The best argument against man made global warming is the Planet itself....hahahhahaha

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2014/01/subzero_polar_vortex_pushes_frigid_air_across_us

Quote from: daidalos on January 06, 2014, 01:44:38 PM
The best argument against man made global warming is the Planet itself....hahahhahaha

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/2014/01/subzero_polar_vortex_pushes_frigid_air_across_us

It's the cows, it's all the cow fault!

Sci Fi is still running...

Um, it is well established now that the only temperature gains since about 1998 are due to 'adjustments' to the raw data. Without them there is no Global Warming for the last 17 years as the New York Times and London MET have agreed, only they call it a pause not a stop.

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science






Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

QuoteNow, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability's sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75   ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is  it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the  HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don't understand computer programming, don't fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,'(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).'
printf,1,'Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.'
printf,1
printf,1,'NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY'
printf,1,'REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values'
printf,1,'will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,'
printf,1,'which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful'
printf,1,'than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

***************************************************************************************

I have no doubt that the Earth has warmed coming out of the 'Little Ice Age' from about 1810 to 1998, but since then temps have apparently plateaued.

The key question is what is driving the temperature change, not if there was one. There is insufficient proof, IMO, that CO2 is responsible instead of the sun.

Also, the things AGWers demand done are known by the to be completely ineffectual since China and India are not restricted and are refusing to sign any such climate control agreements. They refuse to drink the left's Kool Aid, but that is not surprising. What is surprising is that the left gives them both a total pass on their intransigence if we are truly facing a global catastrophe.

There used to be a site online which posted pictures of temperature measuring stations. The would be located near the hot tarmac of runways, or outside windows where hot air would be blown on them from air conditioners, or sitting in the middle of concrete parking lots. It also pointed out that the number of measuring stations that were in more northerly latitudes, or in rural areas had shrunk; while the number that were in the heat sinks of cities had increased. Ah ha, found it:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/ground-based-temperature-recording-stations-stupid-locations-for-measuring-global-warming/

Quote from: mdgiles on March 10, 2014, 05:30:24 AM
There used to be a site online which posted pictures of temperature measuring stations. The would be located near the hot tarmac of runways, or outside windows where hot air would be blown on them from air conditioners, or sitting in the middle of concrete parking lots. It also pointed out that the number of measuring stations that were in more northerly latitudes, or in rural areas had shrunk; while the number that were in the heat sinks of cities had increased. Ah ha, found it:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/ground-based-temperature-recording-stations-stupid-locations-for-measuring-global-warming/

Yep. The nearest "official" NOAA recording station to me is at Columbus OSU Airport (KOSU in FAA-speak), a facility inside the beltway northwest of the city. Year after year, the airport itself is expanded and improved (read "more area paved") and the inexorable sprawl of Columbus creeps ever closer. Twenty years ago, the airport was out in the sticks. It is now completely surrounded by bustling suburbia. Reported temps at KOSU vary from temps hereabouts by at least 3 degrees most of the time, and occasionally by as much as 7-10 degrees -- ALWAYS warmer, NEVER, EVER colder. The straight-line distance from here to there is probably less than 30 miles. Typical example: Night before last, the Weather Underground station nearest here recorded a low of 25; KOSU recorded 31.

Quote from: taxed on January 06, 2014, 03:29:07 PM
Sci Fi is still running...

It's difficult to take seriously a group of posters who never took a science class beyond high school trying to talk about climate change literally by quoting such scientific resources as "bostonherald".  It takes 8+ years of higher education and independent research to become a recognized expert in a field such as this, so you should have realized that perusing a few pop-science articles isn't going to qualify you to defy scientific consensus.

Seriously, could you imagine if someone decided, after reading the named Wikipedia article, that everything surgeons thought was true about open heart surgery was wrong, a product of a massive, global conspiracy to justify further medical funding and therefore Big Government Pockets? 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
It's difficult to take seriously a group of posters who never took a science class beyond high school trying to talk about climate change literally by quoting such scientific resources as "bostonherald".  It takes 8+ years of higher education and independent research to become a recognized expert in a field such as this, so you should have realized that perusing a few pop-science articles isn't going to qualify you to defy scientific consensus.

Seriously, could you imagine if someone decided, after reading the named Wikipedia article, that everything surgeons thought was true about open heart surgery was wrong, a product of a massive, global conspiracy to justify further medical funding and therefore Big Government Pockets?

Are you going to link to some more academics who keep getting it wrong?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 02:04:17 PM
It's difficult to take seriously a group of posters who never took a science class beyond high school trying to talk about climate change literally by quoting such scientific resources as "bostonherald".  It takes 8+ years of higher education and independent research to become a recognized expert in a field such as this, so you should have realized that perusing a few pop-science articles isn't going to qualify you to defy scientific consensus.

Are you a holder of 8+ years of higher education specifically tailored to the environmental and climate sciences? Since you opened the door, we'd all, I'm certain, like to see some documentation of that. Perhaps you could provide links to some of the papers you've had published on the subject.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 02:04:17 PMSeriously, could you imagine if someone decided, after reading the named Wikipedia article, that everything surgeons thought was true about open heart surgery was wrong, a product of a massive, global conspiracy to justify further medical funding and therefore Big Government Pockets?

Your comparison is your usual apples and oranges bullshit. Cardiac medicine and climate science are fantastically and irrevocably different. By comparison, cardiac medicine is an exact science -- but ONLY by comparison. Climate science is a wilderness populated almost exclusively by the unknown, and in the opinion of many educated in the field, unknowable. Let's keep in mind that my dad got extra years of life because a very good heart surgeon performed a triple bypass on him fifteen years ago, but not a single one of your precious climate models has predicted the "unexpectedly" cool globe and the regrowth of polar icecaps on both ends of the planet.

Quote from: TboneAgain on July 28, 2014, 04:20:52 PM
Are you a holder of 8+ years of higher education specifically tailored to the environmental and climate sciences? Since you opened the door, we'd all, I'm certain, like to see some documentation of that. Perhaps you could provide links to some of the papers you've had published on the subject.

That's hilarious.  The guy who says "dude, listen to your doctor, and 99% of the medical community; take the fucking vaccine" does not hold the burden of proof; that lies with the guy who says "look, dude, my doctor, and 99% of the medical community is wrong, I have knowledge they do not that vaccinations cause autism".

Mind you, I'm far more knowledgeable about the subject that most of you, but I know when to defer to experts in theoretical fields such as climate science.

Quote
Your comparison is your usual apples and oranges bullshit. Cardiac medicine and climate science are fantastically and irrevocably different. By comparison, cardiac medicine is an exact science -- but ONLY by comparison. Climate science is a wilderness populated almost exclusively by the unknown, and in the opinion of many educated in the field, unknowable.

Climatology is not quantum electrodynamics, but it isn't exactly psychology either.  The greenhouse gas effect is very well grounded in elementary physics; measurements of the Earth's CO2 levels, isotropic analysis of the origins of that CO2, measurements of the Earth's heat content and temperatures are based on very precise instrumentation.  If you have any issues with this data, you'd be best to give specific examples instead of vaguely dismissing the whole field on flowery language.

Quote
Let's keep in mind that my dad got extra years of life because a very good heart surgeon performed a triple bypass on him fifteen years ago,

By this logic, medical science is a more exact science than theoretical astrophysics because it's more useful to society.  Of course, only a complete idiot would think that medical science has the accuracy of physics, but that's why most people wouldn't make such a stupid argument as this.

Quote
but not a single one of your precious climate models has predicted the "unexpectedly" cool globe and the regrowth of polar icecaps on both ends of the planet.

Please elaborate on these predictions and cite your sources.

Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 02:38:56 PM
Are you going to link to some more academics who keep getting it wrong?

I love how you label scientists as "academics", as though that were a bad thing (who the fuck did you expect to do climate science?  Businessmen?  Lawyers?).  I also love how you ignore the fact that you've linked to "academics" yourself.  Your sources have just been extremely shoddy, and have often said the opposite of what you thought they did.

But it's hilarious that you dismiss the scientific community as being made of "academics".  Science is academic by its nature.  Do you dismiss Einstein's theory of relativity because Einstein was in academia?   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 08:12:12 PM
That's hilarious.  The guy who says "dude, listen to your doctor, and 99% of the medical community; take the fucking vaccine" does not hold the burden of proof; that lies with the guy who says "look, dude, my doctor, and 99% of the medical community is wrong, I have knowledge they do not that vaccinations cause autism".

Mind you, I'm far more knowledgeable about the subject that most of you, but I know when to defer to experts in theoretical fields such as climate science.

Climatology is not quantum electrodynamics, but it isn't exactly psychology either.  The greenhouse gas effect is very well grounded in elementary physics; measurements of the Earth's CO2 levels, isotropic analysis of the origins of that CO2, measurements of the Earth's heat content and temperatures are based on very precise instrumentation.  If you have any issues with this data, you'd be best to give specific examples instead of vaguely dismissing the whole field on flowery language.

By this logic, medical science is a more exact science than theoretical astrophysics because it's more useful to society.  Of course, only a complete idiot would think that medical science has the accuracy of physics, but that's why most people wouldn't make such a stupid argument as this.

Please elaborate on these predictions and cite your sources.

I love how you label scientists as "academics", as though that were a bad thing (who the fuck did you expect to do climate science?  Businessmen?  Lawyers?).  I also love how you ignore the fact that you've linked to "academics" yourself.  Your sources have just been extremely shoddy, and have often said the opposite of what you thought they did.

But it's hilarious that you dismiss the scientific community as being made of "academics".  Science is academic by its nature.  Do you dismiss Einstein's theory of relativity because Einstein was in academia?   

Most of your tripe isn't worth soiling my fingers with an answer, as usual. As for data and sources, we can start with this. You'll note that Dr. Spencer actually HAS the qualifications you so admire, but do not have. He offers a pretty good explanation of what might be the reasons for this:



It's just a cast iron bitch when the damn planet won't behave the way they said it would and you think it should. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 08:12:12 PM
I love how you label scientists as "academics", as though that were a bad thing (who the fuck did you expect to do climate science?  Businessmen?  Lawyers?).  I also love how you ignore the fact that you've linked to "academics" yourself.  Your sources have just been extremely shoddy, and have often said the opposite of what you thought they did.

Your "scientists" keep manipulating data and getting it wrong.  I'm sorry you have no credible sources who say it's getting warmer because of man.  Those that end up moving towards how it's nonsense lose their funding or get fired.  In academia, you can keep getting it wrong, and keep your job.  Not out here where us normal people use science to build things and make a living.

Quote
But it's hilarious that you dismiss the scientific community as being made of "academics".  Science is academic by its nature.  Do you dismiss Einstein's theory of relativity because Einstein was in academia?   

That was real science, not fake science.  Jim Jones would have you sitting on his lap with a nice glass of Kool Aid.

Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 02:38:56 PM
Are you going to link to some more academics who keep getting it wrong?

Are you going to link to more journalism majors making posts about global warming on "bostonherald"?

You've never made a single comment on global warming that suggests you have any technical expertise in the field that would allow you to pass a 1st year university exam.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

What those who champion "consensus" fail to mention and refuse to even acknowledge is that often times, scientific consensus can and has been WRONG.

At one time the "scientific consensus" was that the planet is flat.

That if you sailed too far off the western coast of Europe or Africa you'd sail off the edge of the planet.

At one time, the "scientific consensus" was that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Yet, we now know that too is wrong. Earth isn't even at the center of our solar system, isn't at the center of our galaxy, isn't at the center of our universe.

Hell our universe isn't even at the center of the multiverse. ;)

Yet we now know today that "scientific Consensus" was wrong. That is the problem with proclaiming "scientific consensus" as "scientific fact".

Not only is so called "scientific consensus" capable of being and often wrong, but proclaiming "consensus" as a "fact" isn't even good science.

In keeping with an as described by what is known as the scientific principle or method.

QuoteTo be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Given that sci fi fan, why is it again we should place our faith in your so called "consensus"?

No thanks I'd rather place my faith in "scientific fact" which has been obtained by and through the scientific method.

As far as that goes, what we DO KNOW, for a SCIENTIFIC FACT is that our planet, thanks to it's relationship with the star it orbits, you know the one we call the "sun" or Sol, has natural cycles of warming and cooling.

Which have gone on, and continue to go on, totally unrelated to anything mankind does or has done.

In fact we now know today for a SCIENTIFIC FACT that this normal cycle of warming and cooling was going on, long, long, long, before the time in which your "scientific consensus" even says mankind had evolved.

Care to tell us all how it is that a process your "consensus" blames on the actions of mankind, were going on, prior to a point in which that same "consensus" says man had even evolved and existed?

Oh that's right, we are all supposed to be stupid, and too ignorant to catch onto that.

And well those of us who do, we are supposed to keep out mouths shut and ignore it.

Because to question that, calls into question the real reason for pushing this "consensus" as "science".

And to do that, threatens the liberal establishment political agenda. Can't have that, no, no, can't have that at all.   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 11:10:32 PM
Are you going to link to more journalism majors making posts about global warming on "bostonherald"?

You've never made a single comment on global warming that suggests you have any technical expertise in the field that would allow you to pass a 1st year university exam.  You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

There is no science to discuss.  You believe in a fallacy.