Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You've said adjustment schemes are 'false'.  You've said the algorithms are 'bad'.  Thus, you're accusing those who do such things of scientific misconduct, which is, by definition, bad.  Thus, not a mis-characterization.  Your continual accusations of 'unwarranted' adjustments speak for themselves.

Nice try.

Wrong. You are mischaracterizing my position. I think I know better than you do what my position is. 

[Guest]

On 8/30/2019 at 11:57 AM, lost_shaman said:

Yes and we've also recently seen that 12 of the contiguous 48 U.S. States have record high temperatures in 1936 alone. 23 States have all time record highs in the decade of the 1930's. NASA GISS can't change those records!

Climate change is measured by changes in the averages.  What the high temps did is meaningless drivel.

Doug

Edited August 31, 2019 by Doug1o29

[Guest]

22 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

http://sealevel.info/GISS_FigD.html

It's the first link in the list.  He wasn't very specific with his answer.

Doug

[Guest]

FYI:  Compiling a global temperature record is such a huge task that no single person will live long enough to do it.  Governments are the only entities large enough to try and then, only if they divide up the job among teams of researchers.

There are only five GLOBAL datasets that I am aware of, though there might be some others out there.  They include:

1.  Global Historical Climatology Network - Daily.  This includes data from 80,000 stations in 180 countries.

2.  Atmospheric-Ocean General Circulation Model.

3.  WCRP CMIP3 - I don't know what the acronymn stands for.  Original version contained 32 terrabites of data.  It has since been enlarged to 171 terrabites.

4.  COADS - again, I don't know what it stands for.  Covers 1854 to 1979 ocenaic temps in a 2-degree grid.

5.  HadCrut4 - Hadley-Crutcher 4 - named for the original researchers.  Replsced HadCrut3.  You will still see references to HadCrut3 in research papers that were begun before the change was made.  This is the East Anglia dataset.

Other datasets are mix-and-match arrangements of these.

That's all I know of, but there may be more.  They all show global warming to be real.

If you are going to claim that global warming isn't happening, you will need a dataset that supports your contention.  As far as I know, there is no such dataset.

Doug

[Guest]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

And an expert on gases, also gives evidence showing that hot air balloons and satellite data are accurate, the weasel with the iffy chart, making up excuses about iffy satellites burning up and such is nonsense.

The troposhere has been cooling of late.  Could that be what he's talking about?

The reason for that is that radiation from the surface is increasingly absorbed by greenhouse gasses before it reaches the troposhere.  So troposhheric cooling is the result of global warming.

Doug

P.S.:  Actually, it is PART of global warming.

Edited August 31, 2019 by Doug1o29

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You've said stuff like this before.  It's wrong.  The adjustments do not always cool past temps and always warm present temps (although I suppose all the temps are in the past...).  Just so everyone reading this thread knows, the bolded part of what shaman said is a lie, and he knows it's a lie.  He insists on repeating it anyway.

Again, you're accusing them of scientific misconduct here.  You're aware that would be 'bad' conduct on their part, right?  Of course, it isn't misconduct, and it's not bad conduct, but you believe it to be.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it bad.  I know, tough to swallow.

I'm not the only one to point this out.

Quote

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present. - https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

Or as you can see over time in the example below.

http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_April_2017.pdf

 

These Flaws in temperature adjustment for HadCRUT4.

Quote

Another important finding of this audit is that many temperatures have been incorrectly adjusted. The adjustment of data aims to create a temperature record that would have resulted if the current observation stations and equipment had always measured the local temperature. Adjustments are typically made when station is relocated or its instruments or their housing replaced.

The typical method of adjusting data is to alter all previous values by the same amount. Applying this to situations that changed gradually (such as a growing city increasingly distorting the true temperature) is very wrong and it leaves the earlier data adjusted by more than it should have been. Observation stations might be relocated multiple times and with all previous data adjusted each time the very earliest data might be far below its correct value and the complete data record show an exaggerated warming trend. - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/

Another discussion with examples below (Feb. 2015).

Quote

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

On the three Global datasets.

Quote

In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.

“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/

Clearly there are some issues with these Datasets and adjustments that are made to them. This is not some "Conspiracy" that I've just imagined out of thin air as DSJ would believe.

Edited August 31, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Guest]

Quote

Another important finding of this audit is that many temperatures have been incorrectly adjusted. The adjustment of data aims to create a temperature record that would have resulted if the current observation stations and equipment had always measured the local temperature. Adjustments are typically made when station is relocated or its instruments or their housing replaced.

This is incorrect.  The adjustment method used is to establish a regression model that uses the "old" values to predict the "new" ones.  The best way to do it is when the old system is kept running for a time (usually two years) so it can be compared with new data at the same site.  The model used is a straight-line model that adjusts both the size of the "degree" and adds or subtracts a constant.  The "degree" adjustment is usually a tiny fraction of a degree, so the constant makes most of the changes.

When the "old" and "new" datasets do not have sufficient overlap, then one must use a nearby station to provide the "old" data.  This is not as accurate as "old" vs. "mew" data, but it works well for stations within 100km (62 miles).  Beyond 100km, things start to get a little iffy.

As stated in the quotation, adjustments are usually made when a station is relocated or the instruments or housing change.  This is because we want the two datasets to be comparable and no two intsruments read exactlay the same.  Not only that, but one observer will consistantly read a thermometer high or low.  This needs to be detected and fixed.  Temperature datasets are made equivalent through statistical manipulation.

Quote

The typical method of adjusting data is to alter all previous values by the same amount. Applying this to situations that changed gradually (such as a growing city increasingly distorting the true temperature) is very wrong and it leaves the earlier data adjusted by more than it should have been. Observation stations might be relocated multiple times and with all previous data adjusted each time the very earliest data might be far below its correct value and the complete data record show an exaggerated warming trend.

The urban heat island effect (UHI) is small, about 0.07C on average.  If a need to correct for it is desired, it can easily be modelled, a correctrion computed for each year and then added to that year's average.  Corrections to data prior to 1900 are not usually made because changes in true temp are dwarfed by statistical error.  One is trying to detect a 0.1C change in temps in data having a 4.6-degree standard deviation.  The person who wrote this may be a statistician, but he does not work with temperature data.

 

One of your posts says there are three global temperature datasets.  See Post 404 where I list five.  There may be more, but I'm not sure of that.

Doug

Edited August 31, 2019 by Doug1o29

[Guest]

18 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, funny how Doug and Socks, still ignore the Committee Hearing quoting how satellite data, (that had be verified as being accurate) for 18 years?

I am not sure of the people who testified.  In Congressional hearings speakers are usually a mix of true experts and idiots.  Even some of the "experts" have dubious qualifications.

Doug

[Doc Socks Junior]

Supporting a falsehood by pointing out that other people spin the same yarn.

Huh.  Strength in numbers, I suppose.  At least most of them are getting paid to do it, shaman.  You do it for free!  I'd rethink your position on shilling a conspiracy theory for multi-billion dollar corporations.  It just ain't good economic sense.

[lost_shaman]

44 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Supporting a falsehood by pointing out that other people spin the same yarn.

Huh.  Strength in numbers, I suppose.  At least most of them are getting paid to do it, shaman.  You do it for free!  I'd rethink your position on shilling a conspiracy theory for multi-billion dollar corporations.  It just ain't good economic sense.

A yarn? LOL! You can see the changes in the datasets yourself if you bother to look. That the changes are being made and made often and are cooling older temps and warming more recent temps is not up for debate, these are FACTS. 

What is debateable is that all these adjustments are necessary. Is it really necessary to run the temperature records through this algorithm a dozen times in the last 18 years? Is treating the records in this way Scientifically valid when every time it is done it increases the trend in one direction?  What justification is there to run the records through this process every 18 - 24 months or less? 

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have no problem with satellite data, even stuff that has to be corrected.  In this case, the original researchers forgot to correct for orbital decay, meaning the staellite had to look through less air.  Once they made the corrections, the set was fine.

You need to remember that there are lots of different kinds of satellite data.  Some is shot in visiable light, some in infrared, some by radar, etc.  Some covers one set of latitudes; some covers another set.  In determining global warming, satellite data is used to determine sea surface temps.  Land temps are determined from local stations that are becoming increasingly automated.

I'm wondering about that 18-year figure.  Satellites have been measuring ice cover since November 1978.  I'll bet that there are longer satllite temperature datasets available.  But even then, we have temp records for some European cities going back 400 years and sunspot records going back to 1610.  Why should we arbitrarily limit ourselves to 18 years?  That doesn't even reach back to the baseline.  Most of America has been more-or-less covered since the 1820s.  What is so special about temps since 2000?

Doug

So, the dodgy chart going up is right, since the rep, (who cannot asnswer a straight question repeatedly) say so, and we can ignore the speaker and expert on gases, saying that their data is correct, .....got it!

8 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You've said adjustment schemes are 'false'.  You've said the algorithms are 'bad'.  Thus, you're accusing those who do such things of scientific misconduct, which is, by definition, bad.  Thus, not a mis-characterization.  Your continual accusations of 'unwarranted' adjustments speak for themselves.

Nice try.

You've said stuff like this before.  It's wrong.  The adjustments do not always cool past temps and always warm present temps (although I suppose all the temps are in the past...).  Just so everyone reading this thread knows, the bolded part of what shaman said is a lie, and he knows it's a lie.  He insists on repeating it anyway.

Again, you're accusing them of scientific misconduct here.  You're aware that would be 'bad' conduct on their part, right?  Of course, it isn't misconduct, and it's not bad conduct, but you believe it to be.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it bad.  I know, tough to swallow.

He knows it's a lie, lol, certainly popcorn time. Well, l 100% agree with him, and Tony B, who does all of those evil videos l keep posting showing the same thing, backup by newspaper clippings and the gov, organizations he got the data from!

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Climate change is measured by changes in the averages.  What the high temps did is meaningless drivel.

Doug

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

The troposhere has been cooling of late.  Could that be what he's talking about?

The reason for that is that radiation from the surface is increasingly absorbed by greenhouse gasses before it reaches the troposhere.  So troposhheric cooling is the result of global warming.

Doug

P.S.:  Actually, it is PART of global warming.

So 18 years of global cooling is global warming, lol, l badly need to stock up on popcorn.

Or go and watch Yes Minister again?

Quote

It is a Kind of unstable, instability - Humphrey Appleby

 

[tmcom]

Greta is in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/aug/28/greta-thunberg-tells-trump-to-listen-to-the-science-as-she-arrives-in-new-york-video

And apparently according to her Trump has ignored the science.

One of her noteworthly slogans during the NY rally was "since you won't act like adults, we have to". I will let the irony of that remark, and her followers sink in.

 

True, Trump does ignore her science, of world temp's rising when they are not, and sea levels rising when they are not, and every year being the hottest, when it isn't and Iceland melting, (when looked over a 1 year period) when it isn't, and last year being the hottest in the US, when it isn't,

 

No, l guess you have to be certified like Greta to understand the science.

[Guest]

On 8/31/2019 at 11:51 PM, tmcom said:

So, the dodgy chart going up is right, since the rep, (who cannot asnswer a straight question repeatedly) say so, and we can ignore the speaker and expert on gases, saying that their data is correct, .....got it!

What the heck are you talking about?  Forget a chart presented at some Congressional hearing.  You have no idea how good (or bad) it is.  Go back to the purported source of that chart and see what the source says about it.

There's only five or so datasets.  Check what they say.  Until you can establish whether a chart is accurate, nothing you say about it is valid.  SO:  is it accurate?

On 9/1/2019 at 5:54 AM, tmcom said:

True, Trump does ignore her science, of world temp's rising when they are not, and sea levels rising when they are not, and every year being the hottest, when it isn't and Iceland melting, (when looked over a 1 year period) when it isn't, and last year being the hottest in the US, when it isn't,

tRUMP ignores everything that doesn't fit what he already believes.

World temps reached their all-time high in 2016.  They have declined a little since then, but 2019 appears to be on track to be the second hottest year ever.

Sea levels are rising, but only at about 0.07cm per year.  That's slower than your fingernails grow.  So don't panic:  you aren't going underwater in the next few decades.  But, eventually, most of the world's shorelines will be moving inland.

I have already shone that not every year sets a new record.

Glaciers (and sea ice) can thin without decreasing their surface areas.  It's ice mass that counts.

Last year (2018) was not the hottest year on record.

Doug

[tmcom]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

What the heck are you talking about?  Forget a chart presented at some Congressional hearing.  You have no idea how good (or bad) it is.  Go back to the purported source of that chart and see what the source says about it.

There's only five or so datasets.  Check what they say.  Until you can establish whether a chart is accurate, nothing you say about it is valid.  SO:  is it accurate?

tRUMP ignores everything that doesn't fit what he already believes.

World temps reached their all-time high in 2016.  They have declined a little since then, but 2019 appears to be on track to be the second hottest year ever.

Sea levels are rising, but only at about 0.07cm per year.  That's slower than your fingernails grow.  So don't panic:  you aren't going underwater in the next few decades.  But, eventually, most of the world's shorelines will be moving inland.

I have already shone that not every year sets a new record.

Glaciers (and sea ice) can thin without decreasing their surface areas.  It's ice mass that counts.

Last year (2018) was not the hottest year on record.

Doug

So you are saying that the expert on gases, confirming that the data showing the 18 year null is legit, is a liar, or the speaker shoiwng the charts, and the wheasel with the chart showing impending doom that cannot aswer a straight question is correct, lol, thanks for the laugh.

All time high in 2016, lol, l think l just come back here for laughs.

The 1930's was the hottest worldwide, (l know that the medieval period was hotter, but this is since temp, records were kept) and reached highs that he havn't broken, eventhough unicorn junk science sites keep trying.

1934, (l beleive without checking) was the hottest year on this  planet since 1880.

Junk science sites ignore this, since CO2 was lower back then, and that tends to blow over their house of cards.

I know that l should be waking up every morning and running down the street waving my hands saying, "The End is Nigh" but l would rather eat popcorn and let the truly certified do that!

[tmcom]

And since this is a mad thread...

He is a scientist but goes to the McManMadeGlobalWarming,com site for the latest bent data. I guess that there are scientists and something else?

Einstein,lol, he shouldn't use a true genius in his proof of this snake oil extravaganza. Comments disabled on TY, true, we can't knock the faithful preaching.

And now, this mmmmmrrrrraaaaagggg.

Yep, a coal fired steam engine carrying coal from one of their mines to somewhere else, (so they can burn it) and doesn't give a toss about saving the planet.

A greenies worst nightmare!

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

A greenies worst nightmare!

Nah.  A greenie's worst nightmare was and still is toxic stupidity. 

Your video  is a beautiful shot of the glory and spectacle of steam locomotives and one argument for why we switched to diesel. and sometimes electric locomotives.

[lost_shaman]

54 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Nah.  A greenie's worst nightmare was and still is toxic stupidity. 

Ah, yes. This must be why they have the Brain-trust of a Politician, a Hollywood Actor, and a 16 year old freshman who doesn't attend School to lead the cause. 

[Tatetopa]

33 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Ah, yes. This must be why they have the Brain-trust of a Politician, a Hollywood Actor, and a 16 year old freshman who doesn't attend School to lead the cause. 

I did not set limits on the causes supported or denied by toxic stupidity, but of course these people are not a brain trust of scientists studying climate change, they are just front people, faces to get the crowd excited,.  That is the same on both sides too. 

[lost_shaman]

19 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

but of course these people are not a brain trust of scientists studying climate change,

Oh no, that group assumes CO2 back scatters half it's ~ 15 micron absorption band back to the Earth's surface and measures it all as watts/m2 assuming wrongly that this equates to surface heating. 

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Oh no, that group assumes CO2 back scatters half it's ~ 15 micron absorption band back to the Earth's surface and measures it all as watts/m2 assuming wrongly that this equates to surface heating. 

lost_shaman, I would not even pretend to have done as much research as you have, so I have little to go on scientifically.

When you continue to proclaim that everybody else is wrong, I have to believe that you are a total genius, and nobody else can understand the physical facts,  or it is a worldwide conspiracy to fight the oil companies, or that you might be wrong.  No offense, but the easiest path is to assume only one person, you, is involved rather than thousands either wrong or conspiring.

[tmcom]

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Ah, yes. This must be why they have the Brain-trust of a Politician, a Hollywood Actor, and a 16 year old freshman who doesn't attend School to lead the cause. 

Yep, actors and children give out advise on what we should do, and the faithful somehow rationize this as valid. Well, anything really.

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Oh no, that group assumes CO2 back scatters half it's ~ 15 micron absorption band back to the Earth's surface and measures it all as watts/m2 assuming wrongly that this equates to surface heating. 

Yes @lost_shaman, l saw your new thread, and good luck to you, but unfortunately any new thread, (happened with this one) attracts wind turbine huggers like moths to an open flame, your thread will get some legs if you can endure the faithful spitting the dummy, so to speak.

[tmcom]

Quote

Catherine McKenna believes frozen Canada is warming three times faster than the rest of the world. She is correct - three times zero equals zero. The music ramps up steadily for 15 minutes, but the Candian Climate record is an incoherent, fragmented mess. - Tony H.

From what l could get Canada isn't warming at all up to the year 2027, from the spagetty data.

No doubt the faithful will somehow, (popcorn on standby) rationalize this mess and the twit in Canada, more is the ummmm, popcorn, where is it?

Yes, Unicorn/Rainbow science at its best!

[tmcom]

On 9/6/2019 at 7:37 AM, lost_shaman said:

Oh no, that group assumes CO2 back scatters half it's ~ 15 micron absorption band back to the Earth's surface and measures it all as watts/m2 assuming wrongly that this equates to surface heating. 

Yes, lost_S, just read some of the posts on your CO2 thread, and as expected all of the faithful are pulling together like lemmings getting ready for the final leap. With one saying, "you got hammered on the Climate Change, Hoax one" which is pretty funny, since you, (as l do) keep showing evidence and proving that there isn't any impending disaster looming.

The funniest so called evidence is California's coastline staying constant while Iceland apparently melts away.

Or the 1880 California, image and a few years ago, showing no change or sea level rises, (Tony H video).

 

We know that there isn't any impending disaster looming, and no current impending disaster associated with the world ending, but the faithful are determined to believe or show their undying faith by believing in this house of cards.

So the harder we try the stupider they become, apparently.

Probably has something to do with not looking stupid, (since deep down they know it is a smoke screen) by fighting back more?

 

I don't know how long a fanatic can keep a lie going, but if they refuse to accept defeat and put on the dunce hat, then this will fall into Flat Earth science, or most people know that it isn't true, and it has overwhelming science behind it not being true, but some will believe that the earth is flat no matter what.

 

Can't reason with a fanatic, (l ;have one elsewhere still trying) and all l can do is laugh, since l know through years of trying he is a nutcase that will never listen.

[tmcom]

This is p***weak science from a skeptic, trying to rationalize down Tony H, video, eventhough the graph is dodgy, but most scientists apparently agree,...and need the cash.

[tmcom]

This is Andrew Bolt or someone who writes about this crazy BS, in one of AU, most popular papers, (can't get enough of his articles) and yep, the faithful can say what they like and never have to take responsibility for their cocko statements.

And it is a Global Warming Health Emergency now, according to our doctors.

Based on, ummmm, never mind, the Little Golden Book of Facts l guess?

The Warmers are doubling and tripling down, the science is becoming more crazy, the claims more easily disputed and the warmers are becoming more nasty!

I would say the warmists days are numbered, and oiling our chainsaws for that immortal day, when the faithful finally get it is soon.