Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[conon394]

You just made an argument that could come out of a religious fundamentalist. You are confusing science with faith. Only truth? Really?
And there's no science without philosophical exploration behind it. I don't even want to start a fight but wow.

How exactly do you mean that . Science is the systematic attempt to understand and describe the world of observable facts in a rational and consistent and repeatable way. That is the philosophy bit?

[B. W.]

I simply point out things that are happening that AGW proponents said would not happen. Additionaly, I have pointed out that the so called scientific calculations were based on bad data sets and in many instances were paid for.

The truly dumb are those who continue to invest in fraudulent science based on concocted data.

[conon394]

I simply point out things that are happening that AGW proponents said would not happen. Additionaly, I have pointed out that the so called scientific calculations were based on bad data sets and in many instances were paid for.

The truly dumb are those who continue to invest in fraudulent science based on concocted data.

Err ok. Somebody has got to pay for science. In general most climate science (being a basic science) is typically paid for by government grant and direct government employment. But given your attempt to add one possible statistical result from three papers as if the is published paper additive theory suggests you are not the source for determining fraudulent science.

[Genava]

Additionaly, I have pointed out that the so called scientific calculations were based on bad data sets and in many instances were paid for.

The truly dumb are those who continue to invest in fraudulent science based on concocted data.

You said that Richard Muller, supported by Anthony Watts and Judith Curry and financed by the Heartland Institute, is a fraud because the Koch brothers are "globalists". Obviously you are impossible to convince because you are always presuming that the people studying the climate have bad intents.

[The spartan]

Of course, he is an anti-intellectual.

Oh sweet, there is even an Isaac Asimov quote on this:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge

[B. W.]

You said that Richard Muller, supported by Anthony Watts and Judith Curry and financed by the Heartland Institute, is a fraud because the Koch brothers are "globalists". Obviously you are impossible to convince because you are always presuming that the people studying the climate have bad intents.

I can't think of a single reason to watch that video a second time, and BTW, the Koch bros are globalists.

Meanwhile satirical articles about AGW proponents are coming forward. The worm is turning:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...peratures.html

[The spartan]

You literally don't care about what is true, do you? It's all like a simulation in your head.

[conon394]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...peratures.html

What exactly are you trying to say I'm lost

[Daruwind]

I think BW tries to say:

The climate has always changed naturally throughout millions of years of history. Temperatures have risen and fallen. Ice has come and gone. Sea levels rise and fall; droughts come and go. Floods happen. Storm activity fluctuates. All this has occurred prior to humans and fossil fuels and has no correlation with whether CO2 has been higher or lower.
The indoctrination, supported by almost all the media, is dangerous to our freedom. People must be completely ignorant or naïve to believe that politicians, bureaucrats, and scientists can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever if we just hand over trillions of our hard-earned dollars to them. The only thing that does is make the very wealthy D.C. area richer than it already is.

Do we believe that the government can control the temperature on the sun, the rotation of the Earth, the ocean currents, and the winds in Antarctica? Please explain how. The politicians who promise they can control the climate couldn't even keep their promise that we could keep our doctors and our health plans and that our premiums would go down if we just let them pass Obamacare.

Isn't it time journalists used their brains, common sense, and logic instead of just repeating what they are told to push an agenda? Wouldn't the public trust them more?

-but natural changes were here all the times, even much greater extremes!!!
-media baaaad, scientists baaaad, goverment lying...something about Obamacare Everything is big lie and conspiracy????

...not covering rest of points. BUT the article si missing one key part. Of course there were time periods with more extreme conditions, however never ever it was influenced so much by human and it was probably never such rapid change caused by organisms. I think even in history the evens like mass production of oxygen...

What will BW brings next time? Voodoo blog or some black magic? Atlantis in Eye oof Sahara? UFO?

[B. W.]

More evidence of massive data tampering by NOAA and NASA:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...tipping-point/

[conon394]

More evidence of massive data tampering by NOAA and NASA:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...tipping-point/

Wow you discovered models are are not the bible. Lets see what could change over nearly 20 years. Better supercomputers, better models (*), more data, acceleration is secondary trends of various greenhouse gases like methane., problems with how ice melt was being forecast, or nobody really considered just what permafrost meant would mean in their early models because it did not occur to them. Yous should never forget just how isolated scientific data can be a slew of data published in Russian and with different key words can easily be missed by American scientists. Compare for example how papers are still published by people in fields like Biblical studies that think people could not read silently in the classical world even though the matter was settled (they could) so 70 years ago. Because of field search bias or language bias.

*For example at or around 2000 my Father in Law used to consult for the Amery corp of Engineers on modeling the Spokane river. They had produced a model with 100s of variables but the computing power they had available meant all but a few dozen were essentially set to a wild guess of 1 or zero. Drove the man nuts because he wanted to either what only use the amount a variables you could afford to model or not because otherwise you just adding noise. No conspiracy just budget and different people arguing about what would get a better result.

[B. W.]

Wow you discovered models are are not the bible. Lets see what could change over nearly 20 years. Better supercomputers, better models (*), more data, acceleration is secondary trends of various greenhouse gases like methane., problems with how ice melt was being forecast, or nobody really considered just what permafrost meant would mean in their early models because it did not occur to them. Yous should never forget just how isolated scientific data can be a slew of data published in Russian and with different key words can easily be missed by American scientists. Compare for example how papers are still published by people in fields like Biblical studies that think people could not read silently in the classical world even though the matter was settled (they could) so 70 years ago. Because of field search bias or language bias.

*For example at or around 2000 my Father in Law used to consult for the Amery corp of Engineers on modeling the Spokane river. They had produced a model with 100s of variables but the computing power they had available meant all but a few dozen were essentially set to a wild guess of 1 or zero. Drove the man nuts because he wanted to either what only use the amount a variables you could afford to model or not because otherwise you just adding noise. No conspiracy just budget and different people arguing about what would get a better result.

It looks like you're OK with changing data point info to make it fit the predicted model. Meanwhile Colorado received 20 inches of snow during the summer solstice. It puts them at over 4000% above normal:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/new...e-14036967.php

[conon394]

It looks like you're OK with changing data point info to make it fit the predicted model. Meanwhile Colorado received 20 inches of snow during the summer solstice. It puts them at over 4000% above normal:

Yes that is called weather not climate. Climate being the long term trends, not the the variation in any one year. Mind almost all global warming climate change models predict increasing instability and more variability from any one year. Of course you are not saying look its 123 degrees F in Northern India and a delayed Monsoon - no global warming.

On modeling you seem to misconstruing what I said any model can produce different results with more or better data or a new model made based on new and better data. Nothing in you link shows some atempt to selectively use data.

[Daruwind]

Meanwhile Colorado received 20 inches of snow during the summer solstice. It puts them at over 4000% above normal:

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/new...e-14036967.php

And meanwhile here in Czech we are attacking absolute temperature record from 2012. So you are saying there is Ice Age in Colorado and I´m saying there is Global Warming in Czech. So who of us two is saying truth? Me? You? See how wrong is the argument you are using?

There is trully difference between climate and weather ....between local variation and global trend. And if anthing, Global warming theory actually suggest more extreme weathers on both ends of spectrum. Not only high temperatures, hurricanes etc but even above average water precipitation.

[Genava]

More evidence of massive data tampering by NOAA and NASA:

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...tipping-point/

"Subsequent updates to datasets after the mid-1990s are actually quite small and mostly reflect factors such as increased station data availability in the Arctic and recent adjustments such as the ship-buoy transition corrections. It’s only when you compare them to global temperature estimates from the 1980s that larger differences emerge.

This is because early 1980s estimates of global temperatures had much less data to work with. Scientists had yet to undertake the painstaking work of collecting and digitising much of the world’s temperature records from paper logbooks.

In 1981, for example, NASA relied on only a few hundred land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere to estimate global temperatures. Their temperature record did not even use any sea surface temperature data until the 1990s. Today, scientists have collected records from more than 32,000 land stations and more than 1.2m observations of sea surface temperatures per year.

Both the number of stations included and the methodology used by global surface temperature datasets have changed over time. Rather than compare different versions of existing datasets, it is much simpler to analyse all the raw temperature records available today and compare them to the adjusted data. This lets scientists isolate just the effect of the adjustments."
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...rature-records

Moreover, I checked the data from 2017 and 2019 versions and I got almost no difference in temperature for the past three decades. Could you verify the claims from the blog you posted?

I used the data from the NASA website: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/

And NASA already published the comparison and it is totally different from the claims in the blog you posted:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

[B. W.]

Moreover, I checked the data from 2017 and 2019 versions and I got almost no difference in temperature for the past three decades. Could you verify the claims from the blog you posted?

I used the data from the NASA website: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/

And NASA already published the comparison and it is totally different from the claims in the blog you posted:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

The links for verification are in the blog. All you have to do is click on them. Not too difficult.

The two reports you listed were "heavily influenced" by James Hansan. I don't t regard him as credible considering some of his past actions.

AGW has made Hansen a wealthy man:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...the_publi.html

[conon394]

The links for verification are in the blog. All you have to do is click on them. Not too difficult.

The two reports you listed were "heavily influenced" by James Hansan. I don't t regard him as credible considering some of his past actions.

AGW has made Hansen a wealthy man:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...the_publi.html

Of course their are always at least two sides to story on Hanson

https://grist.org/article/more-swift...-james-hansen/
https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...ss-daily-has-a

So yes Soros gave money to a project/program to supply legal aid to whistle blowers of which Hanson availed himself he did not per you link receive a quarter of billion dollars.

[B. W.]

Of course their are always at least two sides to story on Hanson

https://grist.org/article/more-swift...-james-hansen/
https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200...ss-daily-has-a

So yes Soros gave money to a project/program to supply legal aid to whistle blowers of which Hanson availed himself he did not per you link receive a quarter of billion dollars.

So...you're saying that Hansen made his 17 million net worth teaching physics and drawing a government paycheck for 30 years:

https://www.idolnetworth.com/james-h...t-worth-248158

[Genava]

The links for verification are in the blog. All you have to do is click on them. Not too difficult.

The datasheet is build with the data from the meteorological stations only. Their datasheet in the Google Drive is however not clear about the 2019 version they are using and this is where there are the discrepancies. In contrary with the others versions listed in the datasheet, the 2019 does not have its own sheet with the details. They only put the values they are using and not the full dataset, which make it complicated to understand which data they have downloaded. And this is exactly where I found discrepancies. Here their data and here the data downloaded from NASA:



Here the figures I made with the dataset. Clearly I do not have the same conclusion.


And mines are matching the own comparison made by the NASA, so it seems I am correct and that I downloaded the correct dataset. If the guys in the blog downloaded a different dataset, it could explain why they see such an important difference. Maybe they are comparing apples with oranges.


From here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

[Genava]

The two reports you listed were "heavily influenced" by James Hansan. I don't t regard him as credible considering some of his past actions.

Anyway, satellite data are telling the same story. The Earth is warming.

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html