Climate, stabilty and feedback

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>It is NOT backed up by science
>It has assumptions and predictions
>NONE of which are coming true today

Let's compare the IPCC's predictions to the predictions of some of the contrarians you are always posting about:

IPCC's predictions using their manipulated data
Real world data show a flat line for the last (almost) 18 years.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Rally Bill
IPCC has lost nearly all credibility among anyone who really pays attention

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

If nothing else John
Progressives are consistant

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09/far-left-climate-geeks-leave-mountain-of-trash-for-cities-to-deal-with/

Quote

The alarmists are worried about global warming.
But, they let others worry about their trash.

Think back
The anti Tea Party groups and their rally
How about crazy occupy wall street nuts
Oh
And the anti Scott Walker buffoons

I am sure the list goes on

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,065]

>IPCC's predictions using their manipulated data
>Real world data show a flat line for the last (almost) 18 years.

OK here's NASA data. And to help you with your cherrypicking I copied only 18 years of the graph to match your window exactly.

Want to "revise your estimate?"

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>IPCC's predictions using their manipulated data
>Real world data show a flat line for the last (almost) 18 years.

OK here's NASA data. And to help you with your cherrypicking I copied only 18 years of the graph to match your window exactly.

Want to "revise your estimate?"

Actually Bill
the data that was manipulated WAS NASA's

The raw NASA data shows a flat line for the last 18 plus years
I posted this before
Want me to re-post it?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

The raw NASA data shows a flat line for the last 18 plus years
I posted this before
Want me to re-post it?

Instead of reporting it, how about you stop pretending to forget all the discussions we've already had about adjusting data. That way we don't have to repeat them again.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

The raw NASA data shows a flat line for the last 18 plus years
I posted this before
Want me to re-post it?

Instead of reporting it, how about you stop pretending to forget all the discussions we've already had about adjusting data. That way we don't have to repeat them again.

I have not forgot anything
I remember those posts and you are still wrong

There IS a correct way to work with data for statisitcal work
What the alarmists have done is NOT the correct way

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

There IS a correct way to work with data for statisitcal work
What the alarmists have done is NOT the correct way

Says the guy who thinks a 22% increase is the same as triple.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

There IS a correct way to work with data for statisitcal work
What the alarmists have done is NOT the correct way

Says the guy who thinks a 22% increase is the same as triple.

No one I know
I posted for you the opinions of others
Mine is different
I do not think 22% is what we will see
I think it will be much much higher

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

I think I am in good company what I think NASA data is less than truthful

But dont let that stop you

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=nasa+manipulated+climate+change+data&oq=NASA+manipu&gs_l=hp.1.0.0l2j0i22i30l3j0i22i10i30j0i22i30l4.4690.8419.0.11252.13.12.1.0.0.0.285.2062.0j10j2.12.0....0...1c.1.53.hp..0.13.2084.4ewoWSOrBWM

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,065]

>Actually Bill
>the data that was manipulated WAS NASA's

Ah, so NASA _and_ the IPCC are in a big conspiracy.

Below is the Hadley instrumental data, again cherrypicked to your desired 18 year range. (The Hadley Center is part of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.)

Want to "revise your estimate?" Or is the Hadley Center in on the conspiracy too?

[rushmc 23]

See my responce to DanG

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,065]

>I think I am in good company what I think NASA data is less than truthful

You are indeed. From your own link:

=================================
Right-wing media forward conspiracy theory that NASA, NOAA manipulate climate data
Research January 27, 2010 4:58 PM
BROOKE OBIE

Investor's Business Daily and American Thinker are forwarding claims made by meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo and computer programmer Michael Smith that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have "cherry-picked" the locations of weather observation stations in order to bias their temperature records in favor of warmer temperatures and thus produce data that supports the existence of global climate change. But climate experts have stated that Smith and D'Aleo's claims are flawed and based on an inaccurate understanding of how global temperature data is calculated and compiled.
===================================

[rushmc 23]

And now yet another new study

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PACIFIC_WARMING_STUDY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-22-15-40-23

Quote

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.

The study compared ocean surface temperatures from 1900 to 2012 to surface air pressure, a stand-in for wind measurements, and found a close match.

"What we found was the somewhat surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve," said lead author Jim Johnstone, who did the work while a climatologist at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington.

"So clearly, there are other factors stronger than the greenhouse forcing that is affecting those temperatures," he added.

So again
another example of new research questioning what the warmists have said

Bill, if the science was settled, why the hell would anyone continue to do any investigations into global warming?

In any event, the arguments are presented in the piece and it is clear more research needs to be done

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,065]

>And now yet another new study

From the study: "The study released by the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not question global warming, but argues there is evidence that in at least one place, local winds are a more important factor explaining ocean warming than greenhouse gases."

That is 100% true. Here in San Diego, for example, winds out of the East (called Santa Anas) absolutely cause higher temperatures - and have been a factor in high temperature records set in Southern California.

As the study notes, that does not challenge the science behind global warming.

>Bill, if the science was settled, why the hell would anyone continue to do any
>investigations into global warming?

Same reason I do research into inductive coupling, even though the science behind Maxwell's Equations is settled (and not doubted by any sane engineer)

This research is a good thing overall. That way when deniers claim "skeptical scientists are being SILENCED!" it's easy to prove them wrong.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>And now yet another new study

From the study: "The study released by the online edition of the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences does not question global warming, but argues there is evidence that in at least one place, local winds are a more important factor explaining ocean warming than greenhouse gases."

That is 100% true. Here in San Diego, for example, winds out of the East (called Santa Anas) absolutely cause higher temperatures - and have been a factor in high temperature records set in Southern California.

As the study notes, that does not challenge the science behind global warming.

>Bill, if the science was settled, why the hell would anyone continue to do any
>investigations into global warming?

Same reason I do research into inductive coupling, even though the science behind Maxwell's Equations is settled (and not doubted by any sane engineer)

This research is a good thing overall. That way when deniers claim "skeptical scientists are being SILENCED!" it's easy to prove them wrong.

They have been silenced for years
They are not taking it anymore and real science is starting to emerge

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,065]

>They have been silenced for years

And yet you have been posting their studies for years.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the poor scientists are victims of suppression, then post the studies you claim are suppressed.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>They have been silenced for years

And yet you have been posting their studies for years.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the poor scientists are victims of suppression, then post the studies you claim are suppressed.

I am not them. I do not need to get my work published. Real researchers do. Hopefully this bs is improving

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,065]

>I am not them. I do not need to get my work published.

Again, you QUOTED them. Several times. So your claim that they have been 'silenced' is pretty silly.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>I am not them. I do not need to get my work published.

Again, you QUOTED them. Several times. So your claim that they have been 'silenced' is pretty silly.

cool now back to the goofy semantics. I am just surprised it did not come earlier

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

rushmc

***>It is NOT backed up by science
>It has assumptions and predictions
>NONE of which are coming true today

Let's compare the IPCC's predictions to the predictions of some of the contrarians you are always posting about:

IPCC's predictions using their manipulated data
Real world data show a flat line for the last (almost) 18 years.

A broken wind up clock is right twice a day . . . those are the times that alarmists claim as their own.

See what I did there?

Pun absolutely intended.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,106]

rushmc

***>I am not them. I do not need to get my work published.

Again, you QUOTED them. Several times. So your claim that they have been 'silenced' is pretty silly.

cool now back to the goofy semantics. I am just surprised it did not come earlier

Ah, the "Semantics Defense". Last ditch defense of someone who knows that he's wrong but won't admit it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

kallend

******>I am not them. I do not need to get my work published.

Again, you QUOTED them. Several times. So your claim that they have been 'silenced' is pretty silly.

cool now back to the goofy semantics. I am just surprised it did not come earlier

Ah, the "Semantics Defense". Last ditch defense of someone who knows that he's wrong but won't admit it.

It appears you have used that defence many times.
Is it that you are admitting failure, being wrong, or ignorance?
It seems that all you can post these days is one simple sentence.
Is that how you articulate your vast ideas in a semantically correct way?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Boomerdog 0]

Just curious.
What should be the proper temperature of the Earth?

Please note: Two lines used above.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

******>I am not them. I do not need to get my work published.

Again, you QUOTED them. Several times. So your claim that they have been 'silenced' is pretty silly.

cool now back to the goofy semantics. I am just surprised it did not come earlier

Ah, the "Semantics Defense". Last ditch defense of someone who knows that he's wrong but won't admit it.

Show me the peer-reviewed research that demonstrates your point. Or are you just another anti-science flat-earther who posts ideas that are not backed by peer-reviewed literature?

My wife is hotter than your wife.