Imaginary Global Temperatures

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:30 am

Most of the world has extremely poor climate coverage as seen in the map below. The global average is based on imaginary data that infills all those uncovered regions.

Image


In contrast best most complete coverage is in the USA , and there the temperatures oscillate like the oceans with scant or no warming since the 30s.

Hmmm


Image


graph from Shen, S., et al., (2011) The twentieth century contiguous US temperature changes indicated by daily data and higher statistical moments. Climatic Change Volume 109, Issue 3-4, pp 287-317.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19775
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:36 am

Image
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:36 am

No Link.

..........................No response.
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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:05 am

Some people have trouble handling the evidence or the truth. Calling me a troll wont make the evidence go away.

Image
“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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:08 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:..........................No response.


That's a welcome relief.
“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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:09 am

Well Jimbo=====no one called you a Troll. You just know yourself better than we do.

POST A FRICKIN LINK. Too much of what you post and even your commentary on it comes from sources that speak more against the point you want to make than the chart alone would suggest. IOW: you cherry pick and mischaracterize by using "facts" in isolation.

NOBODY SHOULD RESPOND TO YOU: until you post your 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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:POST A FRICKIN LINK.


Image

Is link singular for Lynx??
“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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:33 am

Demonstrates very well why you need to POST A FRICKIN LINK.

((Although I do enjoy nature pics.))
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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:54 am

[quote="JIm Steele"]Most of the world has extremely poor climate coverage as seen in the map below. The global average is based on imaginary data that infills all those uncovered regions.

Image


In 2002, Scripps’ esteemed oceanographer Walter Munk argued for the establishment of an Ocean Observation System reporting, “much of the twentieth century could be called a “century of undersampling” in which “physical charts of temperature, salinity, nutrients, and currents were so unrealistic that they could not possibly have been of any use to the biologists. Similarly, scientists could find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory they claimed. ”
“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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:00 am

NOBODY SHOULD RESPOND TO YOU: until you post your 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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:16 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:NOBODY SHOULD RESPOND TO YOU: until you post your links.


You keep promising that.
“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: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:51 am

Well Bobbo, perhaps Jim hasn't posted actual links that you can click on, be has certainly posted references that you could go research.

But regardless of all the above, I would love someone to provide a link to causation that CO2 is to blame for the alleged global warming. I am very skeptical of the global warming theory. Climate change is another thing altogether. Our climate has been changing since earth formed, and, I believe, it will continue to change for as long as earth exists.

But, as I'm sure you would know Bobbo, there is more to earth's climate than CO2, like the Sun with its storms and solar flares, like the movement of Earth's tectonic plates, changes in undersea geography as a result of tectonic plate movement, earth's orbit around the Sun - gradually getting closer, variations in Earth's orbit, and I guess we can go on and on.

I've read articles (non-linked and non-referenced) that tell me that the only thing that matters is CO2, and none of the other climate influences matter

So my friend, how about sharing some of your knowledge about the climate instead of just stirring up people like Jim.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19775
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:27 pm

Present your case. Or {!#%@} off.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:43 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Present your case. Or {!#%@} off.


Sincere discussion about scientific hypotheses used to be very civil. No need for such offensive language unless you have nothing scientific to add.

Gawdzilla you were politely asked to present your case. So what is the conclusive evidence that convinced you CO2 is responsible for climate change and not natural variations? Remember consensus is not evidence. What evidence drove the so-called consensus?
“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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:55 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:Well Bobbo, perhaps Jim hasn't posted actual links that you can click on, be has certainly posted references that you could go research.

Yes. My authority for what I post is: "Go google it yourself."

Do you actually hold this opinion, or just flapping your lips?

The problem with "reasearching it yourself" is that you and everyone else spends time and can easily find the wrong reference. So much easier when the poster has his fingertips on the reference at hand.

Its good citizenship and etiquette. ESPECIALLY on a science related issue.

Quite consistent with JS lack of expertise and professionalism though.
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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:05 pm

When bobbo cant refute the evidence, he goes on these rants DEMANDING links. We've gone down this road several times before and he knows exactly how to find a link with a single click, but he creates another one of his strawman issues simply so he can hurl more insults and avoid addressing the undeniable data presented. So unprofessional
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:05 am

JIm Steele wrote:When bobbo cant refute the evidence, he goes on these rants DEMANDING links. We've gone down this road several times before and he knows exactly how to find a link with a single click, but he creates another one of his strawman issues simply so he can hurl more insults and avoid addressing the undeniable data presented. So unprofessional

With all due respect, is there some reason you don't set out your hypothesis, articulate a cogent argument, and provide links to your evidence? Presumably, you visited the websites in order to provide the visuals, so it would be simple enough to copy the link and paste it into your post. Why do you expect your readers to troll through the Internet in search of your evidence for your argument?

You seem to be saying that the lack of uniform data across the world makes worldwide data unreliable. You provide a map showing there are nulls in the data, but no evidence that this lack invalidates the consensus, climatologically speaking. You then appear to be saying a worldwide consensus can be extrapolated from US data alone. You present a chart of the US data, but no evidence that such an extrapolation is valid.

How can we have any kind of meaningful discussion on the issue? Would you please post links to your evidence?

Note that I have not ranted, demanded links, created a straw man issue, insulted you in any way, or behaved unprofessionally. I have presented an issue, detailed the reasons why it's a problem, and politely requested that you remedy it.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Jul 02, 2017 4:57 am

Nikki I see you are new here.

I have posted many articles over the years with hundreds of links or citations. No matter how helpful my links, the response of bobbo and his ilk is to dismiss it all as cherrypicking. A sincere scientific discussion needs to demonstrate why the boatload of "cherries" are meaningless contradictions. The nonsensical attempt dismiss all the contradictory evidence is to arguelocal data is meaningless because its not "global", even though its local data that makes an average.

You ask how can we have any meaningful discussion without links? That's easy. You can either go look up all my posts, Or you can simply discuss the obvious. The map of GHCN (Global HIstorical Climate Network) is self explanatory. No link is needed to realize there is a tremendous lack of data from which the global average has been created. There are only a relatively few scientists that create that average. Even MIchael Mann admitted there was not enough data for a global trend, but he thought there was enough for the northern hemisphere. What you refer to is a consensus, simply means a number of other scientists are not challenging what a few scientists created. If you want to trust the created average despite all the missing data and past data that shows a warming peak in the 40s and then a cooling until the 70s, that your perogative.

If so and you sincerely want a meaningful discussion, then all you need to do is state why you trust the created average. State what is wrong with what I have posted. For the graph of the USA temperatures I gave the citation from which the graph was copied. Those temperatures represent quality controlled data but data that was not arbitrarily homogenized. The osciillatiing temperatures are consistent with ocean oscillations. Why do you not trust the USA graph made by climate scientists?

I do not trust the validity of the created global average because 1) there is inadequate coverage 2) it contradicts past instrumental data, tree ring data, and ice core data, and 3) homogenization techniques create adjustments that are unjustified by any documentation.

I have provided many times data the contradicts global avearge construction and provided links in the past. Due to the lack of any sincere discussion, and battery of insult, I often post just the graphs now. No one here has ever disproved a thing I post. Just try to dismiss it with insults and blather. So dont expect me to put in a lot of extra work. Its like giving peals to swine.

As I have shown, top scientists will acknowledge that the lack of data allows a researcher to find support for whatever pet theory they have. To repeat:

Walter Munk argued for the establishment of an Ocean Observation System reporting, “much of the twentieth century could be called a “century of undersampling” in which “physical charts of temperature, salinity, nutrients, and currents were so unrealistic that they could not possibly have been of any use to the biologists. Similarly, scientists could find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory they claimed. ”


Now I never lie. But if you think I am making a false quote, all you need to do is copy one or two sentences, paste it into google and in less than 5 seconds you have numerous links to Munk's testimony. Suggesting that I am expecting you to "troll through the internet" is silly hyperbole.
“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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:53 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:[
With all due respect, is there some reason you don't set out your hypothesis, articulate a cogent argument, and provide links to your evidence?


Here is a link to my first post on this forum where I already did just what you suggest and with lots of links!

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=22884&hilit=JIm+Steele


Here's another post about a scientific paper showing the natural causes of climate change. You also get a good picture of Gawdzilla's debate style: no science but heavy on the insults.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=24410&hilit=JIm+Steele
“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: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Phoenix76 wrote:Well Bobbo, perhaps Jim hasn't posted actual links that you can click on, be has certainly posted references that you could go research.

Yes. My authority for what I post is: "Go google it yourself."

Do you actually hold this opinion, or just flapping your lips?

The problem with "reasearching it yourself" is that you and everyone else spends time and can easily find the wrong reference. So much easier when the poster has his fingertips on the reference at hand.

Its good citizenship and etiquette. ESPECIALLY on a science related issue.

Quite consistent with JS lack of expertise and professionalism though.


Not quite sure how to take you Bobbo as I'm relatively new to the forum, but at times I feel ill at ease with your comments.

Depends what opinion you are referring to. If is googling it myself, well yes I hold that opinion, but I also hold that it is nice and easy when someone includes a clickable link. But I can take Jim's references and quickly find them in Google, that doesn't bother me. Certainly not getting uptight about it.

However, I did ask in my post if anyone could show where to find evidence/causation, that CO2 is not only a major contributor to climate change, but apparently the only cause worth looking at.

So no I'm not just "flapping my lips", a comment I find offensive, I am seeking some evidence for all these claims that CO2 is going to bring earth to its knees. Thought that for a skeptics forum, that was a legitimate question. But never mind Bobbo, perhaps another forum member will answer in a professional manner.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29416
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Gord » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:45 am

Phoenix76 wrote:Not quite sure how to take you Bobbo as I'm relatively new to the forum, but at times I feel ill at ease with your comments.

You're not the only one. Bobbo's a jerk. :P But he's talking to JIm Steele, who is also a jerk.

If you want to hear about some climate change science, I recommend potholer54's series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Note that there are 36 of them (he numbered them in the titles, but those numbers don't work out because he created, for instance, 11 and 11a).
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:13 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Nikki I see you are new here.

I have posted many articles over the years with hundreds of links or citations. No matter how helpful my links, the response of bobbo and his ilk is to dismiss it all as cherrypicking.
That may be, but what about everyone else who comes into this discussion? There are a number of newer members who might be interested in your topic.

JIm Steele wrote:You ask how can we have any meaningful discussion without links? That's easy. You can either go look up all my posts, Or you can simply discuss the obvious. The map of GHCN (Global HIstorical Climate Network) is self explanatory. No link is needed to realize there is a tremendous lack of data from which the global average has been created. There are only a relatively few scientists that create that average.
I disagree that it's as easy as you claim.
1. It's your argument, but you're expecting everyone else to do your work. That's like writing a paper, but expecting the professor to intuit, find, and look up your sources because you failed to provide a properly footnoted bibliography. It doesn't work.
2. This is a skeptics' forums, yes? Ideas must be proven. Given 30 minutes, I could recreate your graphics in Photoshop.
3. You assume your readers have the knowledge you have, and that may not be true. It's necessary to articulate your viewpoint and provide the evidence that proves it.

JIm Steele wrote:Even MIchael Mann admitted there was not enough data for a global trend, but he thought there was enough for the northern hemisphere. What you refer to is a consensus, simply means a number of other scientists are not challenging what a few scientists created. If you want to trust the created average despite all the missing data and past data that shows a warming peak in the 40s and then a cooling until the 70s, that your perogative.
It's not my prerogative, since you've provided me with no links proving why your argument counters the consensus.

JIm Steele wrote:If so and you sincerely want a meaningful discussion, then all you need to do is state why you trust the created average.
But I don't have to do that at all. You're the one alleging that we cannot trust the data...but you have yet to prove (1) that we cannot trust it; and, (2) why we cannot trust it. Hence the lack of discussion.

JIm Steele wrote:State what is wrong with what I have posted.
I did.

JIm Steele wrote:For the graph of the USA temperatures I gave the citation from which the graph was copied. Those temperatures represent quality controlled data but data that was not arbitrarily homogenized. The osciillatiing temperatures are consistent with ocean oscillations. Why do you not trust the USA graph made by climate scientists?
Because you've merely presented a graph, but no context.

JIm Steele wrote:I do not trust the validity of the created global average because 1) there is inadequate coverage 2) it contradicts past instrumental data, tree ring data, and ice core data, and 3) homogenization techniques create adjustments that are unjustified by any documentation.
None of which you stated in your original post as part of your argument. Hence my complaint that you failed to articulate your argument.

JIm Steele wrote:I have provided many times data the contradicts global avearge construction and provided links in the past.
But those were other threads, not this thread. You didn't link to those threads either.

JIm Steele wrote:Due to the lack of any sincere discussion, and battery of insult, I often post just the graphs now.
Which leaves new members—who have not had the opportunity for discussion, and who have not insulted you—with nothing to discuss.

JIm Steele wrote:No one here has ever disproved a thing I post. Just try to dismiss it with insults and blather. So dont expect me to put in a lot of extra work. Its like giving peals to swine.
Then why bother posting at all? I'm a new member requesting that you articulate your argument and post evidence and links so that I can discuss the issue with you, but all I'm getting is defensive excuses and your insistence that I take you at your word. That's neither scientific nor scholarly.

JIm Steele wrote:As I have shown, top scientists will acknowledge that the lack of data allows a researcher to find support for whatever pet theory they have. To repeat:
Walter Munk argued for the establishment of an Ocean Observation System reporting, “much of the twentieth century could be called a “century of undersampling” in which “physical charts of temperature, salinity, nutrients, and currents were so unrealistic that they could not possibly have been of any use to the biologists. Similarly, scientists could find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory they claimed. ”

Now I never lie. But if you think I am making a false quote, all you need to do is copy one or two sentences, paste it into google and in less than 5 seconds you have numerous links to Munk's testimony. Suggesting that I am expecting you to "troll through the internet" is silly hyperbole.
It's not even remotely hyperbole. You put forth the argument that the scientific consensus is in error; it's your job to properly support your argument with factual evidence from reputable sources, and to identify those sources. If you tried your way in any university in the world, they'd throw you out on your ear.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19775
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:06 pm

Jim's one of the least skillful, or interesting, conspiracy theorists I've seen. And I've been seeing them since 1965.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:08 pm

JIm Steele wrote:When bobbo cant refute the evidence, he goes on these rants DEMANDING links. We've gone down this road several times before and he knows exactly how to find a link with a single click, but he creates another one of his strawman issues simply so he can hurl more insults and avoid addressing the undeniable data presented. So unprofessional

Its not about "finding a link." Its about reviewing the link that YOU used. I assume the single click you refer to is the link to where your chart is posted but that only brings up the chart itself and not the website that discusses it.

As stated..... the few times you have provided links also provide the information that you weren't using the posted charts with full revelation as to their limitations. Sometimes you can back delete the "png" address of the chart to catch the website, but most often not.

Science deniers ................ deny more than science.

Do you have any AFFIRMATIVE reason for not posting a link? The answer is NO.
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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:27 pm

Phoenix76 wrote: Not quite sure how to take you Bobbo as I'm relatively new to the forum, but at times I feel ill at ease with your comments.
Take me as I present myself. Nothing wrong with being new to the forum but it is fair to note you will be joining conversations that have gone on for months if not years. Nothing wrong with feeling ill at ease. Identify why, and deal with it.

Phoenix76 wrote: Depends what opinion you are referring to. If is googling it myself, well yes I hold that opinion, but I also hold that it is nice and easy when someone includes a clickable link.
Then you did not even read what I posted. Nikki expanded on it if you want the fuller discussion. TO REPEAT: Many issues should be googled if you are unsure of your own position or want to read/know more.....but when THE ISSUE is the basis of/the support for some quoted/copied/referred to/linked material, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the poster to provide the link.

Phoenix76 wrote: But I can take Jim's references and quickly find them in Google, that doesn't bother me.

No.......you can't. Hence: flapping your lips. As always: Prove me wrong: provide the link to the chart posted by JS. Let us know how long it took. Then explain why everyone who reads this thread should be expected to put in the same amount of time.................................................................. I'll wait.

Phoenix76 wrote: But I can take Jim's references and quickly find them in Google, that doesn't bother me. Certainly not getting uptight about it.
It should bother you........................referencing Gord's post: who's uptight?
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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:30 pm

Gord wrote: Bobbo's a jerk.


I AM NOT A JERK. I am: a Jerk Whisperer. Sometimes hard to tell apart when we stand so close.
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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:41 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Jim's one of the least skillful, or interesting, conspiracy theorists I've seen. And I've been seeing them since 1965.

He is knowledgeable, or at least steeped in the Science Denying red herrings to be used. He does not follow a consistent line of argument though. Flip flops constantly on whether or not there is even global warming, then how much, the sensitivity to CO2, then the cause of it. He hasn't focused, at least lately on cnspiracy theory, as much as just that the outliers and nay sayers with disproved or irrelvant partial arguments are to be believed over the great majority of scientists thinking otherwise............and the common sense (not to be trusted.....unless it agrees with the Science) of what we can see with our own eyes.

HA!!!!!! I take it back. Right you are!
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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:54 pm

Just for grins, when Phoenix provides JS's link for him, I'll NOT BE SURPRISED if the link itself discusses how all the gaps JS has complained of multiple times now is provided by satellite data.

aka: JS........dissembles and hopes to get away with it by hiding even his own sources.

IPCC and NASA: two good websites. Many others. 350.org etc. Heard on tv: every single Republican Senator on record for denying AGW. But we are developing more fossil fuel energy sources to flood the world with cheaper CO2===>making America Great Again.
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
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:42 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Many issues should be googled if you are unsure of your own position or want to read/know more.....but when THE ISSUE is the basis of/the support for some quoted/copied/referred to/linked material, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the poster to provide the link.
I couldn't agree more. I constantly read up on issues where I'm not knowledgeable, not only as a matter of habit, but also because I require a factual foundation on which to form an opinion.

OTOH, if I'm presenting a scientific topic for discussion and my conclusion counters consensus, then the burden of proof is on me to articulate a cogent argument with each point backed up by factual evidence from verifiable sources, and provide links to my sources. I've done the work; now I must present my work for peer review.

Part of that is the understanding that my work may be torn to shreds by my peers. Which is fine, because failure provides data for going forward. And if my argument and evidence fail to stand up to peer review, then either I've failed to support my argument, or my argument isn't valid.

But simply posting a graph with no context and no link and claiming it proves your point? Well, let me try that tactic. Here's my graph:
Image
See? This totally proves that medicinal cannabis increases the incidence of survival from various types of cancers. :mrgreen: What? You don't need a link! It's right there in front of you. So obvious. Oh, wait...let's see if this makes you agree with me: Source of graph: the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. There. I've convinced you, right? What do you mean, "no?"

This is the issue I have with Jim's graphs with no context and no links.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:51 pm

[quote="Nikki Nyx"]

OTOH, if I'm presenting a scientific topic for discussion and my conclusion counters consensus, then the burden of proof is on me to articulate a cogent argument with each point backed up by factual evidence from verifiable sources, and provide links to my sources. I've done the work; now I must present my work for peer review./quote]

Nikki, Pardon me if I am suspicious, but since your opening line in this thread was "with all due respect", I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. And it has. You have made me the issue, and have yet to discuss the evidence or the issue in any way.

Your point that new members need links was understood and so I supplied them to you.But you keep diverting the issue

Furthermore I have not discussed the "consensus". I simply provided a map from the Global Historical Climate Network, and a graph from climate scientists showing how the best coverage in the USA also shows an oscillating temperature trend.

But you OTOH you have used the term "consensus" numerous times without ever defining it.. So what exactly does the consensus agree on? Furthermore there is no reason to doubt the map or the graph, but you avoid discussing the implications of that data. Instead you keep trying to make me the issue! Such a tactic evokes much distrust regards your sincerity

I presented a map of GHCN weather stations from which the global average is derived. It speaks for itself. If you are concerned, then simply state why you believe such sparse data is a robust way of calculating a global average. Scientists like Munk warn that such sparse data allows "support" for many hypotheses.

Why do you think Munk is wrong???

SO unfortunately you are more and more appearing like one of bobbo's alter egos, whose tactic is to attack the messenger and avoid the issues. If you are here to debate the science, simply state your case and provide the evidence to back your counter argument!
“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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:19 am

Well...........let's not feed the troll.

No one should respond to Jim Steel regarding his charted info until he posts his links.........or Phoenix does it for him.

Still waiting on Phoenix, but assume he has better things to do with his time.

POST YOUR 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: 2324
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: Consensus is not evidence
Contact:

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Jim Steele » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well...........let's not feed the troll.

No one should respond to Jim Steel regarding his charted info until he posts his links.........or Phoenix does it for him.

Still waiting on Phoenix, but assume he has better things to do with his time.

POST YOUR FRICKIN' LINKS.


You keep promising not to respond, but you keep responding without dealing with the evidence that actual data is quite sparse. You even created an alter ego. Typical bobbo
“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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:37 am

Jimbo: you read about as accurately as you argue AGW. "regarding his charted info" You see the subtlety you missed? You miss more than subtleties in the area of AGW.

Everyone should respond to your FAILURE TO POST A FRICKIN LINK. Your stimulus generalization demonstrated by linking to a lynx. You see: so close, but not right at all. Was the humor on purpose...... or just your failure?

As stated the last go around: YES===>more pictures please. As your AGW has no lynx.
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: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Just for grins, when Phoenix provides JS's link for him, I'll NOT BE SURPRISED if the link itself discusses how all the gaps JS has complained of multiple times now is provided by satellite data.

aka: JS........dissembles and hopes to get away with it by hiding even his own sources.

IPCC and NASA: two good websites. Many others. 350.org etc. Heard on tv: every single Republican Senator on record for denying AGW. But we are developing more fossil fuel energy sources to flood the world with cheaper CO2===>making America Great Again.


Well Bobbo, I was almost at a point of acquiescing to your superior knowledge, but being a stubborn old ba**ard, I pushed on. The link to JS's first map is

http://www.co2science.org/data/temperat ... ection.php

Just what it all proves is questionable. The link seems to be to a page that acts something like an online schoolroom. I don't readily note any references. Perhaps Jim is trying to prove that USA data is more reliable than world data, perhaps?

As Jim says in his second post showing the world map -

Scientists could find experimental support for their favorite theory no matter what the theory they claimed
.

So maybe, Jim has posted a map with a very obscure source, perhaps thinking nobody would find it or challenge him on it, therefore allowing him to claim that USA data was more reliable in proving CO2 is not the main cause of global warming/change. Don't know. Nothing seems to prove anything. Only a statement of personal belief?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:54 am

Ha, ha...........Phoenix........was it good for you? You went from "easy to do" to a "stubborn old bastard" to get it done".

How long did it take?

Should everyone have to do it?

How do you know its the same source Jimbo used?

I didn't see the chart at the link you provided.

So..........do you think EVERYONE should provide a link to what they reference........or not? The why they should has been addressed. Why should they not?
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: 11017
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:03 am

Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

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
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:14 am

JIm Steele wrote:Nikki, Pardon me if I am suspicious, but since your opening line in this thread was "with all due respect", I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. And it has. You have made me the issue, and have yet to discuss the evidence or the issue in any way.
I can't discuss the topic, because you haven't articulated one. I can't discuss the evidence, because you've only provided me with graphs that have no context. Your bio says you've been a teacher; would you accept this from your students?

JIm Steele wrote:Your point that new members need links was understood and so I supplied them to you.But you keep diverting the issue
You didn't, though. You supplied me with links to another thread in which there are links to your personal website. There, I found a veritable treasure trove of more links, all leading to essays you've written. I imagine you can see the problem with this. "Here's my argument, and here are links to my evidence, all of which I wrote."

Additionally, which of your essays is relevant to this thread? You've stated that you're uninterested in doing the work to prove your point here, whatever it might be. But you expect me and others to spent several days reading everything on your site, hoping to stumble upon the information we need for this thread? Ridiculous!

JIm Steele wrote:Furthermore I have not discussed the "consensus". I simply provided a map from the Global Historical Climate Network, and a graph from climate scientists showing how the best coverage in the USA also shows an oscillating temperature trend.
Yes, you have. You said, "Remember consensus is not evidence. What evidence drove the so-called consensus?" which implies that you disagree with the consensus. Your world map simply shows the locations of temperature stations. You say that the global average is based on "imaginary data that infills all those uncovered regions," but there's no explanation (or link) for how this is done. Presumably those stations are permanent? Are data ever received from those blank areas from temporary stations? Scientific or military expeditions? Is there some formula for the infilling process? Local averages based on climatological zones? I'm really not trying to be difficult, but you're the one who claims to have the information. Why not share it?

JIm Steele wrote:But you OTOH you have used the term "consensus" numerous times without ever defining it.. So what exactly does the consensus agree on? Furthermore there is no reason to doubt the map or the graph, but you avoid discussing the implications of that data. Instead you keep trying to make me the issue! Such a tactic evokes much distrust regards your sincerity
Jim, your graph isn't even labeled other than its axes! There's every reason to doubt it! Again, would you accept this from your students?

JIm Steele wrote:SO unfortunately you are more and more appearing like one of bobbo's alter egos, whose tactic is to attack the messenger and avoid the issues. If you are here to debate the science, simply state your case and provide the evidence to back your counter argument!
My case is that you haven't provided me with enough information to take a side. I can neither support your argument nor refute it, because you've failed to articulate it and provide factual evidence. Try this as a touchstone...pretend you know nothing about this issue. Now, go back and look at your original post.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:51 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ha, ha...........Phoenix........was it good for you? You went from "easy to do" to a "stubborn old bastard" to get it done".

How long did it take?

Should everyone have to do it?

How do you know its the same source Jimbo used?

I didn't see the chart at the link you provided.

So..........do you think EVERYONE should provide a link to what they reference........or not? The why they should has been addressed. Why should they not?


Actually Bobbo it was "good for me", and I've been a stubborn old bastard for some years now. Searching is always a learning experience.

Took about 15 minutes, which is too long. Seemed a rather obscure source/site.

No Bobbo, everyone should not have to do it, but perhaps everyone should know how to do it.

The same source by virtue it is the only site that google could find that picture on. If it's different I'm sure Jim will let us know.

Last paragraph above the blank graph, there are two links "here", try the first one.

Actually I do believe that links should be included where appropriate, but if they are not included, and you are interested in the topic, then you could go look for yourself. In saying that, it is usually not as "difficult" as this one. But I must say, that when you go searching for links like this, surprising what you do find. There are many sites that include GHCN within.

Oh, and there is really no reason why they should not. My point is simply that if you are interested, you will at least make a quick attempt to find the reference. IF I get stumped, then I just ignore the thread/post and move on, I don't get upset or aggro about it. Life is too short for that type of sh*t.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Imaginary Global Temperatures

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:18 am

Jim, I'm very interested in topics that deal with CO2 and alleged global warming, so it was with great expectation that I read your post.

Leaving aside the discussion with our friend Bobbo, I found your premise non-supportive of your theory, much and all as I wanted to see proof that it was so.

You showed us a map of world data stations which you seem to feel doesn't provide acceptable proof of your theory due to vast sea areas not having data stations, as stated in the last paragraph of your source page. You then showed us a graph which shows
The twentieth century contiguous US temperature changes indicated by daily data and higher statistical moments
, and you accept that it shows no discernible warming.

Whilst the graph certainly shows what you claim, it is 17 years out of date. What has happened since then? Historical records certainly have a place in research, but when it comes to topics such as "global warming", which allegedly is an ongoing and increasing concern, we need to see up to date statistics.

As for your world map of stations, it is not dated at all, other than in the example at the top of the article which is probably not related to the map that can be displayed.

So my friend, you have shown us an undated map of data stations, and a 17 year old graph of US temperatures, and nothing else of proof/causation. How are we supposed to draw any conclusions from that?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19745
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 03, 2017 3:28 am

JIm Steele wrote:
Image


graph from Shen, S., et al., (2011) The twentieth century contiguous US temperature changes indicated by daily data and higher statistical moments. Climatic Change Volume 109, Issue 3-4, pp 287-317.

Or find it here.



ETA: Oh, a simple Google image search yields it at three known sites, one of them here. And I mean here. The other one is fishy.:-P
.

Lard, save me from your followers.


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OutOfBreath and 1 guest