• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

The World Has Already Ended, and the News Media Is Keeping It From Us

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So says George Monbiot, a climate change reporter for the Guardian.

He reviews a laundry list of cherry picked factoids to support his case that the earth is getting hotter than ever. And then he sums up:

Throughout the media, these tragedies are reported as impacts of El Niño: a natural weather oscillation caused by blocks of warm water forming in the Pacific. But the figures show that it accounts for only one-fifth of the global temperature rise. The El Niño phase has now passed, but still the records fall.



To pretend that newspapers and television channels are neutral arbiters of such matters is to ignore their place at the corrupt heart of the establishment. At the US conventions, to give one small example, the Washington Post, the Atlantic and Politico were paid by the American Petroleum Institute to host a series of discussions, at which climate science deniers were represented. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the purse is mightier than the pen.

Why should we trust multinational corporations to tell us the truth about multinational corporations? And if they cannot properly inform us about the power in which they are embedded, how can they properly inform us about anything?

If humanity fails to prevent climate breakdown, the industry that bears the greatest responsibility is not transport, farming, gas, oil or even coal. All of them can behave as they do, shunting us towards systemic collapse, only with a social licence to operate. The problem begins with the industry that, wittingly or otherwise, grants them this licence: the one for which I work.

No, nobody cares about this stuff any more. Evil corporations really don't have anything to do with it. Climate advocates have done this to themselves. They have cried wolf until nobody is listening anymore. No “Day After Tomorrow” superstorms, no surge in bad weather, no collapsing nations or mass migrations to polar regions. Nothing bad is happening. News organizations are less and less likely to report this alarmist claptrap because they have always ended up looking like fools when they do.

Meanwhile, global temperatures are falling subsequent to the exhaustion of El Nino in the Pacific.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They almost spelled Moonbat's name right.

The source article says:


In Siberia, an anthrax outbreak is raging through the human and reindeer populations because infected corpses locked in permafrost since the last epidemic in 1941 have thawed.

Well, thermometer records have the warmest period on earth in the late 30's before the recorded have been "corrected." It would appear this area is finally melting back to 1941 levels, unless for example, someone buried them under ice...

If recent times are the warmest, and this is the first melt in such areas, we shouldn't be finding corpses under the ice!

Look at the photo in the article:

deleleme.jpg

Just look how dirty that ice is. Anthropogenic melt of the ice today is because of the changing ice albedo. Not surface temperatures.

Now in the Watts article:


You’ve blown it George – you and your friends are claiming the climate crisis is upon us. But nobody cares – because nothing bad is happening, except in the fevered imaginations of climate zealots like yourself.

I have said something similar for years. These little boys cry wolf, then wonder why intelligent people no longer listen to them.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
More inaccurate CAGW tub-thumping propaganda.


[h=1]PolitiFact or Politi-fiction?[/h]Guest essay by Andy May This is a critique of the coverage of the man-made climate change debate by Politifact.com. It’s an update of a post I wrote last year. Journalism has not improved in the last 19 months and may actually be worse. Because Politifact is often characterized as an unbiased and credible source…
Continue reading →
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So says George Monbiot, a climate change reporter for the Guardian.

He reviews a laundry list of cherry picked factoids to support his case that the earth is getting hotter than ever.

Cherry picked factoids like "This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014"?
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,237
Reaction score
14,275
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Cherry picked factoids like "This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014"?

The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments.

Here is NOAA's treatment of the American Southeast climate data, for an example:

climate adjustments.JPG

When they are artificially lowering 80 year old climate data it is hard to take any records seriously. It's like claiming to set the home run record... after subtracting home rums from Babe Ruth.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments.

Here is NOAA's treatment of the American Southeast climate data, for an example:

Who would have imagined that a morass of stations in a well-populated region could possibly need any raw data corrections? :roll:

Since we're discussing global temperatures, why did you decide to not look at those adjustments? (This seems to be a recurring theme...)

GISS global adjustments:
rog1716-fig-0003.png

GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE - Hansen - 2010 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library (figure 3; image doesn't seem to display)


BEST global adjustments:
figure-1-homogenizationgloballand.png

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
 
Last edited:

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Who would have imagined that a morass of stations in a well-populated region could possibly need any raw data corrections? :roll:

Since we're discussing global temperatures, why did you decide to not look at those adjustments? (This seems to be a recurring theme...)

GISS global adjustments:
rog1716-fig-0003.png

GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE CHANGE - Hansen - 2010 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library


BEST global adjustments:
figure-1-homogenizationgloballand.png

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

Well, when the entire human race is being forced to change the way they live, it's a bit concerning that "adjustments" have to be made.

This principle concept seems to be completely lacking in the AGW world.

This theory, and it's solution, requires total subservience of every human being on the planet. And it requires constant adjustment and reassessment by the people who plan to do the controlling.

You have to admit, considering what is being asked of the human race, the visuals in this regard are really bad, and the over the top elitism does little to sell the plan.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This theory, and it's solution, requires total subservience of every human being on the planet. And it requires constant adjustment and reassessment by the people who plan to do the controlling.

When cherry-picking the data fails, you can always fall back on the conspiracy theories, eh?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When cherry-picking the data fails, you can always fall back on the conspiracy theories, eh?

It the fact that temperature records have been "corrected" a CT?

You are really out on a limb...

To question actions that seem unreliable it not a conspiracy theory.
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When cherry-picking the data fails, you can always fall back on the conspiracy theories, eh?

I'm not sure what you mean. How did anything I posted relate to a conspiracy theory?

Is it not a fact the solution being sought by the various global bodies requires a sea change in the way humans live and work?

I believe that is true.

So allow me to ask:

When unable to address well known facts such as those I mentioned, do AGW'sts always turn to dismissive statements in an effort to escape answering, or is that just something many of them do?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It the fact that temperature records have been "corrected" a CT?

No, that's a fact.

On the other hand to suggest that the raw data is being fraudulently manipulated - rather than actually corrected, without the scare quotes - by HadCRUT and NOAA and GISS and the JMO and BEST and RSS (for atmospheric temperatures) and UAH...?

Well, some might say that's a bit of a stretch. That's not what I was talking about in this case, however.


#####
#####


I'm not sure what you mean. How did anything I posted relate to a conspiracy theory?

You stated that there are "people who plan to do the controlling" and require "total subservience of every human being on the planet," who are using climate science to (somehow) achieve that end.

Not only is that the mother of all conspiracy theories, it's an utterly ridiculous one: Adjusting the global temperature trend of the past century from roughly +0.8 degrees C (raw data) to about +0.82 degrees C (corrected series)... you really think that's an important milestone on the road to taking over the world? :doh



Wish I could remember who it is who's got that signature about a cool movie plot: A plucky bunch of billionaires and multinational oil companies band together and struggle to save humanity from the scientists' world domination plans!



Edit: The funniest part about all this is that there are a couple of points worthy of criticism in Monbiot's article, and a few important issues raised also: But people who find themselves unable to even acknowledge the fact that, with two and perhaps soon three record-breaking years in a row, global surface temperatures are the hottest on instrumental record (and hence with high probability the hottest in at least 6-8 centuries) will only ever end up making themselves look foolish.
 
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, that's a fact.

On the other hand to suggest that the raw data is being fraudulently manipulated - rather than actually corrected, without the scare quotes - by HadCRUT and NOAA and GISS and the JMO and BEST and RSS (for atmospheric temperatures) and UAH...?

Well, some might say that's a bit of a stretch. That's not what I was talking about in this case, however.

Who said it was fraudulently manipulated?

On the other hand, how do we know the corrections are correct?

To let one's own bias interfere with the results, isn't fraud by default.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Who said it was fraudulently manipulated?

On the other hand, how do we know the corrections are correct?

To let one's own bias interfere with the results, isn't fraud by default.

Jmotivator declared that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments"; literally, that the raw global temperature series have record highs at some point other than the most recent years.

This is utterly and obviously false, as I showed, and the accusation of >0.5 degree changes to the global record is also unambiguously an accusation of fraud, not some subtle unconscious bias, as further confirmed by comments in the rest of his post - "artificially lowering," "subtracting home rums from Babe Ruth" and so on.


How do we know the corrections are correct?

Why, by checking it yourself if you feel the urge, or looking at others who have done so. That's why the NOAA temperature series exists in addition to HadCRUT. That's why GISS started doing its own analysis. That's why the Japanese Meteorological Organisation publishes its results. That's why the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project did its own (land) analysis. If there were any major problems with the earlier records, the later analyses would have picked up on them.

And indeed there have been minor problems found with earlier analyses; that's why we look at HadCRUT4, not 3 or 2 or 1; that's why we look at UAH 5 or 6, not 4 or 3 or 2 or 1. Have you noticed that Steve McIntyre hasn't promoted his own 'corrected' global temperature series? Even those who think that HadCRUT4 and NOAA and GISS and JMO and BEST are all in on the conspiracy, surely they can't imagine that McIntyre or others like him are also overlooking or keeping quiet about some glaring errors? Bottom-feeders like Watts might cherry-pick stations or areas to create a scare story around (and be subsequently proven wrong), but I've never seen even WUWT suggest an alternative global temperature series.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the analysis and adjustment methods are pretty damn solid, and hence the temperature series are reliable within their stated uncertainty margins (for annual data, +/-0.05 degrees around the year 2000, +/-0.1 degrees around 1900).
 
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Jmotivator declared that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments"; literally, that the raw global temperature series have record highs at some point other than the most recent years.
That is a fact. I've seen old records in my area vs. recent corrections, and found as large as a 3F change in some old thermometer data.

This is utterly and obviously false, as I showed, and the accusation of >0.5 degree changes to the global record is also unambiguously an accusation of fraud, not some subtle unconscious bias, as further confirmed by comments in the rest of his post - "artificially lowering," "subtracting home rums from Babe Ruth" and so on.
I'll agree it's a bad analogy, but can you explain why daytime high readings from a mercury thermometers are lowered in many corrections from the 30's through the 70's?

How do we know the corrections are correct?

Why, by checking it yourself if you feel the urge, or looking at others who have done so. That's why the NOAA temperature series exists in addition to HadCRUT. That's why GISS started doing its own analysis. That's why the Japanese Meteorological Organisation publishes its results. That's why the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project did its own (land) analysis. If there were any major problems with the earlier records, the later analyses would have picked up on them.
They used a statistical analysis. Facts make statistics, statistic rarely make fact.

And indeed there have been minor problems found with earlier analyses; that's why we look at HadCRUT4, not 3 or 2 or 1; that's why we look at UAH 5 or 6, not 4 or 3 or 2 or 1. Have you noticed that Steve McIntyre hasn't promoted his own 'corrected' global temperature series? Even those who think that HadCRUT4 and NOAA and GISS and JMO and BEST are all in on the conspiracy, surely they can't imagine that McIntyre or others like him are also overlooking or keeping quiet about some glaring errors?
There should be no corrections. It should be accepted that you cannot "correct" one small series to fit another.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the analysis and adjustment methods are pretty damn solid, and hence the temperature series are reliable within their stated uncertainty margins (+/-0.05 degrees 21st century, +/-0.1 degrees late 19th century).
Do you really buy the ± 0.05 degrees?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That is a fact. I've seen old records in my area vs. recent corrections, and found as large as a 3F change in some old thermometer data.


I'll agree it's a bad analogy, but can you explain why daytime high readings from a mercury thermometers are lowered in many corrections from the 30's through the 70's?

Your area isn't a global temperature series, of course :lol:

If those stations were moved from inner cities to the outskirts, the temperatures before the move might have been found to be artificially high due to urban heat, and therefore adjusted downwards (station history adjustment); the magnitude of the adjustment can be correlated both against the new locations' data and nearby rural stations' data. If a later standardized time of measurement for daytime temperatures was 10am, but a station had previously measured at 1pm, the earlier temperatures may have been higher than the 10am standard, and therefore adjusted downwards (time of day debiasing); the magnitude of the adjustment can be correlated against measurements throughout the day, and against nearby stations which had already measured at 10am.

Do you really buy the ± 0.05 degrees?

Do you not? One station might take a measurement an hour too early, but just as likely another will take it an hour too late; the net effect of (random/unaccounted-for) human or instrumental error is likely to be rather low. More importantly, there's now been over 30 years of satellite data to cross-check against for spatial and temporal distribution of temperatures in the lower atmosphere; higher quality measurements of ocean temperatures; and more precise, automated measurement systems in many land stations.

Those are the uncertainty estimates of GISS, but HadCRUT's are about the same:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets
hadcrut4_annual_global.png
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Your area isn't a global temperature series, of course :lol:
I know, but the monitoring station hasn't moved nor has the landscape of it changes for more than 40 years as it is an old established area.

If those stations were moved from inner cities to the outskirts, the temperatures before the move might have been found to be artificially high due to urban heat, and therefore adjusted downwards (station history adjustment); the magnitude of the adjustment can be correlated both against the new locations' data and nearby rural stations' data. If a later standardized time of measurement for daytime temperatures was 10am, but a station had previously measured at 1pm, the earlier temperatures may have been higher than the 10am standard, and therefore adjusted downwards (time of day debiasing); the magnitude of the adjustment can be correlated against measurements throughout the day, and against nearby stations which had already measured at 10am.
And how do we know such corrections are correct?

Think about it. We don't. To claim any accuracy in them is a total joke.

Do you not? One station might take a measurement an hour too early, but just as likely another will take it an hour too late; the net effect of (random/unaccounted-for) human or instrumental error is likely to be rather low. More importantly, there's now been over 30 years of satellite data to cross-check against for spatial and temporal distribution of temperatures in the lower atmosphere; higher quality measurements of ocean temperatures; and more precise, automated measurement systems in many land stations.
None of the equipment is accurate enough to justify an accuracy of 0.05 degrees. In fact, the modern electronic temperature equipment is less accurate then mercury thermometers. Satellite data varies from surface data, and are not always in sync.

Those are the uncertainty estimates of GISS, but HadCRUT's are about the same:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

Besides, there is no disagreement that temperature has not stopped since coming out of the maunder Minima. The disagreement is the quantification of the warming.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,237
Reaction score
14,275
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Jmotivator declared that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments"; literally, that the raw global temperature series have record highs at some point other than the most recent years.

This is utterly and obviously false, as I showed, and the accusation of >0.5 degree changes to the global record is also unambiguously an accusation of fraud, not some subtle unconscious bias, as further confirmed by comments in the rest of his post - "artificially lowering," "subtracting home rums from Babe Ruth" and so on..

But the problem is that BEST is not NOAA, and also, BEST data is in no shape to prove any all time record temps given how dramatically uncertain BEST climate records are in the past:

BEST 95percent.JPG

You can't claim any statistical significance of any current record versus BEST full data set.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I know, but the monitoring station hasn't moved nor has the landscape of it changes for more than 40 years as it is an old established area.


And how do we know such corrections are correct?

Think about it. We don't. To claim any accuracy in them is a total joke.

I told you how; comparison with before and after or whole day records from a given station, and with other nearby stations which haven't shared the same adjustment requirement.

But as far as global temperature series go (as I've pointed out several times now) the net difference made by adjustments is essentially insignificant for any practical purposes: From a look at those graphs perhaps 0.02 degrees' net adjustment between 1900 and 2015. In the contiguous United States the total adjustments increase the warming trend, but in Africa the total adjustments decrease the warming. Not surprisingly, self-styled 'sceptics' don't want to talk about Africa or the global temperature series; without fail they want to talk about the United States or individual stations.


#####
#####


But the problem is that BEST is not NOAA, and also, BEST data is in no shape to prove any all time record temps given how dramatically uncertain BEST climate records are in the past:

Let's start with the basics here: You claimed of global temperature series that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments," which is obviously complete bull****, as I showed. Can you acknowledge that, or if not then try to offer something to substantiate your claim? The unadjusted temperatures series do not come even remotely close to matching modern temperatures at any point before the past two decades. Modern temperatures are at record highs in the unadjusted global data, and your appeal to a graph of temperatures from the south-eastern USA was and is utterly disingenuous regardless of which analysis you pointed to.

View attachment 67205421

You can't claim any statistical significance of any current record versus BEST full data set.

You can't claim that any previous year or period was a record based on that data or the unadjusted raw data on which it was based, and yet that is what you did. I'll look forward to your retraction.


Now, looking at the annual mean and starting from 1880 (like the NOAA and GISS series), the record high temperatures of recent years are obviously well above the 95% confidence interval. This data seems to finish up around 2009, showing the 1998, 2002, 2005 and 2007 peaks:
mean:12



Of course data from longer ago has greater uncertainty, that's a no-brainer. The Global Historical Climatology Network has ~1650 instrumental records going back before 1906, but only ~220 going back before 1856. Furthermore, the Southern Hemisphere data suffers from much poorer coverage, even relatively speaking, the further back we look.

Fortunately where instrumental records fail us proxy records can provide an alternative. Mann et al 2008 report the use of 460 proxy records going back to 1600 and 177 going back to 1400. For slightly different reasons, the Southern Hemisphere is again under-represented in proxy reconstructions (although having much more ocean, it's less likely to have bigger temperature spikes than the NH anyway), and again proxies are less reliable further back in time. Nevertheless, there's enough information available to conclude with high confidence that the past 10-20 years have been the hottest period of that length in at least the past 6-8 centuries.

IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch5 Figure 5.7:
Fig5-07.jpg
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You stated that there are "people who plan to do the controlling" and require "total subservience of every human being on the planet," who are using climate science to (somehow) achieve that end.

Not only is that the mother of all conspiracy theories, it's an utterly ridiculous one: Adjusting the global temperature trend of the past century from roughly +0.8 degrees C (raw data) to about +0.82 degrees C (corrected series)... you really think that's an important milestone on the road to taking over the world? :doh



Wish I could remember who it is who's got that signature about a cool movie plot: A plucky bunch of billionaires and multinational oil companies band together and struggle to save humanity from the scientists' world domination plans!



Edit: The funniest part about all this is that there are a couple of points worthy of criticism in Monbiot's article, and a few important issues raised also: But people who find themselves unable to even acknowledge the fact that, with two and perhaps soon three record-breaking years in a row, global surface temperatures are the hottest on instrumental record (and hence with high probability the hottest in at least 6-8 centuries) will only ever end up making themselves look foolish.


There is no part of my statements you posted that are not true.

From agreements in Paris, and via UN resolution, the human race will be expected to alter the way it lives to address the agenda that has been agreed to.

Who elected the people who are working out these plans?

If those outside the inner circle creating these new regulations want to change any part of the effort, will those changes take place, how will they even be heard?

Your response is typical - deny, deny, deny. Rather ironic given the denier rhetoric invented to avoid rational discussion.

I've raised reasonable points, and you've taken the typical road.

It's a real problem with the AGW'st agenda, and it appears by the typical response, nothing close to conspiracy, and totally, factually, and demonstrably true.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There is no part of my statements you posted that are not true.

From agreements in Paris, and via UN resolution, the human race will be expected to alter the way it lives to address the agenda that has been agreed to.

Do you understand that saying there are "people who plan to do the controlling" and require "total subservience of every human being on the planet" is a far, far, oh yes very far indeed, cry from talking about the agreements in Paris?

If you offered substantive points of discussion (which, wrong though they may occasionally be, folk like Lord of Planar and Jmotivator certainly do) it would undoubtedly be possible to have an actual discussion. Instead you've gone off the rails with nothing but exaggerated rhetoric, vague insinuations and obvious non-sequiturs.

Example:
Who elected the people who are working out these plans?

Well gee, the US delegation negotiates the position set by the elected US government. The Australian delegation negotiates the position set by the elected Australian government. Maybe things are a tad more complicated in Europe, but really this is a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?

More importantly, the discussions between governments at climate summits in Paris or Doomadgee or Copenhagen have absolutely no effect on the facts of climate science which prompted them in the first place. For crying out loud, that's like arguing that nuclear non-proliferation talks are evidence that there must not be many nukes!

The conspiracy theory - scientists want to take over the world and have concocted this AGW plot to do so - follows a comprehensible logical sequence, but is utterly absurd in any empirical evaluation. What you seem to be proposing here may well attempt to look at empirical realities - the Paris summit obviously occurred *gasp* - but has roughly zero logical coherency.

Maybe you will now combine the two, and propose some shadowy, unidentifiable supra-national group which controls both the scientists and the government discussions? I can just see the name Maurice Strong galloping towards the tip of your tongue, or maybe I'm just remembering past discussions :lol:
 
Last edited:

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,237
Reaction score
14,275
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let's start with the basics here: You claimed of global temperature series that "The records are set only after anthropogenic data adjustments," which is obviously complete bull****, as I showed. Can you acknowledge that, or if not then try to offer something to substantiate your claim? The unadjusted temperatures series do not come even remotely close to matching modern temperatures at any point before the past two decades. Modern temperatures are at record highs in the unadjusted global data, and your appeal to a graph of temperatures from the south-eastern USA was and is utterly disingenuous regardless of which analysis you pointed to.

No, let's start with the real basics here: NOAA is not BEST and you attempt to argue NOAA adjustments with BEST data is dishonest.

You can't claim that any previous year or period was a record based on that data or the unadjusted raw data on which it was based, and yet that is what you did. I'll look forward to your retraction.

No, I did no such thing. I showed that the warming tend of NOAA Southeast US data was almost entirely based on adjustments. Likewise, as I pointed out in another thread, nearly half a degree of NOAA's radiosonde warming trend comes from NOAA adjustments:

2016-03-07114423.png


Now, looking at the annual mean and starting from 1880 (like the NOAA and GISS series), the record high temperatures of recent years are obviously well above the 95% confidence interval. This data seems to finish up around 2009, showing the 1998, 2002, 2005 and 2007 peaks:
mean:12

And you are being dishonest again. Why did you cut the older data out of the BEST graph here? If you want to use BEST a source to show record temperature it is completely dishonest to cut out the part of the record that shows your claim is problematic.

Likewise, if your argument is that 2016 is only a record out of the last 130 years then your argument is weak indeed.


Of course data from longer ago has greater uncertainty, that's a no-brainer. The Global Historical Climatology Network has ~1650 instrumental records going back before 1906, but only ~220 going back before 1856. Furthermore, the Southern Hemisphere data suffers from much poorer coverage, even relatively speaking, the further back we look.

Fortunately where instrumental records fail us proxy records can provide an alternative.

HAH! Let the above statement sink in, everyone.

Mann et al 2008 report the use of 460 proxy records going back to 1600 and 177 going back to 1400. For slightly different reasons, the Southern Hemisphere is again under-represented in proxy reconstructions (although having much more ocean, it's less likely to have bigger temperature spikes than the NH anyway), and again proxies are less reliable further back in time. Nevertheless, there's enough information available to conclude with high confidence that the past 10-20 years have been the hottest period of that length in at least the past 6-8 centuries.

IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch5 Figure 5.7:
Fig5-07.jpg


Have these proxies been test against observational data? Nope. The tree ring proxies especially have been tested and tuned against the observed climate data, never tested to see if they can independently produce a close proximity to the instrumental record. In fact, one of Mann's greatest statistical sins (and there are many) is that he cut off his proxy data in the mid 1900s because his tree ring data was dramatically diverging from the instrumental record, showing that his Tree=Thermometer theory was bogus.

The real giveaway that proxies are extremely problematic is how the various reconstructions dramatically diverge as you go back in time. Were these proxies dependable and accurate then they would all report the same results and they clearly don't.
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you understand that saying there are "people who plan to do the controlling" and require "total subservience of every human being on the planet" is a far, far, oh yes very far indeed, cry from talking about the agreements in Paris?

If you offered substantive points of discussion (which, wrong though they may occasionally be, folk like Lord of Planar and Jmotivator certainly do) it would undoubtedly be possible to have an actual discussion. Instead you've gone off the rails with nothing but exaggerated rhetoric, vague insinuations and obvious non-sequiturs.

Example:


Well gee, the US delegation negotiates the position set by the elected US government. The Australian delegation negotiates the position set by the elected Australian government. Maybe things are a tad more complicated in Europe, but really this is a bit of a no-brainer, isn't it?

More importantly, the discussions between governments at climate summits in Paris or Doomadgee or Copenhagen have absolutely no effect on the facts of climate science which prompted them in the first place. For crying out loud, that's like arguing that nuclear non-proliferation talks are evidence that there must not be many nukes!

The conspiracy theory - scientists want to take over the world and have concocted this AGW plot to do so - follows a comprehensible logical sequence, but is utterly absurd in any empirical evaluation. What you seem to be proposing here may well attempt to look at empirical realities - the Paris summit obviously occurred *gasp* - but has roughly zero logical coherency.

Maybe you will now combine the two, and propose some shadowy, unidentifiable supra-national group which controls both the scientists and the government discussions? I can just see the name Maurice Strong galloping towards the tip of your tongue, or maybe I'm just remembering past discussions :lol:


Why are you locked into a total denial defense? It's not remotely rational to deny the effort being put forth by global government/regulatory bodies to deal with the issue. The denial borders on obsessive delusion.

I can only conclude this response, which unfortunately has become almost universal, is a strong indicator of cult like obsession.

The execution of the plan to address AGW being worked out by the UN and other global bodies, requires a fundamental change in the way human beings go about living and working.

Yes, or No?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
2,618
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The execution of the plan to address AGW being worked out by the UN and other global bodies, requires a fundamental change in the way human beings go about living and working.

Yes, or No?

No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does?
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does?

:shock:

Articles from the UN, IPCC Mitigation plan, reports provided from previous meetings in Paris, Rio, going back as far as the first environmental conference in 1992.

Am I to conclude you believe nobody will be required to change anything they are doing, and that it will be nothing but status quo? Please confirm so I can understand where your "No" is coming from.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,038
Reaction score
14,406
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I told you how; comparison with before and after or whole day records from a given station, and with other nearby stations which haven't shared the same adjustment requirement.

It is that simplicity in thought that allows error to be introduced. There are too many variables to think it that easy.
 
Top Bottom