182 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 10 January 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

PS- that graph you linked to - more cherry picking of time intervals. Care to share ist source.

http://bobtisdale.fi...png?w=960&h=624

it's noaas cams opi satellite precipitation data which has been in operation since 1979.
the graph shows ALL the data available since it has been in operation.
do you want me to apologise for not showing the satellite data prior to 1979 when it didn't exist?
...or maybe you just don't understand what "cherry picking" means.

Edited by Little Fish, 10 January 2013 - 10:53 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 10 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

http://bobtisdale.fi...png?w=960&h=624

it's noaas cams opi satellite precipitation data which has been in operation since 1979.
the graph shows ALL the data available since it has been in operation.
do you want me to apologise for not showing the satellite data prior to 1979 when it didn't exist?
...or maybe you just don't understand what "cherry picking" means.

Just the respect of showing sources so that I can check that its not just more cherry picked rubbish from the lunatic fringe

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

the source was and is printed on the graph. do you dispute it?

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 10 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

the source was and is printed on the graph. do you dispute it?

Context is everything and graphs can be altered in numerous ways.
Forgive me if I don't actually trust you at this stage

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 10 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Context is everything and graphs can be altered in numerous ways.

so you don't believe Noaa's global precipitation data?

Quote

Forgive me if I don't actually trust you at this stage

I didn't create the data. you are the one claiming to be a climate scientist, if you dispute it then then show some of your own data. your beliefs are based on data aren't they? you being a scientist and all, right?

[BFB]

notoverrated, on 09 January 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

is this good? legit question, i seriously don't know what this means.

Honestly? it doesn't really matter, we still have problems.

The real issue is the earth energy balance.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 10 January 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

so you don't believe Noaa's global precipitation data?

I didn't create the data. you are the one claiming to be a climate scientist, if you dispute it then then show some of your own data. your beliefs are based on data aren't they? you being a scientist and all, right?

Of course they are based on data. That is why I always try to look at the broadest range of data available before drawing rash conclusions.

You on the other hand are a notorious cherry picker of one particular piece of data which supports an arguing point, and ignores the broad sweep of data which points to the opposite conclusion. You have also been known to use source material which has been doctored by skeptics rather than going back to the original data source.

I think my concerns about taking your word for anything are well founded.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 10 January 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

so you don't believe Noaa's global precipitation data?

According to NOAA, the US just had it's hottest, dryest year ever.  Of course, that doesn't count three worse droughts we know about from the tree-ring record.
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

More drought + More floods = No change in average precipitation

Br Cornelius

[paperdyer]

Br Cornelius, on 10 January 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

More drought + More floods = No change in average precipitation

Br Cornelius

Not necessarily.  It depends on which one was greater.  More droughts or floods.  It's man's arrogance that allows us to think we can greatly affect the climate.  We can nudge it, but the temperatures were going to rise with or without us.

[Br Cornelius]

paperdyer, on 10 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

Not necessarily.  It depends on which one was greater.  More droughts or floods.  It's man's arrogance that allows us to think we can greatly affect the climate.  We can nudge it, but the temperatures were going to rise with or without us.

Nothing changes without a cause. It is a falsy to think that natural causes have not been considered when coming to the conclusion that we are the main cause now. Natural causes have been considered and accounted for - and what we have left is the residual AGW forcing.

Br Cornelius

[Hasina]

Not to be 'that guy' but since we're a natural species of Earth, technically anything we do is natural. Just cause it's not beneficial to everything doesn't mean it's not natural. Systems go out of balance all the time, sometimes because of the continents moving, sometimes because of an animal species. It's natural, even if we are causing it.

[Tesla II]

This news about global warming are all lies... one day it is at extreme rise the second day it's stalling... WTH?

Make your minds is it growing or reducing?

[OverSword]

Br Cornelius, on 10 January 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Bob Tidsdale - need I say more .

Attack the arguer not the argument.  Typical strategy of a person who has lost an argument.

[Br Cornelius]

OverSword, on 10 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

Attack the arguer not the argument.  Typical strategy of a person who has lost an argument.

The arguer is a hack and I am expected to waste 40 minuits of my life proving that point.
I based my argument on scientific papers - Little Fish produced an amateur blogger - need I say more.

Bobs neat little idea basically comes down  to - the oceans are simple spontaniously warming all by themselves with no decernable source of energy input, which in turn is warming the atmosphere- look its magic !! Of course in order to take this position you have to completely ignore the net energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere - which is coincidently a source of energy which would be driving the magical rise in ocean heat content - except its not magic, its simple physics.

By the way - where do you think the energy which is accumulating, due to the imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, is ending up ??

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 10 January 2013 - 03:55 PM.