The TRUTH about the Climate Change MYTH

[MrT]

And yet the data reveals that the climate, while warming overall during this very brief sliver of history from the coldest point in this interglacial to date, has vacillated. You are using less then 200 years of data, probably about 45 years of good data, against 4.5 billion years of climate activity.

For starters, the only reason you can possibly tell me that we are "cooler than the warmest point of every interglacial and that includes this one" is because of the very same data that climatologists use to give us their current predictions and studies about the immediate future of our planet. And I am supposed to trust your expertise on the subject over their opinion because...what?

And no, I am not trying to compare against 4.5 billion years of climate - are you ****ing insane? Why in the holy **** would I care about the global temperature for that long of a period of time? Humans live on an extremely short time scale - so any damage that we cause to the planet, even if it only lasted 10,000 years would still **** us royally. I can understand using historical data to look for similar precedents, but the fact is that there are NONE. This is the only time in our planets history that humans have successfully populated every corner, altered the various biomes to suit our purposes, and polluted massive amounts in an extremely short period of time.

 

[code1211]

It depends on whether the models failed on the long term or the short term. Models often fail on the short term. Think about it, do you have complete faith in your weather man?

Long term projections are far more accurate because they don't have to account for all the random short-term variations as well.

The 2000 period has an unexpectedly low amount of global warming so it is no surprise that most models predicted something higher.

The models followed temperature very well until 2000.

Actually, I am very impressed with weather forecasts up to about 5 days. 7 days gets a little sketchy. Two weeks is usable, but not dependable. Anything beyond is pretty much a draw between the Farmer's Almanac and the forecast.

Annual forecasts are a crap shoot. The annual hurricane forecast was a topic of much discussion around the time of Katrina. Following 2000, when I started to get interested in this and developed a rudimentary understanding of the web, the annual predictions were never right, but were too high half the time and too low half the time. This is obviously the same rate that flipping a coin would produce.

The PR forecasts of the climate were doing just fine as long as the warming matched the predictions. However, the causation seems to have been exactly wrong. They saw consistent increase in CO2 and consistent increase in temperature.

Seemed like a good match and the simple minded politicians saw the chance to relieve the simple minded constituants of more cash. The sham was exposed in 2000 when the temperature went flat, right on schedule, and the CO2 continued to rise. IF CO2 was the actual prime driver of the climate, THEN the temperatures would not have gone flat.

IF the impact of CO2 was that of a trace gas that had a diminishing impact, THEN the temperatures would have gone flat when the actual causers of the warming flattened out as well.

The real world provides its evidence for us to examine or, in the case of GISS, to adjust.

Still the roosters continue to crow at the Sun thinking they made it rise with their efforts.

climate4you welcome

<snip>

Superimposed plot of Quality Class 1 and Quality Class 2 and Quality Class 3 global monthly temperature estimates. As the base period differs for the different temperature estimates, they have all been normalised by comparing to the average value of 30 years from January 1979 to December 2008. The heavy black line represents the simple running 37 month (c. 3 year) mean of the average of all temperature records. The numbers shown in the lower right corner represent the temperature anomaly relative to the above average. Values are rounded off to the nearest two decimals, even though some of the original data series come with more than two decimals.Last month shown: October 2015. Last diagram update: 21 November 2015.
<snip>

GISS continues its revisionist record keeping. They published ANOTHER WARMER REVISION as shown below. Amazing!

<snip>

Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979 according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at ColumbiaUniversity, New York City, USA. GISS is a laboratory of the Earth-Sun Exploration Division of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Discussions of reasons why the GISS temperature estimate differs from other estimates can be read by clickinghere, here and here. Base period: 1951-1980. Last month shown: October 2015. Last diagram update: 17 November 2015.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

For starters, the only reason you can possibly tell me that we are "cooler than the warmest point of every interglacial and that includes this one" is because of the very same data that climatologists use to give us their current predictions and studies about the immediate future of our planet. And I am supposed to trust your expertise on the subject over their opinion because...what?

And no, I am not trying to compare against 4.5 billion years of climate - are you ****ing insane? Why in the holy **** would I care about the global temperature for that long of a period of time? Humans live on an extremely short time scale - so any damage that we cause to the planet, even if it only lasted 10,000 years would still **** us royally. I can understand using historical data to look for similar precedents, but the fact is that there are NONE. This is the only time in our planets history that humans have successfully populated every corner, altered the various biomes to suit our purposes, and polluted massive amounts in an extremely short period of time.

I assume that the use of the * is intended to denote the use of profanity. Interestingly, I was raised by a gentleman who never used profanity and asserted that profanity is used by the uneducated to communicate.

Just passing that along. The impact you intend may not be the one you convey.

Take a look at this chart.



The various proxy tracks vacillate widely over the 10,000 or so years depicted. Every one of them, EVERY ONE OF THEM, records a higher temperature at some point in the track than today. In many cases, those temperatures are very much warmer.

There is a case to be made that the warming of today is not unprecedented, not unusual and not dangerous. Context in assessing data is everything.

Pollution is something that needs to be controlled. You seem to be saying that pollution causes warming. In many cases, pollution causes cooling. Controlling pollution and fighting global warming are two, separate and distinct considerations.

In view of the recent flattening of temperatures, the impact of CO2 seems less primary than we have been led to believe by the alarmists.

 

[JasperL]

I would assume that the person who is maintaining the chart that I posted from Wood For trees that shows the record of the data gathering agencies that measure the pause, is showing the record they have put together that shows the pause.

That person was comparing apples and broccoli - they used apparently random starting AND ending points. It's hackery.

The pause didn't start according to ANY data source until the 2000 time frame. This would have been right on schedule if a predictor was ignoring the dominance of CO2 and was instead observing the normal changes in warming revealed in the temperature record that seem to be driven by the ADO and PDO.

First if was the GISS data is an outlier, which obviously isn't true. Now you use a different randomly selected time period to show something...

Adjusting your start point from the disingenuously engineered 1990 to the actual pause start date post 2000, actually 2002 in the one I put together below, we see the GISS Data Track revealed as being both dramatically warmer and warming dramatically faster than the others that you selected. This is most definitely the outlier.

Well, it's not actually. The BEST data show more warming and faster, and that was the set put together with in part Koch money. Sorry but cherry picking start and end dates and data sets and producing a graph is not evidence of anything except ignorance about the data. If you want to point out some issue with GISS, then find a paper that compares the various data sources. I'm sure there ARE real differences, about how they are compiled and corrected, but I don't know them and you obviously don't either.

We are talking about GISS gaming the data and you game the data as your response to show... what?

I'm pointing out you have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of GISS gaming the data. None.

And I'm not gaming anything - I noticed the graph you posted was obvious hackery, went to the site, did my own comparison with consistent start and end points, and presented it. I won't post the results but just going back to 2000 changes the results and, again, the different data align much closer, all the data including the Woodfortrees index, show warming, with BEST showing the quickest warming, not GISS. Here is the link

Bottom line is when your conclusions depend on picking the 'right' start and end dates, and the 'right' data sets, it's a BS conclusion. You're fooling only yourself here.

 

[MrT]

Take a look at this chart.

View attachment 67194307

The various proxy tracks vacillate widely over the 10,000 or so years depicted. Every one of them, EVERY ONE OF THEM, records a higher temperature at some point in the track than today. In many cases, those temperatures are very much warmer.

You realize that that proxy data that you note as recording a higher temperature at some point is a localized proxy data point (i.e. the tree rings of north america indicate a very warm summer there 3000 years ago) and thus, you have to bring all of the proxies together in order to form that black line going through the middle.

And you notice how that black line never goes above the point where 2004 is located? And you know that 2004 is not the hottest year - it is 2014, with 2015 about to become the new hottest year.

So much for the "recent flattening" of temperatures.

Now, as to your point about "historical context," you are right and wrong. You are correct to note that historical context is important, but you miss the reason. The reason that historical context is important is because it provides us clues to look for in explaining the cause of the current or previous climatic shifts. If we can identify all of the variables, we can study them. And that is precisely what climatologists have been doing for 50+ years with ever increasing levels of accuracy through methodology and technological advances.

Scientists have a really good grasp on the variables behind climatic shifts. Our current climatic shift is because of our pollution - namely the overproduction of greenhouse gases.

 

[code1211]

That person was comparing apples and broccoli - they used apparently random starting AND ending points. It's hackery.



First if was the GISS data is an outlier, which obviously isn't true. Now you use a different randomly selected time period to show something...



Well, it's not actually. The BEST data show more warming and faster, and that was the set put together with in part Koch money. Sorry but cherry picking start and end dates and data sets and producing a graph is not evidence of anything except ignorance about the data. If you want to point out some issue with GISS, then find a paper that compares the various data sources. I'm sure there ARE real differences, about how they are compiled and corrected, but I don't know them and you obviously don't either.



I'm pointing out you have NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of GISS gaming the data. None.

And I'm not gaming anything - I noticed the graph you posted was obvious hackery, went to the site, did my own comparison with consistent start and end points, and presented it. I won't post the results but just going back to 2000 changes the results and, again, the different data align much closer, all the data including the Woodfortrees index, show warming, with BEST showing the quickest warming, not GISS. Here is the link

Bottom line is when your conclusions depend on picking the 'right' start and end dates, and the 'right' data sets, it's a BS conclusion. You're fooling only yourself here.

Oh, look! GISS made another adjustment and it resulted in more manufactured warming.

Who could possibly have predicted this astonishingly consistent and expected occurrence?

I am only looking at what is actually happening and pointing at it.

Whenever a United States Government data gathering/adjusting agency adjusts its gathered data, that data shows increased warming. This is perfect alignment with the policies and demands placed on the agencies by the folks who guide and pay for their efforts.

Even the least suspicious must see some cause in this for questions. You apparently do not. That's okay. Are you in the market for any real estate purchases?

climate4you welcome

<snip>

Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979 according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at ColumbiaUniversity, New York City, USA. GISS is a laboratory of the Earth-Sun Exploration Division of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute. The thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. Discussions of reasons why the GISS temperature estimate differs from other estimates can be read by c

 

[JasperL]

You should have done 10 minutes. Your study appears to have been incomplete.

GISS and NASA had data that they discarded and replaced. There is no other way to say this.

Every single data set has data that have been discarded and replaced. The raw data are worthless, riddled with systemic errors, and no one with even a passing knowledge of what the data represent would use it for anything in its raw form. So they all "discard" the raw data and replace it - every single one.

This framing of the issue is just ignorant or dishonest, one of the two. You're whining about the equivalent of taking someone's time readings taken off a watch that predictably loses 10 minutes a day and adjusting those KNOWN bad readings to the benchmarked atomic clocks. "You had the data from that watch that loses 10 minutes a day and replaced it. WHY would you do such a thing????!!! Just use another inaccurate watch in another location that also loses 10 minutes per day. Harrrumph!!"

The cherry picked quotes of my posts leave out the suggestion that if they are suspicious of the accuracy of the data, they should put an astericks next to it, not replace it. THAT would be the accurate way to do it.

No, that would be a monumentally stupid way to do it. I'm going to end this part of the discussion because if you say that and believe it, it's obvious you actually have no clue what is in the data, the types of known and systemic errors in the data, the methods they use to correct that data, the various issues involved with each method, or how any of that affects the results and therefore why the data sets might show different results, especially over short time period. In short, you're almost completely ignorant on this subject - in fact you're worse than ignorant because what you believe about the issue is actually WRONG, you have been misinformed, believe stuff that is obviously false and is proved false with the most cursory research into the subject matter. And I don't have time and it would be pointless to continue to try to educate you on the VERY basics.

 

[code1211]

You realize that that proxy data that you note as recording a higher temperature at some point is a localized proxy data point (i.e. the tree rings of north america indicate a very warm summer there 3000 years ago) and thus, you have to bring all of the proxies together in order to form that black line going through the middle.

And you notice how that black line never goes above the point where 2004 is located? And you know that 2004 is not the hottest year - it is 2014, with 2015 about to become the new hottest year.

So much for the "recent flattening" of temperatures.

Now, as to your point about "historical context," you are right and wrong. You are correct to note that historical context is important, but you miss the reason. The reason that historical context is important is because it provides us clues to look for in explaining the cause of the current or previous climatic shifts. If we can identify all of the variables, we can study them. And that is precisely what climatologists have been doing for 50+ years with ever increasing levels of accuracy through methodology and technological advances.

Scientists have a really good grasp on the variables behind climatic shifts. Our current climatic shift is because of our pollution - namely the overproduction of greenhouse gases.

The reason I noted that EVERY ONE OF THE PROXY TRACKS recorded warmer temperatures at some point is that they do and that this takes them all into account.

IF the instrument record is included in a table using Proxy tracks, THEN the instrument record can be given no more weight than the other proxy tracks.

IF there are accurate projections/predictions of the future climate, then they should be easily linked and posted. Please do this with the publication dates at or before 1985. If they don't exist, they don't. Nothing to be ashamed of.

IF scientists have a really good grasp on the variables behind climate change, THEN they should be able to provide accurate long range predictions.

You are free to post the ones that demonstrate your faith in their efforts. Predictions that are less than 30 years old are really not proof of anything useful to your case.

This science, Study of the Greenhouse Effect and the impact of CO2, was begun in the the 1820's. When do you suppose they might master it? Rocket Science was started much later and seems to be doing a little better.

 

[MrT]

The reason I noted that EVERY ONE OF THE PROXY TRACKS recorded warmer temperatures at some point is that they do and that this takes them all into account.

IF the instrument record is included in a table using Proxy tracks, THEN the instrument record can be given no more weight than the other proxy tracks.

IF there are accurate projections/predictions of the future climate, then they should be easily linked and posted. Please do this with the publication dates at or before 1985. If they don't exist, they don't. Nothing to be ashamed of.

IF scientists have a really good grasp on the variables behind climate change, THEN they should be able to provide accurate long range predictions.

You are free to post the ones that demonstrate your faith in their efforts. Predictions that are less than 30 years old are really not proof of anything useful to your case.

This science, Study of the Greenhouse Effect and the impact of CO2, was begun in the the 1820's. When do you suppose they might master it? Rocket Science was started much later and seems to be doing a little better.

This post is a lot of incomprehensible babble. Are you really trying to say that you only consider models relevant if they were PUBLISHED before 1985? Before the widespread usage of the internet? Before the widespread usage of satellites? When a computer with 8 MB of ram was considered amazing?

And it is interesting that you talk about rocket science being pretty advanced considering that there are a lot of rocket scientists at NASA who have endorsed AGW, note that 97% of climatologists agree with AGW, and publish research themselves that supports AGW.

And yet, you doubt the expertise of an organization that can land a satellite on a comet and take high resolution pictures of Pluto.

 

[code1211]

Every single data set has data that have been discarded and replaced. The raw data are worthless, riddled with systemic errors, and no one with even a passing knowledge of what the data represent would use it for anything in its raw form. So they all "discard" the raw data and replace it - every single one.

This framing of the issue is just ignorant or dishonest, one of the two. You're whining about the equivalent of taking someone's time readings taken off a watch that predictably loses 10 minutes a day and adjusting those KNOWN bad readings to the benchmarked atomic clocks. "You had the data from that watch that loses 10 minutes a day and replaced it. WHY would you do such a thing????!!! Just use another inaccurate watch in another location that also loses 10 minutes per day. Harrrumph!!"



No, that would be a monumentally stupid way to do it. I'm going to end this part of the discussion because if you say that and believe it, it's obvious you actually have no clue what is in the data, the types of known and systemic errors in the data, the methods they use to correct that data, the various issues involved with each method, or how any of that affects the results and therefore why the data sets might show different results, especially over short time period. In short, you're almost completely ignorant on this subject - in fact you're worse than ignorant because what you believe about the issue is actually WRONG, you have been misinformed, believe stuff that is obviously false and is proved false with the most cursory research into the subject matter. And I don't have time and it would be pointless to continue to try to educate you on the VERY basics.

Well then, how about this: Please post the adjustment of data made by GISS that revealed a cooling of the data vs. the previous data set.

One might suspect that at some point, for some reason, the existing data which was previously recorded, adjusted, complied, adjusted again, compiled again and adjusted again might have been determined to have been adjusted too much.

Has GISS EVER revised data to be cooler?

I've never been made aware of it. Just wondering how fair the GISS process of adjusting data might be...

Could you please post the before and after of the data adjustment that showed that the previous data set was TOO WARM?

In business, there are preliminary and corrected monthly, quarterly and annual statements. Sometimes the revision show greater profits and other times lesser.

If the revision was ALWAYS greater, one might suspect a little cooking of the books to have been employed. Just sayin'...

 

[Poor Debater]

I would assume that the person who is maintaining the chart that I posted from Wood For trees that shows the record of the data gathering agencies that measure the pause, is showing the record they have put together that shows the pause.

When you are measuring something that occurs in relation to the time that it covers, do you begin that measure at the time it starts or several years before?

Since the so-called pause is not, and has never been, statistically significant, using any measure, you can create your false impression by starting anywhere you please. What you cannot do is show that your false impression is true, by any statistical measure. Statisticians realize that using less data increases uncertainty. The denizens of Denierstan never seem to get that point.

When the duration of the world record 100 meter dash is measured in the upcoming Olympics, will they measure the elapsed time it covers from the exact moment that it begins or start that measure in 1990? New Olympic record is 25 years, 7 months, 1 week, 2 days and 9.1573 seconds.

It's not a hundred-meter dash, it's a marathon. And the denizens of Denierstan are obsessed with finding some distance, any distance, no matter how short, at which the runner has slowed down. So they try every conceivable distance starting at every conceivable point, trying to find their "proof". The statistical problem is that the more such distances you try, the more likely it is that you will find a statistical outlier just by chance. So you have to correct for the number of possible tries, too. Which is another thing the denizens of Denierstan don't understand, and therefore never do.

The pause didn't start according to ANY data source until the 2000 time frame.

Pause? What pause?

This would have been right on schedule if a predictor was ignoring the dominance of CO2 and was instead observing the normal changes in warming revealed in the temperature record that seem to be driven by the ADO and PDO.

The PDO was way down in 2000. Then it was up by 2003, way down again in 2012, and now it's way up again. So what kind of "prediction" do the denizens of Denierstan draw from this?

And I'd really love to see what kind of prediction you draw from the ADO. Since there is no such index.

Adjusting your start point from the disingenuously engineered 1990 to the actual pause start date post 2000,

Which is also engineered. But, you claim, it's really engineered, so it's not disingenuous? Riiiiight.

actually 2002 in the one I put together below, we see the GISS Data Track revealed as being both dramatically warmer and warming dramatically faster than the others that you selected. This is most definitely the outlier.

Proving once again that if you just throw away all the data that disagrees with you, all the remaining data agrees with you. So brilliant! So wrong! So par-for-the-course in Denierstan.

We are talking about GISS gaming the data and you game the data as your response to show... what?

So, having gamed the data yourself to show that GISS games the data, you're so very superior to those guys, because you didn't do anything to get the result you wanted, except cherry pick the start and end dates, and throw away everything else, and ignore BEST, and ignore Cowtan & Way, and pretend that satellites measure surface temps when they don't. Nope, certainly not one hint of gaming there.

Normally I would simply ask you to show us the uncertainty of that slope, and to do so after accounting for autocorrelation. But since you're so obviously unequipped with the mathematical ability to do that, I wouldn't want to embarrass you. Yet it is the answers to simple questions like that which utterly sink your entire fantasy. Which is why you never read about things like that on WUWT.

 

[code1211]

This post is a lot of incomprehensible babble. Are you really trying to say that you only consider models relevant if they were PUBLISHED before 1985? Before the widespread usage of the internet? Before the widespread usage of satellites? When a computer with 8 MB of ram was considered amazing?

And it is interesting that you talk about rocket science being pretty advanced considering that there are a lot of rocket scientists at NASA who have endorsed AGW, note that 97% of climatologists agree with AGW, and publish research themselves that supports AGW.

And yet, you doubt the expertise of an organization that can land a satellite on a comet and take high resolution pictures of Pluto.

How long a period of time do you think is required to differentiate Climate Change from Weather Patterns?

Do you have a projection/prediction for whatever period of time that you feel is appropriate that is accurate compared to the real world performance?

 

[code1211]

This post is a lot of incomprehensible babble. Are you really trying to say that you only consider models relevant if they were PUBLISHED before 1985? Before the widespread usage of the internet? Before the widespread usage of satellites? When a computer with 8 MB of ram was considered amazing?

And it is interesting that you talk about rocket science being pretty advanced considering that there are a lot of rocket scientists at NASA who have endorsed AGW, note that 97% of climatologists agree with AGW, and publish research themselves that supports AGW.

And yet, you doubt the expertise of an organization that can land a satellite on a comet and take high resolution pictures of Pluto.

If the accuracy of the moon shots was off by as little as the temperature predictions of NASA, we would never have seen Neil Armstrong following the launch of his spacecraft. Every satellite ever launched would be wandering aimlessly through space and satellite communication would consist of conversations wondering where all those satellites ended up.

Proficiency in one area apparently doesn't translate into proficiency in other areas.

How are you doing finding those accurate predictions of climate performance?

 

[MrT]

Do you have a projection/prediction for whatever period of time that you feel is appropriate that is accurate compared to the real world performance?

Do I get to include margin of error?

 

[JasperL]

Well then, how about this: Please post the adjustment of data made by GISS that revealed a cooling of the data vs. the previous data set.

code1211: "Well, I can't answer any of your points, so how about this - I'll ignore everything you said, shift the burden of proof, and move the goal posts way over ======> HERE!!! And if I don't like what you say to that, I'll ignore it and move the goal posts again!"

Every dang debate on the climate.....

 

[flogger]

code1211: "Well, I can't answer any of your points, so how about this - I'll ignore everything you said, shift the burden of proof, and move the goal posts way over ======> HERE!!! And if I don't like what you say to that, I'll ignore it and move the goal posts again!"

Every dang debate on the climate.....

Or whatever he presents you with and whatever its merit you could just call it 'baseless' and then put a number after it :lol:

 

[JasperL]

Or whatever he presents you with and whatever its merit you could just call it 'baseless' and then put a number after it :lol:

LOL, no surprise you're sticking up for code1211 - you're using the same playbook.

BTW, you can read my replies - I didn't "call" his graphs hackery, I did my homework and showed him why using his own data source. :roll:

 

[code1211]

Do I get to include margin of error?

Whatever floats your boat.

Please include the assumptions that support the projection/prediction as well.

 

[code1211]

code1211: "Well, I can't answer any of your points, so how about this - I'll ignore everything you said, shift the burden of proof, and move the goal posts way over ======> HERE!!! And if I don't like what you say to that, I'll ignore it and move the goal posts again!"

Every dang debate on the climate.....

So the GISS really NEVER has adjusted data downward, then.

That's pretty much what I thought.

I am not saying, as your straw man response in an earlier post indicated, that any adjustment is proof of dishonesty.

Obviously, when the land mass of Antarctica or the area above the Arctic Circle is covered by about 5 stations apiece, some adjustment and projections are required. The similar area in the USA is covered by Hundreds of stations. Africa is also sparsley represented compared to the USA, Europe and Britain. these adjustment were made when the temperatures were posted. Then additional adjustments were made, and made again and made again and again.

It seems that at some point they would have discovered that the adjustments were wrong and too warm. Never seems to happen. Ever. Well, not exactly true. When the amount of warming needs to be emphasized, then the older temperatures are adjusted downward.

As a result, the adjustments always make the temperatures reflect a warmer present and faster rate of warming to reach it. Just seems a little odd.

It seems more odd that the adjustments to make the GISS product show greater warming and faster warming results in the warmest and fastest warming data set.

Just wondering about the product.

I should think this would be a cause for concern by anyone looking at it impartially. Do you really have absolutely no questions about this in this or any regard?

Seems like maybe you should.

It seems like it might have a parallel in racist societies in which the minority is always the criminal and the majority is always the victim when they run into government run, politically controlled programs. It was Jews in Nazi Germany, Blacks in the American South, Un-killed Indians in the Old West, anyone not white in the British Empire, Moors in Italy, Christians in the Middle East and so it goes. It seems that preconceived truths have an effect on the outcomes of considerations that would be otherwise impartial.

Seems like a fairly common thing in world history. Just wondering if the commonality extends to government run, politically controlled endeavors in other areas of thinking.

 

[code1211]

LOL, no surprise you're sticking up for code1211 - you're using the same playbook.

BTW, you can read my replies - I didn't "call" his graphs hackery, I did my homework and showed him why using his own data source. :roll:

With data cherry picked to include data that was nowhere near the beginning of the pause.

I explained why this was disingenuous and you ignored that.

This earns you high marks on the slippery scale.

 

[Poor Debater]

How long a period of time do you think is required to differentiate Climate Change from Weather Patterns?

Thirty years is standard in climatology.

Do you have a projection/prediction for whatever period of time that you feel is appropriate that is accurate compared to the real world performance?

Exxon does, from 1982:

The black is their prediction. The red is surface temperature from GISS.

Once Exxon saw this, they fired their climate scientists and began funding climate denier think-tanks instead. There's corporate morality for you.

 

[JasperL]

So the GISS really NEVER has adjusted data downward, then.

I don't have a clue and it's pointless to look. You and me can sit here and debate the issue, but we might as well be discussing the components of the U.S. GDP. Neither one of us has any handle on the calculations, what it takes, the data, the needed adjustments to it, etc. so it would be two ignoramuses debating. All your sources have done is note some revisions, note that they supposedly increase warming or the trend or both, then claim based on nothing that there are intentional errors in the data to overstate the AGW case.

If serious people believe that the GISS data are fraudulent, there is an option. Use other data, or do the 100s or thousands of hours of work it would take to actually delve very deep into the adjustments and figure out some bias that produces the supposed by actually non-existent outlier status. But that takes too much work, so deniers cherry pick a few things and based on nothing deceive their readers. It's pathetic.

I am not saying, as your straw man response in an earlier post indicated, that any adjustment is proof of dishonesty.

I quoted your own words. Replacing data with data they "make up" is fraud. If you want to back off that, I'm good, but you repeated the allegations several times.

Obviously, when the land mass of Antarctica or the area above the Arctic Circle is covered by about 5 stations apiece, some adjustment and projections are required. The similar area in the USA is covered by Hundreds of stations. Africa is also sparsley represented compared to the USA, Europe and Britain. these adjustment were made when the temperatures were posted. Then additional adjustments were made, and made again and made again and again.

OK, what's your point? The implication is they didn't "like" the results so fraudulently adjusted them to their "liking" but if you actually gave a legitimate damn, maybe you'd search the published record for some documentation or analysis of those changes....

I should think this would be a cause for concern by anyone looking at it impartially. Do you really have absolutely no questions about this in this or any regard?

Personally, no, it's not something that I have questions about because I can search Google Scholar and find plenty of serious people with actual expertise in the subject have continually challenged the data and worked to improve it, and as a very robust and effective check on the GISS data, there are as you've seen MANY alternative and independent efforts to do the same damn thing, and despite your whining show the same general trends. BEST is just the latest effort and you exclude them from your little scenarios because they show faster warming than GISS.

 

[JasperL]

With data cherry picked to include data that was nowhere near the beginning of the pause.

I explained why this was disingenuous and you ignored that.

You apparently didn't notice the link I pointed to where the analysis started in 2000, AFTER the pause supposedly started. All the lines upward sloping.... There was a link - click on it if you want. Or do it yourself!

This earns you high marks on the slippery scale.

Right, showing my work and linking to the results is very, very slippery! :roll:

BTW, here's another graph using three data sources from 1998-2010. I ended it in 2010 since that's when it appears the BEST data cuts off at that site. Notice the outlier? It's not GISS, and there is no outlier.

I'm going to edit this to point out how stupid my effort is. What I just did shows actually nothing, except that if the goal is to start with a conclusion, then search for the data to prove that conclusion, it's easily done. Two or three minutes. What would take some actual expertise and work is explaining why the BEST data show more warming than GISS, and have a higher intercept. That's likely a weeks long project full time to do it correctly, figure out the methodological differences, figure out how those differences produce slightly different conclusions, confirm that's how the data is responding, etc. But that's what experts do - hacks play around with the graphs until they find the data that supports their agenda.

 

[code1211]

I don't have a clue and it's pointless to look. You and me can sit here and debate the issue, but we might as well be discussing the components of the U.S. GDP. Neither one of us has any handle on the calculations, what it takes, the data, the needed adjustments to it, etc. so it would be two ignoramuses debating. All your sources have done is note some revisions, note that they supposedly increase warming or the trend or both, then claim based on nothing that there are intentional errors in the data to overstate the AGW case.

If serious people believe that the GISS data are fraudulent, there is an option. Use other data, or do the 100s or thousands of hours of work it would take to actually delve very deep into the adjustments and figure out some bias that produces the supposed by actually non-existent outlier status. But that takes too much work, so deniers cherry pick a few things and based on nothing deceive their readers. It's pathetic.



I quoted your own words. Replacing data with data they "make up" is fraud. If you want to back off that, I'm good, but you repeated the allegations several times.



OK, what's your point? The implication is they didn't "like" the results so fraudulently adjusted them to their "liking" but if you actually gave a legitimate damn, maybe you'd search the published record for some documentation or analysis of those changes....



Personally, no, it's not something that I have questions about because I can search Google Scholar and find plenty of serious people with actual expertise in the subject have continually challenged the data and worked to improve it, and as a very robust and effective check on the GISS data, there are as you've seen MANY alternative and independent efforts to do the same damn thing, and despite your whining show the same general trends. BEST is just the latest effort and you exclude them from your little scenarios because they show faster warming than GISS.

For the record, I never used the word "fraud" or any of its forms. That word and that idea was introduced by you.

NASA and GISS are both run and populated with people who want to keep their job. They are employed by a government that has a stated bias. These folks are not stupid and they want to keep their jobs.

They gather data and immediately adjust it for accuracy. In at least two instances, in 1999 and 2015, the data was discarded and replaced with data that better reflects the goals of the US Government.

Perhaps this is simply a coincidence. Perhaps is is a contrivance.

One of the results of these tamperings has pushed the GISS data to be by far the warmest one and by far the fastest warming one.

If the adjustments had put the GISS data set into the middle of the pack, then the adjustments would be justified by the other agencies gathering data. This is not the case.

The GISS data that was already warmer than any of the others became MUCH warmer than the others. Just seems odd that the too warm data was adjusted to an even warmer level.

 

[code1211]

You apparently didn't notice the link I pointed to where the analysis started in 2000, AFTER the pause supposedly started. All the lines upward sloping.... There was a link - click on it if you want. Or do it yourself!



Right, showing my work and linking to the results is very, very slippery! :roll:

BTW, here's another graph using three data sources from 1998-2010. I ended it in 2010 since that's when it appears the BEST data cuts off at that site. Notice the outlier? It's not GISS, and there is no outlier.

I'm going to edit this to point out how stupid my effort is. What I just did shows actually nothing, except that if the goal is to start with a conclusion, then search for the data to prove that conclusion, it's easily done. Two or three minutes. What would take some actual expertise and work is explaining why the BEST data show more warming than GISS, and have a higher intercept. That's likely a weeks long project full time to do it correctly, figure out the methodological differences, figure out how those differences produce slightly different conclusions, confirm that's how the data is responding, etc. But that's what experts do - hacks play around with the graphs until they find the data that supports their agenda.

Shown below is the chart that you posted which stars in 1990.

Do you think your posts just disappear and you can revise history the way the GISS revises their data? To help your "faulty" memory, here is the chart you posted. You will please note that GISS is the warmest data track:

<snip>
Just playing around, and picked 1990 starting point for 4 series.

<snip>
In that post as you should be able to see, you even noted that you started your consideration at 1990. Whether you start the consideration 4 years before the pause starts or 12 years before the pause starts, you are starting the consideration BEFORE THE PAUSE STARTS. WHAT PART OF THIS IS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

You're rating on the Slippery Scale is rising. You may be off the charts soon.

Now you rig more data to fit your narrative. Why are you exercising this lame line of thought?

Are you asserting that the climate did not warm very quickly from about 1980 up to about 2000 and then slow dramatically?

If you are, you are the only person this side of Barrack Obama to do so. OH! Wait a minute! Is that you, Mr. President?