- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,046
- Reaction score
- 34,013
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Perhaps because the AGW "alarmists", like the ones trying to refute AGW, aren't scientists.
then why do the AGW alarmists refuse to change even though new facts show the globe isn't warming nearly as drastically as they first predicted?
So is this also predicted by the IPCC?
Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: News :: Winter may be coldest in 1000 years
Phoenix-area residents report snow falling across Valley
Buenos Aires swelters amid heat wave, power outages - Fox News Latino
newtondailynews.com | Winter warm-up leads to pre-New Year thaw
You posted two articles talking about unusual cold, I posted two talking about unusual warmth. Maybe this is a better way to look at things:
State of the Climate | Global Analysis | November 2010
True but are they record breaking like mine. You did not say how that fits into the IPCC's predictions
It doesn't, because the IPCC does not predict temperature on a particular day at a particular location. Wrong data type.
I mean, you wouldn't ask a dermatologist for predictions on lung cancer progression, would you?
Maybe this is what you want, Ptif, since you like record highs and lows.
Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S. | UCAR
Record highs are becoming more common, and record lows are becoming less common.
Nice for 2009 but this is not 2009
So start a thread on one of those things. Or all of them. Chemical dispersants don't cause global warming. This thread is about global warming.
So these extremes show the IPCC predictions are wrong again
So?
2010 is one of the hottest years on record, globally speaking, if not the hottest. (remains to be seen, December data is obviously not complete yet)
The way to track climate is global averages over a large timeframe. Decades, not months.
Extremes of weather is a predicted result of global warming.
so, no, it doesn't show that they're wrong again.
Its not even over and already claiming it? That is showing how you use science. Shows how not credible you and the IPCC are. You still will not say how record cold and snow fall in the desert was predicted by the IPCC. You see the IPCC makes general predictions and then tries to show how extremes fit in their generalization. So scientific!!!
January-November of 2010 is the hottest January-November on record. Didn't you read the link?
Wait, no, stupid question. Of course you didn't.
What link? the only one I seen was about 2009
The other one. The NOAA link. You quoted the post, I assumed you'd read it.
So how long will it take before it is another mistake?
How long before you change your argument again?
Not me mine is the same. I notice no comment on the fact that temp readings have to be adjusted to show warming. More manipulation of data to make it appear we are warming
So we're back to this again?
You say the data was manipulated.
I say it wasn't.
You post links to mistakes being found and corrected.
I point out that being wrong and lying aren't the same thing.
You fail to understand this.
Repeat.
Save us some time.
So you refuse to admit it is manipulation just mistakes
From my link
GISS US temperature data is based on the USHCN2 historical network, which adjusts recent thermometer readings upwards by a substantial amount before releasing the data to the public. The before/after blink comparator above shows that before adjustments, most of the US has seen cooling or neutral (blue) nighttime temperatures since 1895. (Some global warming eh?) But after adjustments, more than two thirds of the US shows warming (red) nighttime temperatures.
Homogenization adjustments are done to remove bias, not add it.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset
By changing the numbers they inflate the numbers to get the result they want . They manipulate the numbers instead of just using the real numbers. You can try and BS this but they are manipulating the numbers to give a false impression of warming. This article shows the warming is fake.
I'm not sure there's a point in talking about this with you. You aren't going to understand how the methodology works. The unadjusted data is wrong because there are a lot of errors that get introduced over time. Homogenization fixes those errors.
Besides, satellite data matches the instrumental record pretty well. Or maybe you think the same kind of adjustments are made to satellite data? :lamo As if there's a thermometer on the satellite? :lamo
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?