• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stefan Rahmstorf's Deceptive Manipulation of Temperature Charts

Jack Hays said:
That was all explained. By doubling down you turned your error into a lie.
Click to expand...

Nope, you were not able to 'explain' anything. You were the one who was doubling down in your lying and still are.
 
Jack Hays said:
NASA 2018 data are available at least through November.
As for Rahmstorf's reputation, I refer you to Der Spiegel.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Rough Methods of Climate Researcher Rahmstorf[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Click to expand...

The last time I looked, years had 12 months. Since we don't yet have the data for December 2018, we don't yet know the temperature for 2018. So you are accusing Rahmstorf of manipulation because he hasn't included data that doesn't yet exist! That has got to be the most absurd premise for I thread that I have seen on this forum :lamo
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
The last time I looked, years had 12 months. Since we don't yet have the data for December 2018, we don't yet know the temperature for 2018. So you are accusing Rahmstorf of manipulation because he hasn't included data that doesn't yet exist! That has got to be the most absurd premise for I thread that I have seen on this forum :lamo
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're moving the goal posts. It is not disputed that Rahmstorf excluded 2017 data, so he's guilty of manipulation before 2018 even enters the discussion. Because of his own bad-faith behavior, it is fair to ask why he continued to exclude the near-complete 2018 data which also undermined his claims.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you're moving the goal posts. It is not disputed that Rahmstorf excluded 2017 data, so he's guilty of manipulation before 2018 even enters the discussion. Because of his own bad-faith behavior, it is fair to ask why he continued to exclude the near-complete 2018 data which also undermined his claims.
Click to expand...

The whole claim is utterly ridiculous. It is simply bizarre to claim that posting a graph on your own website that is not completely up-to-date (missing the last data point) constitutes manipulation. Since when is failing to keep your own website completely up to date a crime? And your claim that he should have included the as yet non-existent 2018 point is just absurd.

This really is the most stupid thread on this forum, and that's saying something!
 
Surface Detail said:
The whole claim is utterly ridiculous. It is simply bizarre to claim that posting a graph on your own website that is not completely up-to-date (missing the last data point) constitutes manipulation. Since when is failing to keep your own website completely up to date a crime? And your claim that he should have included the as yet non-existent 2018 point is just absurd.

This really is the most stupid thread on this forum, and that's saying something!
Click to expand...

Your default to denial is noted.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]NASA refutes Mann and Rahmstorf – Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing[/h][FONT=&quot]From the “we told you so yesterday” and the “settled science” department. This study was released in 2010, and they used actual measurements, rather than proxy data and reconstructions like Mann did. Gee, what a concept! NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing 03.25.10 PASADENA, Calif. – New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional…
[/FONT]
March 25, 2015 in AMO, Michael E. Mann.
 
Jack's favourite pseudoscience conspiracy blog finds a 9 year old article and uses a dishonest title for a blog post and Jack mindlessly copies and pastes it here. Business as usual.

Here's the article itself about the study by Josh Willis 10 years ago:

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html

"The changes we're seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle," said Willis. "The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling. Combining satellite and float measurements, he found no change in the strength of the circulation overturning from 2002 to 2009. Looking further back with satellite altimeter data alone before the float data were available, Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009."

No "NASA refutes Mann and Rahmsdorf!!!!" as WUWT hysterically and dishonestly claim. Just their usual rabid scientist bashing.




No surprise that the dishonest climate truthers at WUWT did not link to more recent broader studies like:

Rahmstorf, S., Box, J., Feulner, G., Mann, M., Robinson, A., Rutherford, S., Schaffernicht, E. (2015): Evidence for an exceptional 20th-Century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning. Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2554

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-atlantic-ocean-overturning-today.html#jCp

The recent changes found by the team are unprecedented since the year 900 AD, strongly suggesting they are caused by man-made global warming. "The melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation"

The Atlantic overturning is driven by differences in the density of the ocean water. From the south, the warm and hence lighter water flows northwards, where the cold and thus heavier water sinks to deeper ocean layers and flows southwards. "Now freshwater coming off the melting Greenland ice sheet is likely disturbing the circulation," says Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. The freshwater is diluting the ocean water. Less saline water is less dense and has therefore less tendency to sink into the deep. "So the human-caused mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet appears to be slowing down the Atlantic overturning - and this effect might increase if temperatures are allowed to rise further," explains Box.​
 
Last edited:
It's always fun when an opposing debater walks into the punch. Actual measurements, rather than proxy data and reconstructions.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except reality says otherwise[/h][FONT=&quot]UPDATED – see below From your “Day after Tomorrow” department (where a slowing Gulf Stream turned NYC into an icebox) comes this claim from the bowels of Mannian Science. Unfortunately, it looks to be of the caliber of Mann’s Hockey Schtick science. As WUWT reported on a peer reviewed paper last year, H. Thomas Rossby…
[/FONT]
March 24, 2015 in AMO, Greenland ice sheet, Michael E. Mann.
 
^^^ More mindlessly copied and pasted ignorance, dishonest claims, and scientist bashing - from one of Jack's favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.
 
Quaestio said:
^^^ More mindlessly copied and pasted ignorance, dishonest claims, and scientist bashing - from one of Jack's favorite pseudoscience conspiracy blogs.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm the one advocating on behalf of science.

[FONT=&quot]On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20 years of direct measurements[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]T. Rossby1,*, C. N. Flagg2, K. Donohue1, A. Sanchez-Franks2, J. Lillibridge3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=3]Abstract[/h]In contrast to recent claims of a Gulf Stream slowdown, two decades of directly measured velocity across the current show no evidence of a decrease. Using a well-constrained definition of Gulf Stream width, the linear least square fit yields a mean surface layer transport of 1.35 × 105 m2 s−1 with a 0.13% negative trend per year. Assuming geostrophy, this corresponds to a mean cross-stream sea level difference of 1.17 m, with sea level decreasing 0.03 m over the 20 year period. This is not significant at the 95% confidence level, and it is a factor of 2–4 less than that alleged from accelerated sea level rise along the U.S. Coast north of Cape Hatteras. Part of the disparity can be traced to the spatial complexity of altimetric sea level trends over the same period.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058636/abstract



[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​
 
Jack Hays said:
Indeed it does. I'm proud of that.
Click to expand...

You're actually "proud" of mindlessly copying and pasting tens of thousands of blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs. That is truly sad and pathetic.
 
Quaestio said:
You're actually "proud" of mindlessly copying and pasting tens of thousands of blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs. That is truly sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

You can't insult your way to debate success.
When you go low, I go high.
 
Jack Hays said:
You can't insult your way to debate success.
When you go low, I go high.
Click to expand...

You believe mindlessly copying and pasting tens of thousands of blog posts from pseudoscience conspiracy blogs is "going high" and "debate success"? How embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom