BECAUSE it's a mature technology and the market is decided SOLELY on COST and not nifty technology advantages. That should tell something about the future "advances" that are not likely to happen..

Very acute post. Like I've said many times....costs dont matter at all in any debate with a progressive. The economic implications akin to a footnote to them. Interestingly, which is the prime reason they are losing hUgE on climate change action.....thank God!

I've yet to hear a single idea in here from these meatheads about how they will change that dynamic.

 

[the other mike]

WTF does that have to do with the Exxon GW memos?? You can only BUY chinese solar panels BECAUSE it's a mature technology and the market is decided SOLELY on COST and not nifty technology advantages. That should tell something about the future "advances" that are not likely to happen..

Very acute post. Like I've said many times....costs dont matter at all in any debate with a progressive. The economic implications akin to a footnote to them. Interestingly, which is the prime reason they are losing hUgE on climate change action.....thank God!

I've yet to hear a single idea in here from these meatheads about how they will change that dynamic.

^^The two most ignorant posts I've seen lately.
Congratulations.

 

[flacaltenn]

WTF does that have to do with the Exxon GW memos?? You can only BUY chinese solar panels BECAUSE it's a mature technology and the market is decided SOLELY on COST and not nifty technology advantages. That should tell something about the future "advances" that are not likely to happen..

Very acute post. Like I've said many times....costs dont matter at all in any debate with a progressive. The economic implications akin to a footnote to them. Interestingly, which is the prime reason they are losing hUgE on climate change action.....thank God!

I've yet to hear a single idea in here from these meatheads about how they will change that dynamic.

^^The two most ignorant posts I've seen lately.
Congratulations.

well dayum professor, please tell what's wrong here.. Or maybe you just can't.. That's a very wimpy counter argument you tried to sling there...

WHAT EXACTLY did I say about Exxon, solar panels that you consider "ignorant" -- genius...

I know someone with your intellect and mad skills can read a simple stock chart.. So I hope you did NOT invest in Solar stock back in the Early 2000s, because as you can see -- the VALUATION of those companies is about 15% of what it was when solar was "a thing"... So I just TOLD YOU WHY this is.. It's because making solar panels is now a COMMODITY ITEM based solely on price.. And the technology, innovative side is all USED UP....

Just in case you are NOT a genius -- if you had gambled $10,000 on the valuation of the TOTAL solar market back in 2005 -- thinking it was gonna get prettier and more efficient -- you now have about $1500 in your wallet instead of the TEN LARGE...

 

[SSDD]

WTF does that have to do with the Exxon GW memos?? You can only BUY chinese solar panels BECAUSE it's a mature technology and the market is decided SOLELY on COST and not nifty technology advantages. That should tell something about the future "advances" that are not likely to happen..

Very acute post. Like I've said many times....costs dont matter at all in any debate with a progressive. The economic implications akin to a footnote to them. Interestingly, which is the prime reason they are losing hUgE on climate change action.....thank God!

I've yet to hear a single idea in here from these meatheads about how they will change that dynamic.

^^The two most ignorant posts I've seen lately.
Congratulations.

well dayum professor, please tell what's wrong here.. Or maybe you just can't.. That's a very wimpy counter argument you tried to sling there...

WHAT EXACTLY did I say about Exxon, solar panels that you consider "ignorant" -- genius...

You say that like you expect something like a real answer...

 

[baileyn45]

Tell us how us a 5% dimmer sun created such warm temperatures 500 million years ago. We can explain it perfectly, by pointing at the higher levels of CO2. Our science is accepted, because it explains all of the observed data.

Your science? You don't have any science. You just wave your hands around wildly and state that some unknown magic made it happen, and that anyone who doesn't accept your theory of magic must be part of a conspiracy. That's why we put you in the same category as Flat Earthers.

And what were the CO2 levels 550 million years ago? Low estimates are 6500 ppm, high nearly 8000. And you can guarantee that nothing else was affecting climate at that time? And this of course is according to what? A couple, 2 or 3 proxies? Flash forward to 350 million years ago. There were more proxies, now the estimates range from 500 to 6000 ppm, such an exact science

You speak of "my science", PROVE your point or your science is theory. There's nothing wrong with theory, but it's just that, theory. Instead of going back 550 million years ago tell me about the little ice age. CO2? Milankovitch cycles? The bottom line is you and no one else at this point can honestly say what drives climate, we just don't know, period. Admit it.

As it's your knee jerk strawman, I agree. No one but you ever declares that CO2 is the only climate driver.

The question is, is it the primary driver? There is zero evidence of this. If there was you would have provided it.

Because positive feedback doesn't mean runaway feedback.

Great, explain to us what stopped the feedback. Heat leads to more CO2, CO2 leads to more heat. What stops the feedback? Unless, of course they are not as married as you think.

No, your conclusion doe not follow from your premise. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Forcing and feedback would lead to more warming. And yet the warming ceases and CO2 levels generally fall. Explain that.

It's a long topic, so I'll let denier hero Judith Curry tell you. Is she a total fraud too?

The fact that you use the 'denier" label speaks volumes. Did you read the article? Is there anything in this article that would give you confidence in the adjustments? I'm not one to say there is a conspiracy, I sometimes wonder. I will say these folks are guessing, period.

The perfect example is one I've recently been stunned by, sea surface temp. I've read that every ARGO reading has .12 C added to it to make up for a bias of engine intake readings in the past. Can you find anyone that can ensure that the bias was .12 C?. Of course not. I can't find any support for it. And yet it is official practice. It's a guess. And since when do we screw with current "good" data to match old bad data. It's the same old story, people saying that they KNOW, when in reality they don't KNOW squat. And the official data reflects what they feel. The actual observed data is discarded. How can I not be disturbed by this?

It means that when there are known errors in data, and there are, honest people like us correct them, while the fraudsters on your side don't.

And you are so arrogant that you believe that you know all. The scientific method demands that you prove what you are saying. You cannot even come close. You will not even try.

That's more reality-detached conspiracy babbling.

Speaking of deflection. The global avg temp is a joke, if you can show otherwise please do. And give the conspiracy crap a rest. Give us proof. You remember PROOF. If you are old enough you were told you need it in 9th grade.

What we continually hear are these red herrings and evasions from you. You're going into bizarre contortions to justify ignoring the actual temperature record, because that record debunks your pseudoscience.

What actual temp records are we talking about? At this point, are we talking about the temp record as is, or what it will look like a year from now? 5 years ago or 5 years from now? At this point it's a moving target.

When I don't understand a concept, I don't scream it must be a conspiracy. I take it to mean I should research the topic more, and do so with actual facts instead of conspiracy blogs. As I'm not a paranoid narcissist, I accept that the smartest people in their field will actually know more about a topic than I do, and more than conspiracy blogs do. Take a lesson.

Again, give the conspiracy crap a rest. I notice you WILL NOT address just how bad this data is. Present data sucks. Past data that it's being compared to is virtually nonexistent. You accept it, hook, line and sinker.

Yes, you should. You could use hundreds of stations in Ohio, and the average results wouldn't change at all. Thus, your conspiracy theory faceplants. All you're doing here is demonstrating how little you know about the science and statistics. Your gut feeling, which is all you have, is totally wrong.

The hundreds of stations in Ohio are worthless, scientifically. Unless of course you would like me to apply my own adjustments and homogenization to said data to correct for biases that I've presumed.

Stop and think of something. No matter what anyone says, the 1930s were beyond doubt the hottest decade in the US. I'm told it was only a regional effect. Regional based on what? The fantastic historical record? Virtually zero records in Africa, Antarctica, Siberia, the vast majority of Asia, small inputs from Australia, and the occasional reading from a ship in a shipping lane. 70% of the planet with virtually no readings. This is good science to you? But of course someone can come up with an algorithm that fills in all of this historical data.

It all comes down to the one thing, as a science, climate science is in its infancy. We as a species haven't the vaguest idea as to what drives climate on this planet. To argue otherwise is childish arrogance. And to predict future catastrophe is a joke.

 

[skookerasbil]

Tell us how us a 5% dimmer sun created such warm temperatures 500 million years ago. We can explain it perfectly, by pointing at the higher levels of CO2. Our science is accepted, because it explains all of the observed data.

Your science? You don't have any science. You just wave your hands around wildly and state that some unknown magic made it happen, and that anyone who doesn't accept your theory of magic must be part of a conspiracy. That's why we put you in the same category as Flat Earthers.

And what were the CO2 levels 550 million years ago? Low estimates are 6500 ppm, high nearly 8000. And you can guarantee that nothing else was affecting climate at that time? And this of course is according to what? A couple, 2 or 3 proxies? Flash forward to 350 million years ago. There were more proxies, now the estimates range from 500 to 6000 ppm, such an exact science

You speak of "my science", PROVE your point or your science is theory. There's nothing wrong with theory, but it's just that, theory. Instead of going back 550 million years ago tell me about the little ice age. CO2? Milankovitch cycles? The bottom line is you and no one else at this point can honestly say what drives climate, we just don't know, period. Admit it.

As it's your knee jerk strawman, I agree. No one but you ever declares that CO2 is the only climate driver.

The question is, is it the primary driver? There is zero evidence of this. If there was you would have provided it.

Because positive feedback doesn't mean runaway feedback.

Great, explain to us what stopped the feedback. Heat leads to more CO2, CO2 leads to more heat. What stops the feedback? Unless, of course they are not as married as you think.

No, your conclusion doe not follow from your premise. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.

Forcing and feedback would lead to more warming. And yet the warming ceases and CO2 levels generally fall. Explain that.

It's a long topic, so I'll let denier hero Judith Curry tell you. Is she a total fraud too?

The fact that you use the 'denier" label speaks volumes. Did you read the article? Is there anything in this article that would give you confidence in the adjustments? I'm not one to say there is a conspiracy, I sometimes wonder. I will say these folks are guessing, period.

The perfect example is one I've recently been stunned by, sea surface temp. I've read that every ARGO reading has .12 C added to it to make up for a bias of engine intake readings in the past. Can you find anyone that can ensure that the bias was .12 C?. Of course not. I can't find any support for it. And yet it is official practice. It's a guess. And since when do we screw with current "good" data to match old bad data. It's the same old story, people saying that they KNOW, when in reality they don't KNOW squat. And the official data reflects what they feel. The actual observed data is discarded. How can I not be disturbed by this?

It means that when there are known errors in data, and there are, honest people like us correct them, while the fraudsters on your side don't.

And you are so arrogant that you believe that you know all. The scientific method demands that you prove what you are saying. You cannot even come close. You will not even try.

That's more reality-detached conspiracy babbling.

Speaking of deflection. The global avg temp is a joke, if you can show otherwise please do. And give the conspiracy crap a rest. Give us proof. You remember PROOF. If you are old enough you were told you need it in 9th grade.

What we continually hear are these red herrings and evasions from you. You're going into bizarre contortions to justify ignoring the actual temperature record, because that record debunks your pseudoscience.

What actual temp records are we talking about? At this point, are we talking about the temp record as is, or what it will look like a year from now? 5 years ago or 5 years from now? At this point it's a moving target.

When I don't understand a concept, I don't scream it must be a conspiracy. I take it to mean I should research the topic more, and do so with actual facts instead of conspiracy blogs. As I'm not a paranoid narcissist, I accept that the smartest people in their field will actually know more about a topic than I do, and more than conspiracy blogs do. Take a lesson.

Again, give the conspiracy crap a rest. I notice you WILL NOT address just how bad this data is. Present data sucks. Past data that it's being compared to is virtually nonexistent. You accept it, hook, line and sinker.

Yes, you should. You could use hundreds of stations in Ohio, and the average results wouldn't change at all. Thus, your conspiracy theory faceplants. All you're doing here is demonstrating how little you know about the science and statistics. Your gut feeling, which is all you have, is totally wrong.

The hundreds of stations in Ohio are worthless, scientifically. Unless of course you would like me to apply my own adjustments and homogenization to said data to correct for biases that I've presumed.

Stop and think of something. No matter what anyone says, the 1930s were beyond doubt the hottest decade in the US. I'm told it was only a regional effect. Regional based on what? The fantastic historical record? Virtually zero records in Africa, Antarctica, Siberia, the vast majority of Asia, small inputs from Australia, and the occasional reading from a ship in a shipping lane. 70% of the planet with virtually no readings. This is good science to you? But of course someone can come up with an algorithm that fills in all of this historical data.

It all comes down to the one thing, as a science, climate science is in its infancy. We as a species haven't the vaguest idea as to what drives climate on this planet. To argue otherwise is childish arrogance. And to predict future catastrophe is a joke.

Great post.....very informative about the data rigging.

These people.....the AGW religion.....consistently reject any information that doesnt conform with the established narrative.

 

[mamooth]

And what were the CO2 levels 550 million years ago? Low estimates are 6500 ppm, high nearly 8000.

And the sun was 5% dimmer. By your theory, which says there's no CO2 greenhouse effect, Earth at that time should been frozen snowball. It wasn't.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. Our theory is backed up by the observed data, therefore our theory is the accepted theory. You're not ignored because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. You're ignored because the nonsense you babble is flatly contradicted by observed reality.

You speak of "my science", PROVE your point or your science is theory. There's nothing wrong with theory, but it's just that, theory. Instead of going back 550 million years ago tell me about the little ice age. CO2? Milankovitch cycles? The bottom line is you and no one else at this point can honestly say what drives climate, we just don't know, period. Admit it.

Flat-Earthers tell me that as well, that I should admit that I don't really know if the world is round. It's a standard cult song-and-dance.

The question is, is it the primary driver?

"Primary driver" is your vague handwaving term. You need to define that term exactly for it to be of any use.

There is zero evidence of this. If there was you would have provided it.

I just did. Paleoclimate can't be explained without CO2. After all, I asked you to explain it, and you ran away screaming "WE JUST DON'T KNOW!". You have admitted that your nutty conspiracy theory can't explain anything. In contrast, our theory explains it perfectly.

Great, explain to us what stopped the feedback.

Heat leads to more CO2, CO2 leads to more heat. What stops the feedback? Unless, of course they are not as married as you think.

Mathematics, the same thing that now "stops" any tiny increase in water vapor from initiating runaway positive feedback.

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + .... = 2

That's unending positive feedback, but it's bounded. Like I keep saying, positive feedback doesn't have to be runaway positive feedback.

I've read that every ARGO reading has .12 C added to it to make up for a bias of engine intake readings in the past.

And I've read Donald Trump is a space alien. What conspiracy blog told you such a bizarre thing?

Back in reality, by making the _past_ (and not the present) look warmer, the ocean temperature adjustments make the current warming look _smaller_. That fact is not debatable, and that fact destroys your fundamental; conspiracy theory.

I showed you that fact in post #62. You ignored it completely. Just like the rest of your religious cult, you automaticallly ignore all data that contradicts your religious beliefs. You've built a fortress in an alternate reality and retreated into it, so it's not possible to reach you with reason.

The actual observed data is discarded. How can I not be disturbed by this?

You're disturbed about a conspiracy theory that your leaders spoon-fed you, in order to make you hysterical and compliant. Once you grasp that your political cult has been lying to you about every single thing, everything will become clear to you. You'll no longer be disturbed over such imaginary bogeymen, and you'll display the same sort of serene calm possessed by those of us on the rational side.

And you are so arrogant that you believe that you know all. The scientific method demands that you prove what you are saying. You cannot even come close. You will not even try.

Just as it's not arrogant to point out how a toddler couldn't understand the necessary concepts here, it's not arrogant to point out you can't understand them either. You don't possess the necessary knowledge or temperament. That would take the equivalent of a Statistics 201 class, and a willingness to buck cult dogma.

Stop and think of something. No matter what anyone says, the 1930s were beyond doubt the hottest decade in the US.

See?. The data contradicts your religious beliefs, so you're denying the data. I clearly won't be able to reach you.