Staggering climate contradiction - data that can be fudged says "warming," data that cannot be fudged says "no warming"

[mamooth]

The Climate Cult has been caught fudging its data multiple times.

When you get on your "Both sides do it" BigLie kick, you don't mess around. You go all out. What's the matter, Democrats doing too well?

Remember, we know the facts, so we you're making stupid shit up. You can't gaslight intelligent people.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When you get on your "Both sides do it" BigLie kick, you don't mess around. You go all out. What's the matter, Democrats doing too well?

Remember, we know the facts, so we you're making stupid shit up. You can't gaslight intelligent people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/09/11/patrick-brown-climate-wildfires-breakthrough/

 

[Donald H]

No ... water seeks her own level ... in other words, sea level is a surface of equal gravitation potential ... where the force of gravity acting on the sea water is equal all around the globe ...

That's really stupid

Pour boiling water into one end of a trough ... it will take a minute or two for the energy to spread out, but the water level will equalize within seconds ... just how fluids behave with gravity ... here's a scientific paper on the matter using satellite altimeters ... they give 3.0 mm/yr with 0.084 mm/yr/yr acceleration ... about 20 inch rise by Year 2100 ...

That's water only ... many places experiencing flooding are also enduring land subsidence, especially in Florida ... but that's a different environmental disaster ...

 

[mamooth]

What is your evidence that this difference is not explained by

a) changes in the measuring equipment

Taken into account.

b) changes in the locations or times that the temperature data points were gathered,

Taken into account, which caused a screaming meltdown in deniers.

c)a cyclic or non-cyclic warming trend unrelated to human activity,

That's not how science works. You don't say "You have to prove it's not fairy magic, otherwise we must assume it is fairy magic!". You're the one proposing fairy magic, so you need to show it exists.

You could look this stuff up yourself. Why don't you? Why do you expect us to spoonfeed you?

 

[mamooth]

Wow. You are desperate.

So some bad science was immediately corrected by other scientists, and you call it fraud?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Why is it so emotionally important to you to believe in your "DERP! BOTH SIDES DO IT!" BigLie?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wow. You are desperate.

So some bad science was immediately corrected by other scientists, and you call it fraud?

What the hell is wrong with you?

Why is it so emotionally important to you to believe in your "DERP! BOTH SIDES DO IT!" BigLie?

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws

Exclusive: Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures• How the location of weather stations in China undermines data

www.theguardian.com

 

[ReinyDays]

That's really stupid

You don't know how a builder's level works? ... or a surveyor's transit? ...

 

[Seymour Flops]

Taken into account.

Taken into account, which caused a screaming meltdown in deniers.

Can you expand on that?

Just saying "taken into account," sounds like a way to avoid the issue.

That's not how science works. You don't say "You have to prove it's not fairy magic, otherwise we must assume it is fairy magic!". You're the one proposing fairy magic, so you need to show it exists.

Cyclic climate change is not fairy magic.

In the scientific method, one must isolate the variable in order to test whether the variable is responsible for statistically significant effects. So, yes. You do have to prove that the temperature differences are not the result of other factors than human activity.

Amazing that you think we should base economic policy on the idea that human activity has caused global warming without first asking whether other factors caused any supposed global warming.

You could look this stuff up yourself. Why don't you? Why do you expect us to spoonfeed you?

Defending your position =/= spoonfeeding.

 

[mamooth]

Deniers were humiliated over that BigLie a decade ago, and you want to revisit it? Wow.

It's fasciinating, how emotionally invested in the BigLie you are. A brave person just tells the truth. that the librals side is far more honest. You're indepednent song and dance is fundamentally gutless.

Now, what other debunked propaganda do you want to sell us? You're going all-in with the kook-right propaganda now, so don't stop now.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Deniers were humiliated over that BigLie a decade ago, and you want to revisit it? Wow.

It's fasciinating, how emotionally invested in the BigLie you are. A brave person just tells the truth. that the librals side is far more honest. You're indepednent song and dance is fundamentally gutless.

Now, what other debunked propaganda do you want to sell us? You're going all-in with the kook-right propaganda now, so don't stop now.

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, its data are fraudulent.

www.investors.com

 

[mamooth]

Just saying "taken into account," sounds like a way to avoid the issue.

4 ways:

1. Buckets. Too-cool bias. Corrected for now.

Planet Postcard: A Bucket Full of Data

Less than 100 years ago, scientists and sailors used ordinary wooden buckets to measure sea surface temperatures.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

2. Engine room temps. Accurate. No bias.

3. Buoys. Very accurate. No bias.

4. Argo floats. Insanely accurate. No bias.

They're cross-checked to hell and back.

Cyclic climate change is not fairy magic.

Of course it is, when you can't explain what the cycle is. Cycles have causes. Just yelling "It's a natural cycle!" is invoking unknown magic. It doesn't explain anything.

In the scientific method, one must isolate the variable in order to test whether the variable is responsible for statistically significant effects.

No, that's not correct. Science knows it's often impossible to isolate the variable. See, for example, every single thing in astrophysics. We can't take black holes and do a double blind study. You're setting a double standard, demanding climate science meet standards that no other branch of science has to meet.

Verification by observation is a thing in science. You use your theory to make predictions, you see if the predictions come true. Climate science has passed that test with flying colors. Your side won't even make a prediction, because it's not doing science.

So, yes. You do have to prove that the temperature differences are not the result of other factors than human activity.

Done.

The current directly observed things have no natural explanation:
Increased backradiation
Stratospheric cooling
Decrease in outgoing longwave in teh GHG bands
Polar amplificiatino
More warming at night
More warming in winter

Your "it's natural theory" can't explain those things, so your theory is wrong.

 

[mamooth]

That was just a dumb opinion piece from a paid hack. You're regurgitating crazy right-wing propaganda.

So what's next, telling us about the COVID hoax? Talking about how Trump won the election? If you're going to spout crazy right-wing propaganda, go all out.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, its data are fraudulent.

www.investors.com

"NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate."

Exactly which data readings have been changed? ... where and when has NOAA changed the data reported in local newspapers? ... or do you mean NOAA has changed their methodology in processing the data? ... or used a better computer? ...

I've only checked a few stations, and they check out with what NOAA's reporting ... perhaps if you could post a counter-example, I could get a better idea of what you mean ... some weather station that doesn't follow NOAA's temperature trace ... be careful, statistics don't lie but liars use statistics ... and it's real easy to drive up percentages by reducing your sample pool, c.f. the Monty Hall Paradox ...

 

[Donald H]

You don't know how a builder's level works? ... or a surveyor's transit? ...

Even better a see-through water hose. Some locations on earth have over a 50 foot difference in height to others. You're really fkng stupid!

 

[Seymour Flops]

4 ways:

1. Buckets. Too-cool bias. Corrected for now.

Planet Postcard: A Bucket Full of Data

Less than 100 years ago, scientists and sailors used ordinary wooden buckets to measure sea surface temperatures.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

From your own link:

Buckets Become a Thing of the Past​

Fortunately, as time progressed so did technology, allowing scientists to develop more accurate methods for measuring sea surface temperatures. Today, buoys across the ocean automatically report measurements from their sensors. These measurements are beamed to satellites for automated and immediate data distribution.

So since the bucket method was not as accurate, then by definition, it produced different results from modern day methods. therefore any comparison is invalid. That scientists now claim to have "corrected" the past measurements a hundred years later may make for interesting reading for people already convinced that AGW is a real thing, but it isn't about science.

2. Engine room temps. Accurate. No bias.

3. Buoys. Very accurate. No bias.

4. Argo floats. Insanely accurate. No bias.

They're cross-checked to hell and back.

No, they are "corrected" so that they come out the way climate researchers want them to. As the OP said, data that can be fudged shows there is "global warming." Data that cannot be does not.

Of course it is, when you can't explain what the cycle is. Cycles have causes. Just yelling "It's a natural cycle!" is invoking unknown magic. It doesn't explain anything.

Nor does yelling "carbon!" We know natural climate cycles exist, but we do not know that AGW exists.

No, that's not correct. Science knows it's often impossible to isolate the variable. See, for example, every single thing in astrophysics. We can't take black holes and do a double blind study. You're setting a double standard, demanding climate science meet standards that no other branch of science has to meet.

Correct, and the theories about how black holes are formed, i.e. what causes them, cannot be scientifically tested. That does not mean that we have to accept guesswork as if it had been scientifically tested.

The same applies to global warming. We can "believe" that it is happening so long as we "correct" the data, and we can "believe" that human activity causes it, if that helps some political cause or another.

But we do not have to accept it as if it has been tested by the scientific method, when it clearly has not.

Verification by observation is a thing in science. You use your theory to make predictions, you see if the predictions come true. Climate science has passed that test with flying colors. Your side won't even make a prediction, because it's not doing science.

Really? You are not familiar with the numerous gloom-and-doom predictions of climate alarmists that have not come true?

Or you know about them and were hoping that I did not?

Done.

The current directly observed things have no natural explanation:
Increased backradiation
Stratospheric cooling
Decrease in outgoing longwave in teh GHG bands
Polar amplificiatino
More warming at night
More warming in winter

Your "it's natural theory" can't explain those things, so your theory is wrong.

I don't have a "natural theory." I just don't accept the human activity theory without scientific evidence.

 

[ReinyDays]

Even better a see-through water hose. Some locations on earth have over a 50 foot difference in height to others. You're really fkng stupid!

Name these places ... and name your reference ... no link means it didn't happen ...

Navier–Stokes equations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mamooth]

So since the bucket method was not as accurate, then by definition, it produced different results from modern day methods. there for any comparison is invalid.

That makes zero sense.

It's like saying if my oven runs 20 degrees low, I have to throw away the oven, instead of correcting what setting I use.

In the real world, people correct for errors.

No, they are "corrected" so that they come out the way climate researchers want them to.

You're a denier, so it was just a matter of time. You know, before you regressed to crazy conspiracy theories to explain why all the data says you're wrong.

Really? You are not familiar with the numerous gloom-and-doom predictions of climate alarmists that have not come true?

I've seen the faked lists. Would you like to repost one, so your dishonesty can be highlighted? You'll post a list of things that were never predicted, things taken wildly out of context, things that non-climate scientists said, things that had nothing to do with climate, things that only one guy said, and things that were proven to be correct.

Meanwhile, the actual climate predictions have been excellent.

I don't have a "natural theory." I just don't accept the human activity theory without scientific evidence.

You are entitled to yoru feelings, but don't imagine that they're based on the science. The facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[Donald H]

Name these places ... and name your reference ... no link means it didn't happen ...

Navier–Stokes equations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

to the head of the Bay where, in the Minas Basin, the height of the tide can reach an incredible 16 meters (53ft).

 

[mamooth]

"NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate."

That's what ethical scientists do.

Not adjusting for known errors is deliberately lying. Deniers often demand that scientists lie in that manner.

The funny part is that the adjustments make the warming look smaller. That makes the denier conspiracy theory look cuckoobananas. Their conspiracy theory posits that scientists apparently nefariously fudged the data to make the warming look smaller.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's start with ocean temps.

We all know the Co2 Fraud claims "warmest ever ocean temps" just about every year. If so, then hurricanes would be breaking out. But the strongest decade for canes is still the 1940s...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Just last summer was "warmest ever." But the cane season was a complete DUD, with just one Atlantic cane reaching Cat 5 for a total of about 15 hours. Water off FLA was called "warmest ever" yet two canes got near FLA and neither got to Cat 5. In 1938, a Cat 5 got to LONG ISLAND, like NEW YORK, a bit further north...

So here we have a classic "what can be fudged and what cannot." It is hard to "fudge" a cane, although cane strength can be "fudged" and in 2014 it was, at least with one "cat 5" that did ABSOLUTELY NO DAMAGE to Mexico when "it hit as a Cat 5."

It is easy to FUDGE a temperature chart. There is a complete contradiction with the claim of "warmest ever ocean temps" and NO BREAKOUT IN CANES....


from Google

1. The first condition is that ocean waters must be above 26 degrees Celsius (79 degrees Fahrenheit). Below this threshold temperature, hurricanes will not form


HELLO. If the average temp was RISING there would be MORE CANES. THERE ARE NOT MORE CANES.

Hence the claim of "ocean temp rise" is CONTRADICTED/REFUTED by Canes.

It isn't hard to figure out what is going on. The oceans are NOT WARMING and the CANES VALIDATE that claim.

The only "evidence" of "ocean warming" is 100% pure FUDGED FRAUD.




Ditto for "ocean rise." The Co2 FRAUD claims "ocean rise." If there was an ongoing net ice melt on planet Earth, oceans WOULD RISE. They AREN'T. Once again, what can be fudged "ocean rise charts" and what CANNOT BE FUDGED.... actual photos documenting NO OCEAN RISE....

Statue of Liberty
Hawaii 5-0 beach
Venice
Norfolk Naval Base


It is time to wake up and get a clue. The Co2 FRAUD is COMPLETE FRAUD, Planet Earth is NOT WARMING, and increasing atmospheric Co2 did NOT WARM ANYTHING....

IPCC I Protect Communist China