Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

mhaze said:
Odd you would contradict yourself so quickly. Wait, you could easily go find the comment list by reviewers.

As can anyone.
Click to expand...

How is that a contradiction? Gray’s comments were not edited out, and it’s plain for anyone who reads them they are specious, he doesn’t even make a token effort to support most of them.
 
mhaze said:
But sure, read the references and compare their biased selection with the actual scientific literature.
Click to expand...

They do reference the actual scientific literature and their assessment happens to be as unbiased as it gets. So where is this avalanche of papers that disagree with it then?

mhaze said:
How about the IPCC's feedback inflation? Factor "f" is quite interesting, isn't it? But don't worry, "believe the experts". Except, would that be the dissenting experts whose comments were edited out IPCC, or those that toed the line of predetermined conclusions?
Click to expand...

And who might this 'dissenting expert' be in this case? Oh, it's Monckton. Ah well, never mind eh? :)

mhaze said:
Meanwhile, in the real world, what 's going on with the Sun? First calendar month with no sunspots since 1913? Predictions by solar scientists of solar cycle 25 to be one of the lowest in centuries? Are coming decades going to cool or warm, and why? Wait, don't worry - the IPCC says solar influence at 0.12 watts per meter squared, insignificant. (0.12 --> change in T of 0.03C).

Wait, don't worry - the IPCC says solar influence at 0.12 watts per meter squared, insignificant. (0.12 --> change in T of 0.03C).:clap:

Ridiculous!

In the real world, it is necessary to explain the Little Ice Age, not ignore it or try to "Make it go away" as the IPCC tried to do.

Solar Irradience
1610 —- 1364.7338 W/m^2 (Little Ice Age starts)
1710 —- 1363.6195 W/m^2 (Little Ice Age)
1810 —- 1363.7976 W/m^2 (Little Ice Age stops)
1885 —- 1364.7394 W/m^2 (Warming Era)
1910 —- 1364.6566 W/m^2
1985 —- 1365.6506 W/m^2
1998 —- 1366.1111 W/m^2 (warmest year of the decade)
2000 —- 1366.6744 W/m^2
2007 —- 1367.15 W/m^2 (from recent measurements obtained from satellite devices)
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. If, as you say, we are currently cooling down, why is 2007 so much more than 1998?

Anyway, it's not like the IPCC report ignored the data you presented (Lean, 2000). It just turned out to be wrong. Check this bit in section 2.7.1.2 of WG1:

A reassessment of the stellar data was unable to recover the original bimodal separation of lower calcium (Ca) emission in non-cycling stars (assumed to be in Maunder-Minimum type states) compared with higher emission in cycling stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004), which underpins the Lean et al. (1995) and Lean (2000) irradiance reconstructions. Rather, the current Sun is thought to have ‘typical’ (rather than high) activity relative to other stars.
Click to expand...

ETA: Just checking here, but please don't tell me that you're confusing the changes in the total solar irradiance with changes in its net radiative forcing, are you? You do know that these are different quantities, don't you?
 
Last edited:
David Rodale said:
Below is the rule, not the exception:
[qimg]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/global%20warming/hansenapproved1.jpg[/qimg]


Penalizing warmers for using logical fallacy arguments would keep you in a perpetual negative score.


Click to expand...

Wow, David, up to your usual nonsense I see. Has anyone called you on the hilariously obvious photoshop yet? That sign doesn't even come close to looking real. There's pixalation on the edges for cripes sake! It's perfectly 255,255,255 white.

For reference, here's an actual street sign.

http://philtaylor.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/new-street-sign-11-3-2007.jpg

See how it looks nothing like the obvious shop job?

I'm just wondering, do people have to work hard to look themselves in the mirror after they spend day after day being this dishonest?
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
Wow, David, up to your usual nonsense I see. Has anyone called you on the hilariously obvious photoshop yet? That sign doesn't even come close to looking real. There's pixalation on the edges for cripes sake! It's perfectly 255,255,255 white.

For reference, here's an actual street sign.

http://philtaylor.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/new-street-sign-11-3-2007.jpg

See how it looks nothing like the obvious shop job?

I'm just wondering, do people have to work hard to look themselves in the mirror after they spend day after day being this dishonest?
Click to expand...

GreyICE, it was obvious that "sign" was Photoshopped....what's the big deal?

Anyone could see that it was faked, and placed there for some rather comical emphasis.

Are you really alarmed that people were going to get duped?
 
Wangler said:
GreyICE, it was obvious that "sign" was Photoshopped....what's the big deal?

Anyone could see that it was faked, and placed there for some rather comical emphasis.

Are you really alarmed that people were going to get duped?
Click to expand...

The problem is, some denier posts are so outlandishly stupid that it gets hard to tell.
 
Wangler said:
GreyICE, it was obvious that "sign" was Photoshopped....what's the big deal?

Anyone could see that it was faked, and placed there for some rather comical emphasis.

Are you really alarmed that people were going to get duped?
Click to expand...

The problem is that the humorous emphasis distracts from the actual issue - what are we looking at? As several posters pointed out, that's not how weather stations look. Are we looking at an old, out of service, decommissioned box? It seems likely.

Seriously, what are we looking at? Besides a bad shop job?
 
Piggy said:
The problem is, some denier posts are so outlandishly stupid that it gets hard to tell.
Click to expand...

Piggy,

I agree with you that making a joke on a forum is easy to mis-read or interpret.

What seems like a good idea when posting often just looks weird or misleading when read 10 minutes later, or by someone else.
 
Wangler said:
GreyICE, it was obvious that "sign" was Photoshopped....what's the big deal?

Anyone could see that it was faked, and placed there for some rather comical emphasis.

Are you really alarmed that people were going to get duped?
Click to expand...

A request for clarification of the facts regarding ground based temperature measurement systems.

David Rodale says :Spud1k says:
...in the real world, they're using things like this
​
Who is correct?

DR's statement is carefully qualified.
Spud's is an absolute.

Who is right?
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
The problem is that the humorous emphasis distracts from the actual issue - what are we looking at? As several posters pointed out, that's not how weather stations look. Are we looking at an old, out of service, decommissioned box? It seems likely.

Seriously, what are we looking at? Besides a bad shop job?
Click to expand...

Wasn't the poster of that picture trying to make some point about "hey, look at the poor condition of a typical weather station used to back up AGW"?

If so, then again, who cares if some flimsy sign is Photoshopped..do we think the weather station itself is real, and more importantly, does data quality depend upon external appearance?
 
lomiller said:
That tends to be referred to as a “tipping point” by climate scientists, and it goes away once you once you near a new equilibrium, unlike a true runaway that doesn’t stop. Even if you accept that you could call something like this a runaway, there is a deliberate attempt to conflate it with the real planet destroying runaway.
Click to expand...


That's all that's needed, misinformation, misrepresentation. Read Jennifer Marohasy's blog for a good example of it. Now it's got people on it denying HIV causes aids, plasma woo-ology and all kinds of nuttiness.
 
Wangler said:
Wasn't the poster of that picture trying to make some point about "hey, look at the poor condition of a typical weather station used to back up AGW"?

If so, then again, who cares if some flimsy sign is Photoshopped..do we think the weather station itself is real, and more importantly, does data quality depend upon external appearance?
Click to expand...
Do I think it's real? In the sense that it exists, probably. In the sense that it's actually a weather station? I'd tend to doubt it. If it does exist, the data it's giving probably isn't accurate, at least to modern standards - poor maintenance will make anything slip a few points here and there.

Does it even have a weather vane of any sort on it? I guess wind speed and direction are right out.

The bad shop job just makes is absurd though. Seriously, what are they trying to prove by acting like 12 year olds?
 
GreyICE said:
Wow, David, up to your usual nonsense I see. Has anyone called you on the hilariously obvious photoshop yet? That sign doesn't even come close to looking real. There's pixalation on the edges for cripes sake! It's perfectly 255,255,255 white.

For reference, here's an actual street sign.

http://philtaylor.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/new-street-sign-11-3-2007.jpg

See how it looks nothing like the obvious shop job?

I'm just wondering, do people have to work hard to look themselves in the mirror after they spend day after day being this dishonest?
Click to expand...
Are you playing a double-bluff? The sign is supposed to look fake. :confused:
 
mhaze said:
A request for clarification of the facts regarding ground based temperature measurement systems.

David Rodale says :Spud1k says:
...in the real world, they're using things like this
​
Who is correct?

DR's statement is carefully qualified.
Spud's is an absolute.

Who is right?
Click to expand...
DR said "the rule, not the exception", i.e. that it is the norm for weather stations. That is one hell of a claim.

Spud said "things like". That is not absolute in any sense.

So, when are you and Watts and the rest going start your campaign against all the weather people for using such garbage data for their forecasts?

I mean, real people, like farmers, depend on these forecasts and it's a disgrace that it's all based on lies, don't you think?
 
Wangler said:
Wasn't the poster of that picture trying to make some point about "hey, look at the poor condition of a typical weather station used to back up AGW"?

If so, then again, who cares if some flimsy sign is Photoshopped..do we think the weather station itself is real, and more importantly, does data quality depend upon external appearance?
Click to expand...
The caption claims it's real and Rodale claims that it is the "rule". That's quite a claim.

(We all know the sign is a joke.)
 
a_unique_person said:
That's all that's needed, misinformation, misrepresentation. Read Jennifer Marohasy's blog for a good example of it. Now it's got people on it denying HIV causes aids, plasma woo-ology and all kinds of nuttiness.
Click to expand...
...the Big Bang...Relativity...Basic Thermodynamics...Basic Geometry...
None of those are real science, you know.
 
TrueSceptic said:
DR said "the rule, not the exception", i.e. that it is the norm for weather stations. That is one hell of a claim.

Spud said "things like". That is not absolute in any sense.

So, when are you and Watts and the rest going start your campaign against all the weather people for using such garbage data for their forecasts?

I mean, real people, like farmers, depend on these forecasts and it's a disgrace that it's all based on lies, don't you think?
Click to expand...

I've got peer reviewed articles supporting my claim. What have you got? Nothing. Psychobabble.

Visual evidence doesn't even register in a warmer's brain. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
Do I think it's real? In the sense that it exists, probably. In the sense that it's actually a weather station? I'd tend to doubt it. If it does exist, the data it's giving probably isn't accurate, at least to modern standards - poor maintenance will make anything slip a few points here and there.

Does it even have a weather vane of any sort on it? I guess wind speed and direction are right out.

The bad shop job just makes is absurd though. Seriously, what are they trying to prove by acting like 12 year olds?
Click to expand...
This is a photo of an actual temp monitor site. Many do look like this. Documentation does exist. Anyone want to point to the site reference?

I'm more interested in the vast difference between claim of Spud1k and DR.
 
David Rodale said:
I've got peer reviewed articles supporting my claim. What have you got? Nothing. Psychobabble.

Visual evidence doesn't even register in a warmer's brain. Amazing.
Click to expand...

If there are errors, they will also tend to cooler, as well has hotter. The people who process the readings add in UHI compensation, and statistical checks for local errors across sites.

Australia also has weather recording sites, and they match pretty well the temperature record across the globe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom