Imaginary Global Temperatures

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:59 pm

Here's a link for you bobbo just to show I am not a "denier"

The article is titled "Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/ ... mate-data/

See. A link proves everything.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:35 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
No, water vapour is not what's *causing* global warming

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/no-w ... using.html

I first went to IPCC but could not understand what was presented. so I went to the pop source above for plain english.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_da ... 6-3-1.html

Always amusing when Real Skeptics with no education or training at all in the subject challenge the life study of climate specialists. No wonder Real Experts don't waste their time with us.


Yes the pop source is certainly plain English. But the article from Tim Ball (link in pop source) makes a lot more sense. And anyway, I suspect the jury will be out on this topic for a long time to come, climate change that is, not specifically just temperatures.

And maybe Real Experts don't waste their time with us because we spend too much time trying to take each other down instead of addressing the issue at hand.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:56 pm

Thanks JS....I'll review it with interest.

Phoenix: Your link made no sense to me either. Its been said already by others that merely playing with numbers and percentages and saying that whatever is at 95% (water vapor) must control the climate over something with minor percentage like co2. Problem is: the jury IS IN: and it just ain't so.

Say Phoenix......so far, you keep denying what is obvious. The jury is in. Now..... you can disagree or point out errors that the jury reached, but to say its not in...... is a special case of denial===>one of avoiding/ignoring/suppressing DIRECT OBSERVABLE FACTS. Contra: the jury of totally uniformed bozo's has the same weight so as to cancel the jury made up of qualified scientists.

Its: definitional.

.................and sorry Phoenix but you and I and JS don't address the issue at hand. Real Experts agree on AGW and are off studying and debating the "real" issues at hand such as revealed in the IPCC reports than none of us here can even understand.

Ha, ha............that is the nature of real expertise........and bozo's like us. In a very real sense, to different degrees, we all argue from ignorance. Still, there is a difference between denial, common sense, internal consistency, adherence to well defined concept...........and skepticism. Versus qualified critique.

Now on to Jimbos link. Hope something is there.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:30 am

quote="Matthew Ellard"]If you are not getting anywhere here, there's no point being here. [/quote]
JIm Steele wrote: Long ago I understood this forum was populated mostly by skeptic haters who would never change their alarmism no matter how much evidence is presented (linked or not)
What an amazing coincidence, the holocaust deniers, flat Earthers, Trump supporters and god lovers felt the same as you and still decided to post here.

JIm Steele wrote: But somebody needs to bring a touch of reality here and balance out the debate
You mean, avoid scientific peer review to avoid having to make proper arguments on forums assigned to these matters. :lol:

The Trump spammer, says he is compelled to post here, "to stop this forum being a libtard echo chamber". The holocaust deniers say they are compelled to post here, "to stop the forum being a Zionist propaganda leaflet" The "alien lizard shape-shifters run Earth" fan says he is compelled to post here to "to stop liberals and scientists destroying God's planet". You fit right in.

As we are all below you.....when are you sending in your scientific paper for peer review? Where are you sending it? The cooking forum? :lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:58 am

JIm Steele wrote:Here's a link for you bobbo just to show I am not a "denier"

The article is titled "Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/ ... mate-data/

See. A link proves everything.

Basically, my read of your link says the GAST readings, that heretofore YOU have made great store of regarding the USA Data Set, are totally defective and cannot be used.............in support of "the EPA's Co2 Endangerment Finding."

Thats fine with me. doesn't touch at all the Satellite data showing a steady increase in world temps.

....................so............... what's your point?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:56 am

“WHY IS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE AT RECORD LEVELS DESPITE GLOBAL WARMING?”

Headline in the Guardian Newspaper.

No wonder we have skeptics!

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:49 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The Trump spammer, says he is compelled to post here, "to stop this forum being a libtard echo chamber". The holocaust deniers say they are compelled to post here, "to stop the forum being a Zionist propaganda leaflet" The "alien lizard shape-shifters run Earth" fan says he is compelled to post here to "to stop liberals and scientists destroying God's planet". You fit right in.

As we are all below you.....when are you sending in your scientific paper for peer review? Where are you sending it? The cooking forum? :lol:


ROTFLMAO

Mathew once again you show no science preferring lots more stupid insults. But that what this forum allows. I dont think I have ever seen a meaningful scientific reply from you in years. You might try discussing science once in a while.

My book has been peer reviewed by over 10 pHd with some calling it a masterpiece. Far more reviews than happens in a journal. Give me your address and I'll send you a copy so you can learn real science
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:26 am

JIm Steele wrote: Mathew once again you show.......
that holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, big foot followers and people with weird beliefs and claims, avoid peer review from real experts.

You can thank me later.
:lol:


Jim Steele seems to be addicted to making up stuff.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/livi ... enies.html

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:36 am

Phoenix76 wrote:“WHY IS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE AT RECORD LEVELS DESPITE GLOBAL WARMING?”!

Because less saline water evaporates at greater rates than does more saline water and AGW has resulted in the surface waters of Antarctica to become warmer. It will average out over this current zig zag of data accretion.

Phoenix..........I suspect you simply have no appreciation at all for how complex and interactive the feed back loops are in climate weather physics.

With an apparent lack of basic knowledge, and a good amount of your knowledge incorrect, you feel empowered to author your doubts. Would you trust yourself to brain surgery on the same basis?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:39 am

JIm Steele wrote:Here's a link for you bobbo just to show I am not a "denier"...

https://wattsupwiththat...
See. A link proves everything.

:rotfl:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:08 am

Phoenix..........I suspect you simply have no appreciation at all for how complex and interactive the feed back loops are in climate weather physics.


Yes Bobbo you're quite correct. You SUSPECT. In other words you have no idea what appreciation I have of anything. It simply fits your cause, whatever that may be, to criticize others with no idea of what they are trying to say or do.

The quote in my post was simply to try and engender some meaningful discussion on the topic at hand. Clearly it failed to have that effect on you. But then most things seem to fail in having an effect on you. Occasionally I have thought, silly me, that you were going to make a post that would lead to good debate. As I said, Silly me.

You haven't even denied the fact, or otherwise, of the current amount of antarctic ice. You simply make another of your inane comments. So less saline water evaporates at greater rates than more saline water. Oh, and every thing will average out over some zig zag of data accretion. I guess "zig zag" is the latest scientific jargon in use by our best scientists. Mind you, we have a historic railway here in Australia called the ZIg Zag, but it has no bearing on the amount of antarctic ice.

Bobbo, perhaps you are quite learned in many subjects, but, that being so, you do yourself a great injustice because you come across as an immature person who big names himself by posting drivel and attacking the person rather than the subject matter. And when you do criticize the subject matter, you rarely seem to add links or references to what you are saying. And that, sir, is one of your more popular criticisms of other posters.

I don't claim to be the most learned person on earth, far from it. And whilst you may not have been as critical of me personally as you have of some others, your comments, by and large, are quite inane. I did enjoy this forum at the start, but the way you carry on turns me off, as, I suspect, it does to others.

Bobbo, why don't you try to grow up a bit, and join in the forum in the proper spirit.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:43 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:Yes Bobbo you're quite correct. You SUSPECT. In other words you have no idea what appreciation I have of anything. It simply fits your cause, whatever that may be, to criticize others with no idea of what they are trying to say or do..


Phoenix, you Nailed it!!!!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:47 pm

Phoenix: there is a long post above that specifically names numerous errors you make and misunderstandings you have. You responded to none of them other than a thumbs up. But none of the obvious errors in your understanding changed your so called skeptical view of things and rather than study the issue some more, you post an idiotic link regarding the predominance of water vapor which again only shows a very basic ignorance on the issue of climate science.

So....while the evidence is OVERWHELMING....I gave you the benefit of only suspecting your lack of grounding.

To correct it, all you have to do is actually spend more time than you have reading up on the subject...rather than defending your position that you don't even understand.

Yea, verily.

EDIT: Of interest to me..........why do you reject the conclusions of the IPCC? You follow "experts" on most other subjects...why not this one? One that you should immediately recognize is not subject to "common sense?"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:07 am

The IPCC has all the appearances of being just a tool for that great organisation, the U.N., under who's auspices it operates. The U.N. is the biggest money waster we have ever dreamed up. Totally politicised and left leaning to boot. No better than Al Gore, who must be making millions out of this charade.

I've been criticised for just using statistics to support my arguments. Perhaps there may be some reason to doubt what I quote, as we are all aware of the saying - "There are lies, Damned lies, and there are statistics". But that little saying also applies to IPCC. And through its associations, it should probably apply more so.

And of course I post an "Idiotic Link" to support my argument. Absolutely no explanation as to the idiocy of the link, just another easy throw away line by one who just loves to try and attack personalities. No substantive argument, other than to quote IPCC as the worlds greatest authority. Based on what!!!!! Its association with the politicised U.N.????

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:31 am

Phoenix76 wrote:The IPCC has all the appearances of being just a tool for that great organisation, the U.N., under who's auspices it operates. The U.N. is the biggest money waster we have ever dreamed up. Totally politicised and left leaning to boot. No better than Al Gore, who must be making millions out of this charade.
This is wholly off point and irrelevant..... although, no doubt exactly why you have no knowledge base of climate physics. The question was ".why do you reject the conclusions of the IPCC? " which was looking for their actual SCIENTIFIC FINDINDS and reports. You miss the ball completely. Strike One. Care to swing again?

I invite you to post on the Politics Sub-Forum how the UN is the biggest money waster etc. You are wrong on this point as well. Most of it coming down to what you consider to be waste/worthwhile and what your alternatives might be to do the same job.........assuming you think nations should get together and talk at all as opposed to just responding to the powers that be. I agree the Algore ran a scam...but probably for different reasons than you do.

Phoenix76 wrote: I've been criticised for just using statistics to support my arguments.
I don't read every thing but I have not seen that on this forum. Are you talking this forum or some past life? Perhaps on point, you've been told by several that your link to Water Vapor is totally spurious. That was no criticism of your use of statistics but rather that your use of them was all wrong. A close but different subject.

Phoenix76 wrote: I quote, as we are all aware of the saying - "There are lies, Damned lies, and there are statistics". But that little saying also applies to IPCC.
Yes, thats very much like: "There idiots, damn shills, and there are Science Deniers." but so what? What you are saying is you've think you've been criticized for using statistics but then support such an argument by saying statistics are only used by liars. aka: your argument is self defeating, AND==>not true. If you don't know what end of a gun the bullet comes out, you probably shouldn't handle one.

SCIENCE PROCEEDS BY STATISTICS....as opposed to BS non-applicable aphorisms.

Phoenix76 wrote: And through its associations, it should probably apply more so.
I love word play. I can't make this sentence make any sense at all. Anything there worth rephrasing?

Phoenix76 wrote: And of course I post an "Idiotic Link" to support my argument. Absolutely no explanation as to the idiocy of the link, just another easy throw away line by one who just loves to try and attack personalities. No substantive argument, other than to quote IPCC as the worlds greatest authority. Based on what!!!!! Its association with the politicised U.N.????
Simply not true. Before you gave your link, I even mentioned that water vapor was my first skeptical response to the IPCC. I Told you my doubts and how they were resolved. Another poster gave you another explanation regarding "the last drop in the bathtub" analogy. Finally, you were given a link to an article that explained why water vapor was not driving climate change.

But you post there was no response.

You have very heavy blinkers on Phoenix. Ha, ha........my knob has been turned. Saw a cartoon the other day: Science deniers all being Trump Supporters. You know what that would be..............right?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:29 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xymGM9dbt4o

This is borrowed from Gord posting on Boaty McBoatface....aka... the best name for anything ever concocted.

Its about how SCIENCE does climate study and the latest work on deep oceans interacting with wind to create a better understanding of AGW. I know.....probably lots of math involved. Damn Liars.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:46 am

My dear Bobbo, I must apologise for continually pulling your chain as it were. But you are somewhat like a youngster who always bites back when people tease him. The more he bites back, the more they tease.

Anyway, I'm nowhere near as skeptical of climate change science as I have made out.

Yep, the water vapour issue I raised is affected by CO2 increases and resultant warming, very much appears to be a catch 22 situation.

Clearly, the whole issue of industrialisation has had an immense effect on climate in our world. And as I read recently, human population explosion continues to hinder any real prospect of reversing the warming. More people, more demand on services that emit CO2.

My major concern, and immediate concern, is how are we going to reverse what is happening. I see economics as possibly the greatest hurdle we face in achieving the required reversal. Here in Australia for instance, the cost of electricity is skyrocketing, and the people will only put up with it for so long. Our next election is two years away, but at this stage, the encumbrent government is headed for a big defeat. Trouble is that the alternative major party is no better when it comes to providing some economic rationalism to the people. We have some very strong minor parties that are very right wing and they have a good chance of holding a balance of power. They are saying the things that people want to hear.

So what is the alternative? Whilst solar and wind can offer some alternative, as I understand it, they cannot provide the base load power required for industry etc. We had a storm recently that wiped out several wind turbines and destroyed the grid that waqs backing up from another state. Is nuclear the answer? We have plenty of uranium but export it. Again we have minor political parties that can influence major parties in not going nuclear.

So Bobbo, I am not a climate denier as perhaps I made out, but my concerns are real and immediate. Would love to read some rational thinking, not only from you, but from others also.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:33 am

Phoenix: You asked: "How am I to take you?"===>and I replied: "As I present myself."

No one knows who you are, has your history, your hopes and dreams. "You" are not and will never be known by or on this forum. The only thing that is known: is what you post. And that is the only thing I respond to.

I came on this forum/thread to find out more about AGW myself. More exactly: just what is the most likely trend that is in place now, and as you note: what to do about it. Instead, I ran into a few who no longer post for the moment, Jim Steel, and recently, you. Science Deniers who are the bane of rational public policy.

Right now, I think the alternative is to apply all social policy to getting off fossil fuels, including Nuke as a transistion if we must, but AGRESSIVE programs such as in Germany that is transitioning decades faster than anyone thought possible. NOT the Right Wing BS of actually putting legal hurdles in the way of development: EG--my own housing development here in California prohibits solar panels as a violation of "aesthetics" and the long term "group rate" they supposedly have with our local power company==>still paying for a Nuke Plant they shut down years ago (Rancho Sego).

RIGHT NOW==>We need crash programs to go Green, and since we are too late, another crash program to develop "negative co2" technologies to sequester atmospheric co2 to get back below 350ppm.

Even as you play with yourself....... your critical thinking skills would amp up if you stopped using mind numbing weasel worlds like "perhaps." Anyone can and has read the very uninformed stupid things you have posted.

You are.............. what you post.

THAT being said......always remember your next breath is the start of the rest of your life. You can/will make of it what you will. Think about it. Post as you will.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:29 am

Okay Bobbo, whatever. According to "what you post", you appear to lack any humour, but you seem to be loaded with a good overdose on narcissism.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:32 am

All my narcissism and you post as if you know me?

Pearls before swine.

Why don't you get off the personal..... and post on topic?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:03 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:you've been told by several that your link to Water Vapor is totally spurious. That was no criticism of your use of statistics but rather that your use of them was all wrong. A close but different subject.


The water vapor issue brought up by Phoenix is far from being a totally spurious issue. It has been modeled that if there is a 1C warming of the atmosphere it would trigger extra water vapor that would cause an additional 2C of warming. In other words of the 0.6C warming observed over the 19th century, 0.4C has been due to water vapor. Thus there is a consensus that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas and responsible for most of the warming. Hardly spurious.

Some researchers suggest the 0.2C is solely due to rising CO2, but increased water vapor correlates best with El Nino cycles, not rising CO2.

The warmest period of the Holocene, the Holocene Optimum, occurred between 9 and 6 thousand years ago and El Nino activity has increased as the Holocene cooled. So it may be that CO2 has very little to do with increased water vapor.

Image

graph peer reviewed paper from Moy (2002) Variability of El Nin ̃o/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature 420, 162-165
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:34 pm

No link. No response.

Post yer frickin links.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No link. No response.

Post yer frickin links.


Bobbo you are such a phony SOB! You were given a link for Greenland ice and didnt use it.

This is just your BS way of again, avoiding the science.

As is customary in all peer reviewed science, the citation is given. Now do your own homework and instead of whining like a frickin empty-headed baby who needs to be spoon fed everything. That's not my job. Moy (2002) Variability of El Nin ̃o/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature 420, 162-165
Last edited by Jim Steele on Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:25 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
JIm Steele wrote: Mathew once again you show.......
that holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, big foot followers and people with weird beliefs and claims, avoid peer review from real experts.

You can thank me later.
:lol:


Jim Steele seems to be addicted to making up stuff.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/livi ... enies.html


I'll thank you now. You continue to offer no science and just personal attacks that pyrrho subjectively allows

Your link to Slandering Sou the dishonest skeptic Basher ( read the link for a sample of her dishonesty being exposed by a scientist she thought would instead prove me wrong. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/20/ ... wn-petard/). Your link only shows how stupid and dishonest she is and how readily you swallow foolishness to fit your useless personal attacks.

Here is the graph I posted in the article she criticizes showing the maximum temperature had not increased in Plainview Texas. Slandering Sou is one of the most vile and dishonest bloggers on the internet, and it is easily proven. That you use her, says more about you Mathew than anything else.

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:34 am

I don't much care about the subject ..........but since you provided links..........I did click thru.

The chart at http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/04/livi ... enies.html goes thru year 2012.

Your chart above stops at 2005 or a bit higher? You have a track record of posting such cherry picked and half offered truths.

Nothing changes.............. maybe YOU need some green house gas to get things moving?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:46 am

Nothing changes indeed and Bobbo still snipes showing he is as vile and ignorant as Slandering Sou.

Sou cherrypicks a graph from adjusted data to distort the issue that myself and the team of scientists had reported on. I reported maximum temperatures and she reported averages that used the conflating contribution of minimums. Minimums dont cause heat stress and she fails to even get that right!!

As my article reported, there had been no warming in Texas since the warm blip" of the 40s" and that is exactly what the team of climate scientists as well as the graph of Plainview Tx maximum temperatures reported. the team of climate scientists reported

"no systematic changes in the annual and warm season mean daily temperature have been detected over the Great Plains and Texas over the 62-yr period from 1948 to 2009 (Groisman et al.2012), consistent with the notion of a regional ‘‘warming hole’’ (e.g., Kunkel et al. 2006). Indeed, May–October maximum temperatures over the region have decreased by 0.98C (62 yr), which is statistically significant according to Groisman et al."


Slandering Sou denies those facts, as does bobbo, in order to slander the messengers of facts that reveal their blind faith is just that blind, and ignorant!

But as Bobbo admitted long ago de doesnt read or understand scientific papers. He only understand skeptic bashing web sites. Try reading the paper on which my article truthfully reported http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... 12-00270.1
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:53 am

Nothing changes indeed and Bobbo still snipes showing he is as vile and ignorant as Slandering Sou. Bobbo has a track record of total dishonesty and cherrypicking what ever to engage in personal attacks that Pyhrro subjectively allows on this site if it is against climate skeptics.

At Sou's site she cherrypicked a graph from adjusted data to distort the issue that myself and the team of scientists had reported on. But the data I reported verifies the maximum temperatures are lower while Sou reported averages, which used the conflating contribution of minimums. Minimums are affected by land-use changes and dont cause heat stress and she fails to even get that right!!

As my article reported, there had been no warming in Texas since the warm blip" of the 40s" and that is exactly what the team of climate scientists as well as the graph of Plainview Tx maximum temperatures demonstrate.

The team of climate scientists reported,

"no systematic changes in the annual and warm season mean daily temperature have been detected over the Great Plains and Texas over the 62-yr period from 1948 to 2009 (Groisman et al.2012), consistent with the notion of a regional ‘‘warming hole’’ (e.g., Kunkel et al. 2006). Indeed, May–October maximum temperatures over the region have decreased by 0.98C (62 yr), which is statistically significant according to Groisman et al."


Slandering Sou denies those facts, as does bobbo, in order to slander the messengers of truth that reveal that their blind faith is just that, blind, and ignorant!

But as Bobbo admitted long ago he doesnt read or understand scientific papers. He only understands skeptic bashing web sites.

So try reading the paper on which my article truthfully reported! http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... 12-00270.1[/quote]
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:26 am

So........let me get this straight: The Sou graph is an average to 2012 showing that temps are going up. YOUR graph is of Max Temps, stops at 2005, and shows no increase or decrease?

But.................Sou is cherrypicking but you are not?

............................................................................................. Why don't you educate us all and tell us what the difference is?

Seems to me if Max temp days are the same but the average heat days is increasing that there is an increase? And that doesn't even count what you snipped off on your own chart.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:16 am

Spoiler:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:54 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So........let me get this straight: The Sou graph is an average to 2012 showing that temps are going up. YOUR graph is of Max Temps, stops at 2005, and shows no increase or decrease?

But.................Sou is cherrypicking but you are not?


Dang Bobbo you make up whatever crap you want showing you are the biggest cherrypicking fool. FIrst read the graph's title my blind little sniper. It says 1895 to 2012. It does not end in 2005 and I hope the big font helps. You cherrypicked a label from the x-axis. ROTFLMAO.

Now the Plainview TX graph was used because that was the location where the bogus alarmist narrative was centered about global warming caused drought. The data shows the 2012 maximum temperatures never exceeded 1920s and 30s, in both the raw and adjusted data. Maximums cause heat stress that would be relevant for drought issues. Sou uses an average temperature that is biased by the minimums. And minimums are meaningless regards evaporation stress. But like most alarmists Sou compares apples to oranges and then insults you with her twisted logic. Sou's cherrypicked graph also used data that included the warming in El Paso that is due to the massive urban growth and heat islands there, and biases the data away from the trends seen in the smaller towns. But Mathew and you seem to value such ugly nonsense and such dishonest cherrypicking

Furthermore the point I made was there was no warming since the 30s, which is undeniable. But Slandering Sou cherrypicked a short term 30 year trend of .6C warming since the 1970s and ignored the longer trend. The scientists agreed the 0.6C could be consistent with anthropogenic warming, but it was hard to attribute the trend to global warming when the longer trends revealed temperatures were warmer in the 30s. (That's why alarmists try to get rid of the pesky facts they call warm blips.)

Image

The cooling trend seen in the Plainview graph since 1920s is undeniable and not limited to Plainview but widespread.The team of climate scientists stated,

"no systematic changes in the annual and warm season mean daily temperature have been detected over the Great Plains and Texas over the 62-yr period from 1948 to 2009 (Groisman et al.2012), consistent with the notion of a regional ‘‘warming hole’’ (e.g., Kunkel et al. 2006). Indeed, May–October maximum temperatures over the region have decreased by 0.98C (62 yr), which is statistically significant according to Groisman et al."


But Sou ignores all that in her vile attempt to denigrate me. Like the alarmists here, it is a very common way of handling inconvenient truths!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:09 am

It's a small world after all...
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:58 am

JS: you are more right than wrong.

Agreed....I just looked at the x axis.

Agreed....the average "hotter" does appear just for the past 20 years..... and couples with the lower than average cool period just before that, can't even argue its a hockey stick.

Disagree...BOTH max temps and average hotter temps cause stress.

Disagree....if we are talking about drought.......seems to me rainfall should be in there somewhere? Maybe the Z axis?

...................and I know we both recognized some small local drought doesn't say anything about AGW?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19743
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:18 am

Imaginary, Shirley...
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:10 am

Eggs: July 9th? Nothing more timely??????

Yes..........its why I set my hair on fire a few years ago: why aren't the qualified scientists sounding the Alarm more forcefully than they have?????? It almost speaks against what they are actually saying making me wonder if I'm over-reacting.

Methane Calthrate Gun: most of what I've read has been how safe it is in the deeper ocean. Warming most likely not to reach it.................but once Again we have the Siberean Traps. They caused the 4th Great Extinction of most life on earth millions of years ago.

I hate sequels.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:23 pm

The New York article must be the most ugly and stupid example of fear mongering BS yet.

It is so ironic that they extrapolate their fears from the GHCN imaginary data to suggest...

But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination.


Au contraire, the alarmists prey on those with unconstrained imaginations, generating end-of-the-world paranoid delusions that easily afflict the ill-informed and and the easily led, all derived from imaginary GHCN data and a failure to understand natuarl climate variability.

And zombie movie popularity results from displaced climate anxiety. ROTFLMAO

Image
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:33 am

Running won't help.

Should be: "Stop burning fossil fuels."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest