Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[CapelDodger]

RSS and UAT would disagree.

By how much?

 

[bokonon]

We do know what's been happening to carbon recently, which is that vast amounts are being brought up from underground and burnt in the atmosphere. This clearly wasn't the case 55 million years ago (otherwise the fossil fuels wouldn't have been there for us to dig up). It's an interesting conundrum, but it is not by any means a refutation of climate models or of AGW.

Just a question -- is there any indication that global temperatures gradually cooled over the hundreds of millions of years during which all this carbon was being sequestered? I assume most of it was coming from atmospheric CO2 that plants were transforming into plant-stuff, but that assumption may not be valid.

 

[Tricky]

Two threads merged. Poptech, do not continue starting multiple threads on what is essentially the same topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Poptech]

The article clearly stated that all the data are available. For Santer (or any other researcher) to collect the data for ClimateAudit, he would have to either do it on his own time for free or charge the time that he spent to one of his grants (which would be a contract violation). I personally find Santer's reply amusing. He obviously knows that McIntyre wouldn't have a clue how to do the sort of analysis that was done in the paper.

Actually Santer has all the data (unless he deleted it) and could send it to McIntyre if he was truly interested in validating his work. Otherwise there is no reason to accept the results of his paper. I am not surprised you would support this type of scientific obstruction to validation.

 

[Poptech]

Two threads merged. Poptech, do not continue starting multiple threads on what is essentially the same topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

This is not the same topic, the paper is completely different than this one discussed here.

It seems some people are afraid people might read it. It is clear what is going on in these forums. As soon as I provide scientific evidence that is counter to the religious belief about AGW here it is censored.

ANYONE CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. CENSORSHIP IS ALL YOU HAVE LEFT.

 

[DogB]

RSS showed a 0.181 degC increase in the lower troposphere and a 0.019 degC increase in the middle troposphere, if I correctly interpreted their tables.

Without getting into a slanging match about what is a fairly arbitrary figure* - you're right about the June data.

[size=-2]Proof of arbitrariness - May 1999 to May 2009 figures (and I swear I only picked this month because it was that last available month other than June). GIS=+0.35deg, RSS=-0.002deg[/size]

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Actually Santer has all the data (unless he deleted it) and could send it to McIntyre if he was truly interested in validating his work. Otherwise there is no reason to accept the results of his paper. I am not surprised you would support this type of scientific obstruction to validation.

There were a quite a few co-authors, so it's quite possible that none of them individually has all the data, just the results. In any event, why should any of them waste time packaging their data for a non-scientist who wouldn't know how to properly analyze it if he had it? It's not "obstruction to validation" to not waste time collecting data for someone who doesn't work in and doesn't understand the field and who has a history of misrepresenting results.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Without getting into a slanging match about what is a fairly arbitrary figure* - you're right about the June data.

[SIZE=-2]Proof of arbitrariness - May 1999 to May 2009 figures (and I swear I only picked this month because it was that last available month other than June). GIS=+0.35deg, RSS=-0.002deg[/SIZE]

The whole point was to show that if you pick arbitrary dates you can find data that supports your position.

 

[Poptech]

Telly I would like to continue but the constant censoring of my replies and posts makes this impossible. Take care.

 

[CapelDodger]

Just a question -- is there any indication that global temperatures gradually cooled over the hundreds of millions of years during which all this carbon was being sequestered? I assume most of it was coming from atmospheric CO2 that plants were transforming into plant-stuff, but that assumption may not be valid.

There's a mass of evidence that the Carboniferous was much warmer than more recent times and cooled as CO2 was sequestered in what we now know as fossil-fuels. Which is only to be expected, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

As soon as I provide scientific evidence that is counter to the religious belief about AGW here it is censored.

You haven't presented any evidence against AGW. You've merely presented evidence that models are inaccurate (which just about everyone already knew).

 

[MattusMaximus]

This is not the same topic, the paper is completely different than this one discussed here.

It seems some people are afraid people might read it. It is clear what is going on in these forums. As soon as I provide scientific evidence that is counter to the religious belief about AGW here it is censored.

ANYONE CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. CENSORSHIP IS ALL YOU HAVE LEFT.

Sigh...

 

[DogB]

By how much?

It varies. The two data sets aren't measuring exactly the same thing, so obviously there's some differences. They do seem to be drifting apart just a bit - most obviously in the last couple of years.

What that means – your guess is almost certainly better than mine.

 

[Wowbagger]

You still haven't explained what you would replace climate models with.

CENSORSHIP IS ALL YOU HAVE LEFT.

And what, exactly, was censored?

 

[DogB]

The whole point was to show that if you pick arbitrary dates you can find data that supports your position.

Certainly. My point was that you don't even have to pick arbitrary dates, you can pick arbitrary datasets (and we didn't even play with UAT).

 

[Poptech]

Sigh...

No it is censorship. Everyone of my topics has been locked/moved/edited/combined. The one I just started was a completely separate discussion from this one's paper.

And what, exactly, was censored?

What hasn't? You don't get all the PM's of my comments being edited. I get dozens at a time. So when you go back to a topic or try to follow it, my replies are butchered and gone.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You still haven't explained what you would replace climate models with.

And what, exactly, was censored?

Nothing. He's been allowed to say pretty much anything he/she wants. It's just that his/her tactic is to spam whatever forum in which he/she is posting in an effort to overwhelm the conversation, and the Mods are wise to this trick.

So, in PT's mind this equates to "censorship" -- cry me a river

 

[MattusMaximus]

No it is censorship. Everyone of my topics has been locked/moved/edited/combined. The one I just started was a completely separate discussion from this one's paper.

What hasn't? You don't get all the PM's of my comments being edited. I get dozens at a time. So when you go back to a topic or try to follow it, my replies are butchered and gone.

Blame yourself for attempting to spam the Forum. If you'd adhere to the same rules as the rest of us, this wouldn't be a problem.

Grow up, PT.

ETA: Let's get back on topic now, shall we?

 

[Poptech]

Nothing. He's been allowed to say pretty much anything he/she wants. It's just that his/her tactic is to spam whatever forum in which he/she is posting in an effort to overwhelm the conversation, and the Mods are wise to this trick.

No I Haven't my replies have been consistently edited. Which makes it impossible for me to continue a previous discussion in many cases because the original comments by others are left intact validating them by censoring my reply. You don't see the moved posts or what was said just the moderated edit. There is no trick, only the use of moderators to control/restrict what I can say.

 

[Improbable Joe]

I suggest reading the above information as that procedure is not so easy if you are challenging predetermined science.

That's just a flat-out incorrect statement, based on a blatant misrepresentation. It is damned easy to challenge anything and everything in science. Journals regularly publish corrections and challenges to all sorts of science. However, those challenges are only taken seriously if they are legitimate.

Unfortunately for you, the anti-reality challenges you would likely support are too stupid and/or dishonest to be taken seriously, although they ARE considered before they are rejected.

Sorry, you are just wrong.