Global warming discussion III

[macdoc]

sigh - so old so wrong...
You don't drink raw milk do you? Might give you delusions?
Try some homogenized ..might clear your vision.

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.TGPuNEO2.dpuf

Moving right along to current reality from the myths of denierdom.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...of-methane-in-our-climate-in-five-pie-charts/

 

[a_unique_person]

Anyone else hear about this .....

Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught manipulating date ... weather records going back 60 years showed an actual cooling trend of 1*C per century were "homoginized" and altered to show a warming trend of 2.5*C per century.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/th...logy-altering-climate-figures-the-australian/

ABM accused of manipulating data by the usual idiots. JoanneNova Breitbart

I know what 47C feels like now, and I have never felt it before.

 

[r-j]

Once more ....regional cooling on the continents is expected with a weakening jet stream and that has been a know aspect of AGW and a warming Arctic.

 

[greybeard]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/69pBojh.gif[/qimg]

Who cares r-j. Virtually every assertion you make is unsupported. You ignore all requests to support them so nobody cares what you think is supported or unsupported any more.

 

[Reality Check]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/69pBojh.gif[/qimg]

Oh dear, r-j: Here are the questions from your still unsupported assertion that you have read the O'Hare weather station records from the 1930's and 1940's.

1. r-j (8 September 2014): Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
2. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source for these specific temperatures which you state are from the University station.
3. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source that shows that the University station is the rooftop one that was moved to O'Hare.
4. [B]r-j [/B](23 September 2014): Which weather station or stations does that NWS Chicago list report?

Any support for the selection of the start date in your graph to get a cooling trend is still missing:
r-j cherry picks the starting date to get the trend he wants !
r-j (19 September 2014): Please justify what seems to be an arbitrary selection of 1995 as the starting date of the trend line when there is pre-1995 data in the graph.

 

[r-j]

One thing I've found in regards to AGW, is that facts are about the last thing that matter. Hard scientific facts just do not matter to the global warmer. When faced with them, the last thing we see is any willingness to be skeptical. The Chicago claims are a perfect example.

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.

In fact, days over 100 are rare. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/21/the-hottest-day-ever-in-chicago/

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/27/hottest-days-ever-in-chicago-2/

Now your rational ordinary person would know just from the CBS report what the days over a 100 were. And that there never was any day of 113 reported from Chicago.

Of course the NWS records were also linked to, which removes all doubt, at least to any logical mind. Did it make any difference at all? Of course not.

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.

The official NWS show no days over 105 from O'hare, and only two from Midway, neither from before 1948 of course.

Now to expand on that, what is now O'Hare is now the official WB station, where the official records for Chicago are. That official record includes the old University records, as well as some of the Midway air park records, as the "official" readings were moved around.

Since I wrote "The official NWS show no days over 105 from O'hare, and only two from Midway, neither from before 1948 of course" I've learned a lot more about the station and name changes involved. So that statement isn't enough to explain what actually is the case there.

But what is obvious, is that the Berkeley pair are completely wrong, and the adjustments they made to the Chicago data is very very wrong.

 

[r-j]

Perhaps you would care to explain why Canadian winters are 3.3 C warmer over 60 years...

You don't understand how science works.

Just saying something is meaningless.

What you want to do is use evidence. Like when I say the records are adjusted, and the raw data doesn't show the drastic warming we hear about all the time.

Or how the airport records show a different story than the Berkeley BEST project, or the NCDC shows us.

You see how effective that is?

After you show the evidence, then you show how and why the readings are changed.

Then you might convince somebody.


But just unsupported claims are meaningless.

 

[r-j]

Who cares r-j. Virtually every assertion you make is unsupported.

If that were true, nobody would be worried about anything.

 

[ideogram]

You don't understand how science works.

Science involves answering the questions that people ask you.

 

[Belz...]

One thing I've found in regards to AGW, is that facts are about the last thing that matter. Hard scientific facts just do not matter to the global warmer.

You know, I would really like it if you stopped using rhetoric as your primary method of supporting your claims. Also, I would like you to acknowledge that people actually ask questions and give you information, such as the following question: how come all those smart climate scientists are wrong, and you, a layman, somehow understands the data better than not only the laymen here, but them ?

 

[r-j]

how come all those smart climate scientists are wrong, and you, a layman, somehow understands the data better than not only the laymen here, but them?

First, the question is a fallacy.

If you ask "Why are you saying the Berkeley realclimate commentary is wrong?", then you already have the answer. I've answered it a dozen times at least.

Also, you are asking "how", not why. "How come" isn't a scientific query. Obviously the data shows them to be wrong. It has nothing to do with me. Or you. Or them.

Why do I know more than they do in regards to Chicago? Because I went and actually researched the history, something they obviously did not do.

 

[r-j]

You know, I would really like it if you stopped using rhetoric as your primary method of supporting your claims.

We would all be better informed if everyone started using evidence instead of just saying something.

Obviously if it's just an opinion, nobody needs to provide evidence. But if you are debunking, or debating, you better have your research and data ducks in a row.

 

[ideogram]

r-j, do you think the questions will go away if you ignore them? If you don't have the answers, just say so. Continuing to pretend will only make it worse.

 

[r-j]

Anyone else hear about this .....

I saw a story on it. I checked, and the records do not show the drastic warming that we have heard about. The lBOM has a really nice set of records, anyone can look at.

But if they can't show evidence to support the changes, there will be trouble. Like this Chicago nonsense. Somebody is going to have to answer at some point.

Because it's not just the adjustments, it's the terrible science involved. It's really bad.

 

[ideogram]

I asked you this question:

how much heat is trapped in one CO2 molecule?

I already know the answer. Do you?

 

[r-j]

I already know the answer. Do you?

No you don't. You can't. It's a nonsense question.

It's like asking how much heat is trapped in a water molecule.

See?

How much heat is trapped in one water molecule?

Why don't you answer?

 

[ideogram]

Correct, it is a nonsense question. Every physics major knows that.

Why did it take you so long to answer?

 

[Belz...]

First, the question is a fallacy.

How can a question be a fallacy without being an argument ? I'm asking you a very serious question which you ignored: why should laypeople trust you over climate scientists ? Don't you think that they understand the data better than you ? Don't you think that any disagreement between you and them is more likely to be due to your misunderstanding of the field rather than some world-wide conspiracy ?

Also, you are asking "how", not why.

Yes, because "why" is about reasons. I'm asking you for a process, which is a "how" question.

Obviously the data shows them to be wrong.

If it's that obvious, then you are saying that they are all corrupt ? Do you know how insane this sounds ?

 

[Reality Check]

Like when I say the records are adjusted, and the raw data doesn't show the drastic warming we hear about all the time.

Sorry, r-j, but this is actually "like I will continue deny that there are valid reasons to adjust data (e.g. changes in instruments) and foolishly plot raw data". And the continued unsupported assertion about you having read "airport records":

1. r-j (8 September 2014): Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
2. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source for these specific temperatures which you state are from the University station.
3. r-j (19 September 2014): Please cite your source that shows that the University station is the rooftop one that was moved to O'Hare.

Followed by yet more unsupported assertions (graphs without sources) !

 

[ideogram]

Every physics major would know the answer instantly. You only had to type five words. Instead you avoided the question for three days.