Global warming discussion III

[Reality Check]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/23/nei...eliefs_are_even_crazy_for_christians_partner/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...scientific+evidence+shows/10157491/story.html

Still unable to understand that Googling for the words "Theory of Global Warming" will not automatically get results for a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming", r-j !

 

[r-j]

It's most likely a complete waste of time, but then, that is the internet in brief. In regards to confusing OLR data with climate, one more time for the road.

in the hope some soul will make sense of the obvious, but, you know, I got sick expecting everyone to acknowledge Earth's orbit is not circular, so I don't have high hopes.

It's likely nobody cares enough to even engage you in any way. I was doing you a solid by at least trying to educate you about what the OLR actually shows, which is scientific and interesting. Here's the adjusted satellite view of the day on the table.

Here's some climate data for that month.

It shows what you think isn't happening, if you could just grasp the difference between the two graphics. The fact that NH winters are milder due to being closer to the sun is so well known, it's like discovering the wheel.

Look carefully the region between 75N and 90N and appreciate how about a half of it -a tiny little bit less than a half- radiated more than 180 W/m2,

No, you have confused the cloud top temperatures with climate data. It's why you can see the same IR signature over both poles, and at the equator, at the same time.

In a couple of days I'll reply this -and any comment that might arise on it- and say goodbye to this thread and topic.

Nobody will care one way or the other.

 

[r-j]

So let's cut to the chase r_j.

I did in the very first response to the claims found on realclimate, by the Berkeley experts.

Their claims were so egregious, so completely out there, that anyone can simply look at the official data from 1930-1948, and see with ease why they are either idiots, or liars. Or more likely, just repeating some idiot claim they read. Obviously neither has actually done any research on Chicago weather history, and especially on the station changes made.

That they use this completely wrong, even fabricated idea, to adjust temperatures shows clearly how wrong those people are, and why changing past data (not the actual data, they can't touch that), and presenting it as the true climate story, is fraudulent in the extreme.

 

[lomiller]

I did in the very first response to the claims found on realclimate, by the Berkeley experts.

Their claims were so egregious, so completely out there

We’ve already established that you have no basis for this claim. All you have shown is your distance for science and scientists, which doesn’t so much impinge their position is it does your.

 

[r-j]

People who makes a claim, (and one that is obviously woo woo), also claim that somebody else has to "prove it's not true", that is the very definition of woo woo behavior. Science has no trouble supporting claims, with evidence. Of course I checked the records, since it's easy and fast, and I already have done extensive study of the area they used as an example.

In this case, the obvious "move the goalpost" and "handwaving" that would greet an extensive use of evidence to show exactly how wrong they are, already happened. So I have no interest in doing your work, much less trying to convince you to be skeptical.

Even if I did all the work, and you realize with out a doubt I am 100% correct, and these Yahoos are completly wrong, it won't matter. It will just be a repeat of the following.

You have shown what was probably an error at one temperature station. I've seen far more evidence than that to suggest the moon landings were faked. It's really not much of a conspiracy theory is it? You really will have to try harder.

Knock yourself out trying to prove that claim is true and that this isn't a claim of fraud.

Goal posts moving, handwaving, red herrings, anything to avoid the facts of the matter.

 

[r-j]

For example:

To review. Two actively publishing climate scientists who work with this very data have indicated the presence of this weather station. You called them liars. Now you want us to go though the raw data to prove to you they are not?

What I said is clear and not what you claim at all. You are stating false claims.

Let me make this perfectly clear, these yahoos here are making a multitude of claims, with no evidence. False. The records from Chicago never show any days that hot, much less "a slew of days ". If they can't prove it, then they are indeed liars.

The continuos record is from the U.S. Court House 219 S Dearborn St., which moved to the University of Chicago, Rosenwald Hall, 58th St and University Ave, and at no time were they recording temperatures that high, much less ignoring such an event.

After that whopper, I doubt any claim you make. It's like these people are repeating some nonsense, and are unaware of how the NWS operated.

The strawmen, the misdirection, the switching of the burden of prrof, and the obvious lies about what I've said, it's not scientific at all.

The data from the NWS is scientific. Since it would take any skeptic about 3 minutes to know their claims are absurd, that nobody else has, means something else other than science and skepticism is going on here.


And it's very obvious those two "experts" were talking out their rears.

 

[macdoc]

That would be distain based on abysmal ignorance.

but we knew what you meant.

Meanwhile teh jet stream wobbles and weird weather reigns...

Brace for a September ‘polar vortex

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/themargin/2014/08/07/brace-for-a-september-polar-vortex/

Snow fans are happy tho in the west

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...the_polar_vortex_and_frigid_temperatures.html

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's most likely a complete waste of time, but then, that is the internet in brief. In regards to confusing OLR data with climate, one more time for the road.
It's likely nobody cares enough to even engage you in any way. I was doing you a solid by at least trying to educate you about what the OLR actually shows, which is scientific and interesting. Here's the adjusted satellite view of the day on the table.

Here's some climate data for that month.

It shows what you think isn't happening, if you could just grasp the difference between the two graphics. The fact that NH winters are milder due to being closer to the sun is so well known, it's like discovering the wheel.

No, you have confused the cloud top temperatures with climate data. It's why you can see the same IR signature over both poles, and at the equator, at the same time. Nobody will care one way or the other.

You are a funny man . Next time try to pass page one when you google something. You have such no idea at all about what you're talking about that even your prose reflects that: "...what the OLR actually shows, which is scientific and interesting". It reminds me kids making an impression of the adults they know and what they consider to be adult parlance.

A detail: none of your figures relate to OLR. Again, you shouldn't have embarked yourself in a fishing expedition if you don't know what a fish looks like.

Didn't you know you were excluded of the group of people my question was address too. You're underdeveloped to try and answer such questions, that's why the funny -amusing- things you come up with.

Tonight I'm answering the questions for those who should have known the answer. For you, next time try to start by not mixing up level 1 products with level 2 or 3 products.

 

[greybeard]

You are a funny man . Next time try to pass page one when you google something. You have such no idea at all about what you're talking about that even your prose reflects that: "...what the OLR actually shows, which is scientific and interesting". It reminds me kids making an impression of the adults they know and what they consider to be adult parlance.
A detail: none of your figures relate to OLR. Again, you shouldn't have embarked yourself in a fishing expedition if you don't know what a fish looks like.

Didn't you know you were excluded of the group of people my question was address too. You're underdeveloped to try and answer such questions, that's why the funny -amusing- things you come up with.

Tonight I'm answering the questions for those who should have known the answer. For you, next time try to start by not mixing up level 1 products with level 2 or 3 products.

I hope you reconsider leaving Alec. You may be more abrasive these days but you are always erudite and funny as well.

 

[lomiller]

People who makes a claim, (and one that is obviously woo woo), also claim that somebody else has to "prove it's not true", that is the very definition of woo woo behavior.

Sort of like you claiming scientists are all lying and then demanding we prove they are not...

 

[r-j]

The recursion is magnificent.

Sort of like you claiming scientists are all lying and then demanding we prove they are not...

More woo woo tactics. If you really think I said that, just quote it. The reason you don't, is because of course you made it up, or in your parlance, you lied again.

You called them liars.

Once more, unless you quote where I said that, you won't get a response. It's trolling. And you are claiming something that is not true.

especially since you have provided no evidence to support your assertion they are lying.

Again, you are making things up, then expecting me to answer your made up nonsense. It doesn't work like that. What I stated is still available.

Let me make this perfectly clear, these yahoos here are making a multitude of claims, with no evidence. False. The records from Chicago never show any days that hot, much less "a slew of days ". If they can't prove it, then they are indeed liars.

If they, or anyone really, could provide any evidence to support the claim, the matter would be far different. What I said, and still say, is easy to comprehend.

The claims about bad readings in the past are often easily debunked. Because they are completely false. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/

Simply check the actual records, and you will find no record of any day that had a high of 113 in Chicago, from any weather station of any kind.

This is the problem when people make things up, and don't provide any evidence, like we see from Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde on realclimate.

It's why one should be skeptical.

When you claim I said something, and it's not true, it makes you a liar. And you have zero credibility.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If they, or anyone really, could provide any evidence to support the claim, the matter would be far different. What I said, and still say, is easy to comprehend.

r-j,
OK clearly Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde made a mistake in claiming

"you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F)"

It appears to be a false statement by the Real Climate guest commentary. Not the first time a guest commentator came with an exceptionally poor "facts" and/or "analysis".

But hey, people make mistakes. It happens. My question for you would be where are you going with it? Do you think the homogenised daily temperature field is wrong too? Surely a couple data points from one city wrong wouldn't really ruin the whole chart would it? Or would it? It wouldn't ruin the whole climate models would it? Or would it?

 

[r-j]

At last, a reasonable person arrives.

r-j,But hey, people make mistakes. It happens. My question for you would be where are you going with it?

I already clearly stated my position about this. The reaclclimate yahoos were brought up, to explain why the past must be made colder. I quite rightly pointed out it was complete fabrication of reality, it's insultoing to the NWS, and it shows why skepticism is the way to approach claims like that.

Do you think the homogenised daily temperature field is wrong too?

It's one of those things we can find out. you show me where somebody has done that, I will find out.

It wouldn't ruin the whole climate models would it? Or would it?

That's a different subject. But this wholesale cooling of the past, and even worse, raising the current temperatures, which does not match the data, it is a scientific travesty.

We’ve already established that you have no basis for this claim..

No, and it seems somebody else checked the records and knows exactly why the claims are absurd. The adjustments to the record (or rather what is presented as fact) is a travesty. Especially when, as in the case of Chicago, looking at the data and the historic changes, shows the adjustments are completely wrong. The move from the University to the airfield clearly shows a change, but they adjusted the data the wrong way.

The airfields are hotter in summer, and colder in winter, which is exactly what one would expect. Because next to lake Michigan temperatures are moderated by the water. When they moved the official records, the adjustments would go exactly the opposite of what these real climate "experts" are claiming.

It's probably why their adjusted records are so far from any reality. That any skeptic would just buy the story, and not bother to check, that is a little disturbing.

 

[r-j]

It would be helpful to remember how this sidetrack started.

. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.

a total crock....you cannot support this claim as you've never been able to support you other bits of conspiracy records.
This all simply points to your abysmal lack of understanding of how statistics in climate work. Tiresome wilful ignorance of how science and math works.

Learn something

ew daily temperature dataset from Berkeley
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — group @ 5 March 2014

280

EmailShare
Guest commentary from Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells. To date, only raw quality controlled (but not homogenized) daily temperature data has been available through GHCN-Daily and similar sources. Using this data is problematic when looking at long-term trends, as localized biases like station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes can introduce significant biases.

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F). It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city. This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S., where many stations were moved from city cores to newly constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s. Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.vdvks41p.dpuf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/

Why does it matter that it is a crock? Taking each part on it's own is educational.

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells.

That part is true of course.

To date, only raw quality controlled (but not homogenized) daily temperature data has been available through GHCN-Daily and similar sources.

True, unless somebody wants to mix it all up, daily data hasn't been blended.

Using this data is problematic when looking at long-term trends, as localized biases like station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes can introduce significant biases.

There's where they have to provide sound evidence to support the claim. Especially for any changes made. Which is why what comes next is so wrong.

Remember, the following is the justification for the previous claim, that changes to methodology introduced biases, which have to be corrected, to get climate data.

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F).

No, you don't find anything even close to that. It's so wrong in every possible way. Which is why the next thing is so hideous, and insulting.

It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city.

They are claiming the rooftop station showed higher readings, when in fact it always shows cooler temperatures than the airfields. Except for winters, where it shows higher readings at times, due to the huge lake right next to it.

This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S., where many stations were moved from city cores to newly constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean the temperatures all became somehow cooler now, in fact, each situation is different.

Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

No, the raw data actually shows all kinds of things, important things, and it is the blanket changes made on faulty assumptions that all the past has to be adjusted, that isn't helpful. In fact, it's a travesty.

Like we see with the actual Chicago, and Illinois data. The changes created a false picture, and turned data that is valid into something that didn't actually happen.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Last February Climate scientists had 8 explanations for the pause in global warming

Now Climate scientists have 52 explanations for the pause in global warming

If they keep this up can we call them deniers ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

.

 

[macdoc]

There is no pause in AGW Arnold ...move on - gets tiresome.

 

[DC]

.

Last February Climate scientists had 8 explanations for the pause in global warming

Now Climate scientists have 52 explanations for the pause in global warming

If they keep this up can we call them deniers ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

.

lol their "debunking" is so cute. Trade Winds. they find a paper from 2006 that expected that trade winds will weaken, and the WUWT cult thinks that debunks the Observations.....
comedy gold.

and you take that source serious lol.

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems the Berkley "scientists" didn't know that when a station "moves" in Chicago, it means the official readings are then used from the new station, not that they actually move the equipment. The old station continues to take readings. So not only is there an abundant set of readings from multiple stations, even after the official station "moved", you can actually check each one, and compare them to each other.

Which of course they did all the time. Is there any possible evidence for this claim of a slew of 113 degree readings?

I can actually ask the NWS.

I'm going to accuse you of plagiarism. You come up with these stories and claim to be providing evidence, but I don't believe you read this realclimate topic and then went out and did all the research on the temperature records and then posted 'your' evidence here. I want to know where you got this from.

 

[Arnold Martin]

There is no pause in AGW Arnold ...move on - gets tiresome.

"There is no pause" ... is actually #5 on the list

 

[ehcks]

"There is no pause" ... is actually #5 on the list

And it's the only one that matters. There's no point in explaining something if it doesn't exist.

Global atmospheric temperatures are still increasing. The rate at which they are increasing is still increasing. The rate of that rate increase is still increasing. Perhaps the third derivative is negative. That's not a pause.