The REAL global warming

[Ingot54]

I don't make a trade without having done some very serious homework to back it up

BS (pun intended), I wonder whether you realise the stupidity of your remarks.

I'd be willing to bet that you are still in (losing) demo trading.
I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't have a clue how to analyse an instrument.

Why would I bet on that?

Because a true trader never has to justify to ANYONE whether he does anything before trading, yet you are making your "very serious homework" appear as if it is the essence of some ephemeral success.

Drip.

and I don't let my politics dictate where my data leads (sic) me.

What?

You have politics?
You have data?

Or do you mean you follow some Republican or Democratic agenda, but you distance yourself from your own beliefs?

If "your data" are leading you somewhere, would you care to share the source of your data? I was unaware we were dealing with a real climatologist on this thread.

Where did you take your personal measurements from?
How long have you been taking measurements?
What kind of instruments do you use?
How do you cover so much ground so quickly?

Of course I'm being facetious - and that's the point.

None of us can be hard-nosed on anything - we are just chooks being fed a bit of corn. And as such we are fodder for KFC, unless we begin to think for ourselves.

If there was any failing in our education system it is this - people have never been taught how to think.

Einstein said: "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"

And consider this:

Physics has been, historically, distorted by politics.

In Einstein's case, it was anti-semitism, and he was ridiculed after 1925.

Roger Boscovich - a Yugoslav - and Philosopher (science of physics in those times) - suffered from the "suppressed science" syndrome of the times, and died largely unrecognised, despite making and theorising better concepts than Newton (arguably).

Tesla had his own story, and was on a par with Einstein, imho.

But that's another story.

Meanwhile we have B(D)S doing "some very serious homework to back it up".



Here's some meaningful homework for you, Benton ... free link from me to you:

http://www.edwdebono.com/

 

[Ingot54]

OK, here are a few examples of the worthlessness of the global temperature record as it's presented to us.

This is NASA's latest anomaly map (link: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ )

Now, see the red splodge over Bolivia? Pretty extreme stuff. The only problem is that there has not been any GHCN thermometer data for the whole of Bolivia for 20 years. That's right - not one. Now, Bolivia is not small, so one might ask how they arrive at that red splodge.

No problem - they cobble it together using other thermometers. Some of which are 1200 km away .

Well, big deal, its only Bolivia.

Guess what's coming next.

See that very nasty red splodge in Canada? Serious stuff. Unfortunately, there is only 1 Canadian thermometer north of 65 degrees in the record. That's right, 1. Used to be more, but not in the later stuff. Probably helps "accuracy" .

Anyway, one's all we've got. It's going to be good, right? Well, it depends on your point of view. It's located in something known as the Garden of the Arctic. It does not have this name due to its unusual cold.

And on and on.

Head over here to read more:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/

Granted this has not been peer-reviewed lol:) by other liars, but one does not have to be a specialist to wonder what the hell is going on.

The bottom line is that the global temperature record, as you see it on telly and in the papers, is bogus.

In a different context, here is a statement from Gavin Schmidt, NASA Climatologist:

“The ... known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”

This whole thing is a lie, and a very obvious one. Only the wilfully blind can fail to see it.

Hello ... any alarmists care to comment?

...

... hello??

hello?

Hmmm. Flat batteries!

 

[dcraig1]

Now, see the red splodge over Bolivia? Pretty extreme stuff. The only problem is that there has not been any GHCN thermometer data for the whole of Bolivia for 20 years. That's right - not one. Now, Bolivia is not small, so one might ask how they arrive at that red splodge.

No problem - they cobble it together using other thermometers. Some of which are 1200 km away .

I already posted a statement by Gavin Schmidt regarding the interpolation of temperature anomalies, but you obviously could not understand, or more likely do not want to understand.

Temperature anomalies have a geographically wide spread. This dipstick programmer chooses to interpret that as temperatures are the same over a wide geographical area. Which is nothing other than a complete straw man.

By a temperature anomaly, we mean that if the mean temp averaged over a number of decades is say 20C but the current temperature is 21C, then the anomaly is 1C.

To make this perfectly clear, if we look at a largish geographic area, at one location the temp may be 21C (long term mean 20C) and at another it may be 24C (long term mean 23C). The temperatures are different, but the anomaly (1C) is the same. This has been shown to be statistically valid and also born out by everyday experience - if it is hot is London, usually it is hot in Paris as well, and most likely in Berlin as well though the exact temperatures could well be different. If it is a cold winter it generally embraces most of Western Europe.

It is the temperature anomaly and not the absolute temperature that extends across significant geographical areas. The linked article is drivel.

In a different context, here is a statement from Gavin Schmidt, NASA Climatologist:


“The ... known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”

More stupid, deliberate and dishonest misquoting again.

The full quote is "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

The meaning is quite clear - the years referred to are equally warm within the known accuracy of measurement. And all of those years have been in the last decade.

 

[dcraig1]

BS (pun intended), I wonder whether you realise the stupidity of your remarks.

I'd be willing to bet that you are still in (losing) demo trading.
I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't have a clue how to analyse an instrument.

Why would I bet on that?

Because a true trader never has to justify to ANYONE whether he does anything before trading, yet you are making your "very serious homework" appear as if it is the essence of some ephemeral success.

Drip.



What?

You have politics?
You have data?

Or do you mean you follow some Republican or Democratic agenda, but you distance yourself from your own beliefs?

If "your data" are leading you somewhere, would you care to share the source of your data? I was unaware we were dealing with a real climatologist on this thread.

Where did you take your personal measurements from?
How long have you been taking measurements?
What kind of instruments do you use?
How do you cover so much ground so quickly?

Of course I'm being facetious - and that's the point.

None of us can be hard-nosed on anything - we are just chooks being fed a bit of corn. And as such we are fodder for KFC, unless we begin to think for ourselves.

If there was any failing in our education system it is this - people have never been taught how to think.

Einstein said: "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"

And consider this:

Physics has been, historically, distorted by politics.

In Einstein's case, it was anti-semitism, and he was ridiculed after 1925.

Roger Boscovich - a Yugoslav - and Philosopher (science of physics in those times) - suffered from the "suppressed science" syndrome of the times, and died largely unrecognised, despite making and theorising better concepts than Newton (arguably).

Tesla had his own story, and was on a par with Einstein, imho.

But that's another story.

Meanwhile we have B(D)S doing "some very serious homework to back it up".



Here's some meaningful homework for you, Benton ... free link from me to you:

http://www.edwdebono.com/

What a lot of wordy nonsense. My daughter in years 8 and 9 at school was already being taught how to distinguish between authoritative and credible sources and rubbish.

You would benefit from a similar education.

 

[Ingot54]

What a lot of wordy nonsense. My daughter in years 8 and 9 at school was already being taught how to distinguish between authoritative and credible sources and rubbish.

You would benefit from a similar education.

AGW has credible sources?

 

[zambuck]

This whole so called Global Warming has been proved BEYOND a reasonable doubt by profusion apologies coming from all the Climate Change Gurus - as being baseless and error prone......Latest one was that Parichuri - or whatever he is called guy - apologizing about his predictions for Himalayan Glaziers....!

The whole issue is nothing more than an alarmist propaganda by certain Multinationals, who would like to tout their various products to people.

 

[dcraig1]

This whole so called Global Warming has been proved BEYOND a reasonable doubt by profusion apologies coming from all the Climate Change Gurus - as being baseless and error prone......Latest one was that Parichuri - or whatever he is called guy - apologizing about his predictions for Himalayan Glaziers....!

The whole issue is nothing more than an alarmist propaganda by certain Multinationals, who would like to tout their various products to people.

Since you are obviously in the know, why don't you name those multinationals in a letter to say the The Royal Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science or the American Geophysical Union, giving them the benefit of your astute political analysis and let them know they have been duped.

 

[dcraig1]

AGW has credible sources?

Yes, it's called science which you would (if you could) sacrifice on the alter of your peculiar political obsessions.

 

[zambuck]

Since you are obviously in the know, why don't you name those multinationals in a letter to say the The Royal Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science or the American Geophysical Union, giving them the benefit of your astute political analysis and let them know they have been duped.

...I am NOT in the know...like you very obviouly are having spent days and weeks here on this thread to the point it has been mulched to the deathly boring thread...!

...Of all things you have said on this thread, apologies have been pouring forth from all the climate change gurus etc....The bodies you mention probably can read English....so if you are keen for them to know something....then forward a link to this site and ask them to read....!!

 

[Ingot54]

Yes, it's called science which you would (if you could) sacrifice on the alter of your peculiar political obsessions.

You mean the kind of science practiced by Phil Jones?

Or the kind practiced by Michael Mann?

I'll accept either answer.

 

[rwb]

You mean the kind of science practiced by Phil Jones?

Or the kind practiced by Michael Mann?

I'll accept either answer.

Steady on there Ingot, you can't suggest anything untoward about these people, not allowed I'm afraid. I did and this is the response I got ~

"All these organizations [the usual collection of government funded science clubs] and many others assert that AGW is real and urgent remedial action is essential. In other words, they agree with Jones, Mann, Hansen etc."

Yes you've probably already guessed who said it! Just noticed that these organisations only 'assert' that AGW is real. One of the definitions in my pocket dictionary for assertion reads "n positive statement usually made without evidence".

 

[maiden22]

I already posted a statement by Gavin Schmidt regarding the interpolation of temperature anomalies, but you obviously could not understand, or more likely do not want to understand.

Temperature anomalies have a geographically wide spread. This dipstick programmer chooses to interpret that as temperatures are the same over a wide geographical area. Which is nothing other than a complete straw man.

By a temperature anomaly, we mean that if the mean temp averaged over a number of decades is say 20C but the current temperature is 21C, then the anomaly is 1C.

To make this perfectly clear, if we look at a largish geographic area, at one location the temp may be 21C (long term mean 20C) and at another it may be 24C (long term mean 23C). The temperatures are different, but the anomaly (1C) is the same. This has been shown to be statistically valid and also born out by everyday experience - if it is hot is London, usually it is hot in Paris as well, and most likely in Berlin as well though the exact temperatures could well be different. If it is a cold winter it generally embraces most of Western Europe.

It is the temperature anomaly and not the absolute temperature that extends across significant geographical areas. The linked article is drivel.


More stupid, deliberate and dishonest misquoting again.

The full quote is "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

The meaning is quite clear - the years referred to are equally warm within the known accuracy of measurement. And all of those years have been in the last decade.

God this is getting desperate. To take your point - if temperatures averaged over decades are 20, and today are 21, etc - this still comes down to the accuracy of the temperature record, otherwise how do we know that temperatures used to average 20, but today are 21? And so the siting/number/ quality of the thermometers used is still paramount.

In this respect, sites have been erased from the record, and a large number of sites are so contaminated as to be useless. Much like tree-ring proxies, although there of course when one gets inconvenient results one can always use a "trick" to "hide the decline".

The author of that article is not a dipstick. You say that the anomaly is valid over a very wide area. That depends upon the validity of the measurements being taken. And any comparison between decades demands some continuity - this has been so compromised as to be useless.

 

[maiden22]

It is the denialists who adhere to an ideology with a tenacity defying all logic and reason and ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence that the world is warming and humans are responsible. You use some stolen emails from CRU to make entirely unproved accusations about deliberate falsification of the HADCRUT surface temperature record, and choose to ignore the other independently compiled records which show exactly the the same thing happening - warming. If thats not enough, you also choose to ignore the satellite temperature record - which is also in agreement with the surface record. Again showing warming. You also choose to ignore the rising heat content of the worlds oceans - measured by independent researchers. The melting of the polar and Greenland ice caps, and the retreating glaciers also get the flick. All this evidence is countered by some stolen emails - what a laugh.

If you would be so kind, please explain what relation some stolen CRU emails have to this:

All of this is not countered by "some stolen emails" - no-one has claimed that it is. A few points:

1. This "stolen" business will not wash. Whistle-blowing is not, ethically or in law, the same as theft. Regardless of how the information came into the public domain, it is the content of the emails that is important.

2. The emails reveal very serious flaws with part of the AGW case. That is all, although warmistas are upset because it casts such serious doubt on their credibility and their claims.

3. Posting "total heat content" graphs repeatedly shows nothing. It is for you to prove that total heat content increases are not simply natural variability - which you can't. You can point to grossly exaggerated claims about warming - would you like to try defending the hockey stick?

4. Your ice graph is equally meaningless. What does the scale signify? They are down 20 what? And what is the source?

Your problem is that we have seen so many dramatic graphs and graphics showing this or that doom-laden scenario that trusts them. This is not just Al Gore's fault.

 

[maiden22]

 

[dcraig1]

US sets 17pc carbon emissions reduction target

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reduction-target/story-e6frg6xf-1225824553634

Not enough, but definitely more than a gesture.

 

[maiden22]

I thought that pic might goad you into coming back lol.

 

[Benton D Struckcheon]

Today's ice/snow cover for North America:

Note that the mouth of the St Lawrence is pretty much open, and none of the Great Lakes have iced over completely yet. This is the end of Jan already, so it's getting a bit late.

Last year:

Mouth of the St Lawrence is iced over, as is Lake Erie, and the other Great Lakes have a lot more ice than they do this year.

So much for the silliness about this year being SO much colder. Snow on a particular random day in winter in London means - precisely nothing.
Like I said, bs artists. Whiny bs artists, at that.

 

[dcraig1]

Yet more evidence that humans are in the process of conducting the giant geophysical experiment otherwise known as AGW:

"New NASA-led research shows that the melt season for Arctic sea ice has lengthened by an average of 20 days over the span of 28 years, or 6.4 days per decade. The finding stems from scientists' work to compile the first comprehensive record of melt onset and freeze-up dates -- the "melt season" -- for the entire Arctic."

http://www.physorg.com/news183836066.html

 

[Ingot54]

Yet more evidence that humans are in the process of conducting the giant geophysical experiment otherwise known as AGW:

"New NASA-led research shows that the melt season for Arctic sea ice has lengthened by an average of 20 days over the span of 28 years, or 6.4 days per decade. The finding stems from scientists' work to compile the first comprehensive record of melt onset and freeze-up dates -- the "melt season" -- for the entire Arctic."

http://www.physorg.com/news183836066.html

Just dropped in to see that you two lovers are beavering away at it still - good to see guys.

While you are holed up here on T2W, the breaking news is not looking too good for your "sources".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/31/2805918.htm

1. The United Nations climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported.

In a recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa were caused by global warming.

The report referred to two papers as the source of the information, but the Sunday Telegraph says one of the sources quoted was actually an article published in a magazine for mountaineers.

The article was based on anecdotal evidence about the changes the authors were witnessing during climbs.

2. The newspaper says the other source was a dissertation written by a geography student who was studying for a master's degree at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

The dissertation reportedly quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The claims risk causing fresh embarrassment for the IPCC, which had to apologise earlier this month over inaccurate forecasts about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The IPCC claimed in the 938-page Fourth Assessment Report that the glaciers in the Himalayas could vanish in 30 years.

Though the report spurred politicians around the world to vow action against climate change, it emerged the claim was based on a conversation between a journalist and a single Indian scientist a decade ago.

The IPCC has acknowledged the grim prediction on the fate of the glaciers had been "poorly substantiated" and was a lapse in standards.

The ABC (Ausssie) sure has changed their tune - this is all they report these days - good to see they too have seen the light.

Let me know if you'd like some more "sources" - but I suggest you look through the IPCC records - they have a heap!

Good to see you are taking the "science" seriously though - someone has to keep the flame lit, or should that be extinguished - don't want too much CO2, do we?

Keep searching for "evidence" and wiggly lines - I'll drop in from time-to-time to see what else you are talking to yourselves about.

Does anyone still take notice of NASA?

Yes, at least two people do.

Oh, and close the door and put the lights out as you leave - wouldn't want to waste energy.
Sorry I can't stay for the rest of the show - but let me know when it comes out on DVD - I'll grab a copy from Blockbuster's!

Climate Change ... AGW ....

 

[maiden22]

Does anyone still take notice of NASA?

NASA is thoroughly compromised, and it's sadly necessary to look very carefuly at anything it puts out.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office here last night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research," Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”