The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

[hutch]

Bacon.

The ones that I named posted stuff on this thread, here, here, and here.

Anyone who only contacted me privately was not mentioned.

[Edit:

I actually don't "want" anyone to know that they supported me, and it's partly the reason why I have not followed up on Botanika's idea. I just wanted to thank them for their comments, as they were confident enough to say stuff in public, and instead of typing a heap of PMs, I thought that it was OK to respond in public.]

[Edit #2:

Read the above stuff, you idiot. I DID NOT USE THE NAMES OF ANYONE WHO ONLY PMed ME!

I only find the need to ridicule when I encounter people who can't get any facts right...

]

 

You just got caught out big noting yourself there hey sunshine

[WoodDragon]

It usually takes a bit to piss me off but this guys arrogant tone and insistence that he alone knows best was enough to tip mePosted Image (blah blah blah)

I'm not saying that I know best, but I am saying that on the subjects discussed in this thread I understand better than do you, because by your own words you are demonstrating your ignorance of the real, actual, true science.

I understand better than you because I have seen each and every argument that you put forward, and each and every bit of propaganda that you proffer as evidence, carefully dissected and refuted - time and again - in the scientific domain.

Science is my profession, and it is why I do appear to know better than you on these particular matters. I get no pleasure from this, believe me - I hate having to put my head out like this, because I detest this sort of confrontation with people who simply refuse to educate themselves such that they have the knowledge that I do. I wish that everyone knew as much as I do about the subject, because it's damned important for each and every one of us. I wish that everyone knew as much as I do about the subject, because I do not "know best" what humanity's chosen responses should be, and I certainly do not know how we can now easily do something to address it...

Denialists like to refer to the climate scientists' warning as "climate hysteria", or "scaremongering". If you only knew how much concern, that never sees the public light of day, lies in the minds of these scientists, you'd know that what they are telling the world is not the worst of what the science implies. Unfortunately, the media uses for quick stories hysterical headlines that distort the short-term manifestations of the best understanding, so many in the lay community start to doubt the reality, but at some point it'll converge with the inevitable, if humans refuse to act now.

I'm quite happy to go on the record as believing that the current catastrophic Queensland flooding has been made much worse than it might otherwise have been, by the warming that we've had even just to date. The oceans temperatures off Australia are an enormous heat engine that is driving the evaporation of the water in the present El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation cycle responsible for the rain. If we keep warming the planet, ocean temperaures with themselves warm even further, and instead of this type of flooding happening evern century or so, it could happen every decade or two. Can we really deal with that?

It's the same with the drought that we've just come out of - heating the planet can cause energy redistributions that can keep water away from particular parts of the planet for years or decades at a time.

It's concern about this sort of change to our world that motivates me, and not your perception of "arrogance" on my part. And you can stop too with your claims of "religion", because I do not place faith in one set of data. I am always scanning the scientific literature for work that might actually prove that scientists' fears are misplaced.

Unfortunately, as much as I hope for otherwise, all the work that happens only corroborates the work that has gone before.

[WoodDragon]

I note you fail to mention anything in regards to Harold Lewis......

Idiot.

You obviously didn't read my post:

On the matter of Hal Lewis, it's quaint that you think that his resignation actually meant anything, but if you had bothered to do some background reading, you'd have discovered that it was a great exercise in huffing and puffing from someone who knows much less about climatology than he pretends. Read this link, it's actually a devastating dismissal of Lewis's drama-queen dummy-spit.

[WoodDragon]

You don't need to down load something to know what size it is dickwad! From the time I posted it you took 1hr and 1 minute to download it and read the whole document. You even had plenty of time to get back on the forum and insult me. You really are as good as you think hey? I made the mistake of questioning the integrity of the science.

No, your mistake is that you are an idiot.

[hutch]

I'm not saying that I know best, but I am saying that on the subjects discussed in this thread I understand better than do you, because by your own words you are demonstrating your ignorance of the real, actual, true science.

I understand better than you because I have seen each and every argument that you put forward, and each and every bit of propaganda that you proffer as evidence, carefully dissected and refuted - time and again - in the scientific domain.

Science is my profession, and it is why I do appear to know better than you on these particular matters. I get no pleasure from this, believe me - I hate having to put my head out like this, because I detest this sort of confrontation with people who simply refuse to educate themselves such that they have the knowledge that I do. I wish that everyone knew as much as I do about the subject, because it's damned important for each and every one of us. I wish that everyone knew as much as I do about the subject, because I do not "know best" what humanity's chosen responses should be, and I certainly do not know how we can now easily do something to address it...

Denialists like to refer to the climate scientists' warning as "climate hysteria", or "scaremongering". If you only knew how much concern, that never sees the public light of day, lies in the minds of these scientists, you'd know that what they are telling the world is not the worst of what the science implies. Unfortunately, the media uses for quick stories hysterical headlines that distort the short-term manifestations of the best understanding, so many in the lay community start to doubt the reality, but at some point it'll converge with the inevitable, if humans refuse to act now.

I'm quite happy to go on the record as believing that the current catastrophic Queensland flooding has been made much worse than it might otherwise have been, by the warming that we've had even just to date. The oceans temperatures off Australia are an enormous heat engine that is driving the evaporation of the water in the present El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation cycle responsible for the rain. If we keep warming the planet, ocean temperaures with themselves warm even further, and instead of this type of flooding happening evern century or so, it could happen every decade or two. Can we really deal with that?

It's the same with the drought that we've just come out of - heating the planet can cause energy redistributions that can keep water away from particular parts of the planet for years or decades at a time.

It's concern about this sort of change to our world that motivates me, and not your perception of "arrogance" on my part. And you can stop too with your claims of "religion", because I do not place faith in one set of data. I am always scanning the scientific literature for work that might actually prove that scientists' fears are misplaced.

Unfortunately, as much as I hope for otherwise, all the work that happens only corroborates the work that has gone before.

 

Are you for real? You know every thing? You've heard it all before? Are you full of yourself or what....Man am I definitely putting in that wood heater for winter..burn baby burn....clown!

[hutch]

Idiot.

You obviously didn't read my post:

 

You love that word idiot don't you....daddy call you that a lot did he?

He never claimed to be an expert on climate change... he resigned over the corruption you fool...did you even read his letter. Where does he state he is an expert?

[hutch]

Well, I have never been a troll or what ever you call it in my life but I think it is going to be my new found religion. I believe it is in the interests of this country that I bring this con to their attention.

Thanks WoodDragon... you've made a climate scandal soldier out of me....I've way too much time on my hands anyway

Personally I don't think any real scientist would waste their time arguing with little old me I'm all a flutter WoodDragon.

Yes I know "idiot"

[WoodDragon]

Are you for real? You know every thing? You've heard it all before?

I have never said that I know everything. All I'm saying is that I understand the subject of human-induced global warming better than do you, simply because you demonstrate that you do not know the science, and because you believe discredited rubbish.

It ain't my fault that you don't know better.

He never claimed to be an expert on climate change... he resigned over the corruption you fool...did you even read his letter. Where does he state he is an expert?

He has been lauded by denialists because he was a professor of physics, who quit because he claimed that climatology was corrupt. He has used his "expertise", and others have done so too, to attack climatology. He has never corrected the record of the many denialist sites who claim that he has expertise to detect corruption in climatological process. The thing is, his claims are crap. Read the ClimateProgress link to find out why, and do some background reading of the rest of his antics.

As to my dad, he was actually very proud of my abilities. He didn't call people names unless they really deserved it.

I follow his example.

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

Well, I have never been a troll or what ever you call it in my life but I think it is going to be my new found religion. I believe it is in the interests of this country that I bring this con to their attention.

Go for it. Once I identify someone as a troll rather than just as an idiot, I stop responding to them. In your case it's a very tempting option.

By way of observation, I note that you simply changed the subject every time I pointed out that you were wrong. How about you stop throwing abstract denialists' claims around, and how about you stop trying to trump me with the next denialist canard or red herring or strawman or whatever gambit your can come up with, and you actually sit sown and type in your own words a clear and detailed physical explanation of where climate science has it wrong. You know, using physics and equations and stuff like that? Do you actually have enough science under your belt to do so?

You can use crayons and paper to draw pretty picture if you like, but it'll be a cold day in hell before you will be able to give a one page answer that shows why climatology is wrong. And if it's wrong, a page should be all it takes to summarise it.

If warming climatology was a fraud, or corrupt, such a one page demonstration would be on the front page of every newspaper, and scientists would be tripping over themselves to be the first to publish something in teh scientific literature that would earn them a Nobel Prize.

It won't be happening any time soon.

[Sheather]

Why does anyone who opposes WoodDragon get -1? Because they're voicing an opinion that you don't agree with? Don't be so childish guys. If anyone deserves -1s it is WoodDragon for being condescending and obnoxious.

(Also, in having downloaded something it is automatically saved, so stating that you downloaded AND saved the document is kind of redundant)

[hutch]

Followed one of your links WoodDragon and found nothing more there than a little boys club but even then there was still is no agreement. So why bother it is still all criminal to me you con artists....

Gentlemen

You really ought to read the methods used before you gloat. The individual station anomaly measurements were based on each stations "1971-2000 station mean". See where the document states:

"Specifically, the unadjusted and adjusted monthly station values were converted to anomalies relative to the 1971–2000 station mean."

In other words, the only thing this study measures is the difference in instrument error at each station. The absolute error occurring at individual stations because the station had not been properly located is not measured. A poor station with an absolute temperature error of +5 degrees C still has a bias error of +5 degree C - no matter what the variation occurring due to instrumentation type.

I'm a chemical engineer with U.S. government and 20 years of research experience in various areas including environmental mitigation. If one of my phD's came to me with this nonsense, I'd fire him on the spot.

Sorry boys, you are going to have to better than this. ]

[/b]

[I'm fully aware of how anomaly data is used ( having used it in my own research) and I know full well what can go awry in the field experiments. We are talking about every day instrument calibration and QA/QC - this is not rocket science. I firmly maintain the Menne 2010 paper is fundamentally flawed and entirely useless.

NASA's individual station temperature readings are taken in absolute temperature (not as an anomaly as you have suggested). The temperature data is reduced to anomaly after the absolute temperature readings for a site are obtained. For example see, the station data Orland (39.8 N, 122.2 W) obtained directly from the NASA's GISS web site. The temperatues are recorded in Annual Mean Temperature in degrees C - not as an anomaly as you have suggested. (Tried to attach a NASA GIF as visual aid -but did not succeed).

Bottom line. Menne has to have (and use) absolute temperature data to get the 1971-2000 mean temperature and then divide the current temp with the mean to get the anomaly. We are back to the same problem - Menne is measuring instrument error - he is not measuring error resulting from improper instrument location. The Menne paper is absolutely useless for the stated purpose.

Anyone who actually collects field data, I have, knows they are going to immediately run into two fundamental problems when an instrument is improperly located. 1) they are not reading ambient air temperature and 2) neither temperature readings nor the anomaly can be corrected back to a true ambient because other factors are influencing the readings.

For example: Suppose we have placed our instrument in a parking lot. Say the mean 1971-2000 temperature well away from the parking lot is 85F; but the instrument is improperly reading a mean of 90F. Now on a given day, say the ambient temp is 93 but your instrument is reading 105F (picked up some radiant heat from a car). Ok our:

Actual anomaly is 93F - 85F = 8F;

Instrument anomaly is 105F - 90F = 15F.

The data is trash. There is simply no way to recover either the actual ambient temperatures nor an accurate anomaly reading. What you are missing is that an improperly placed instrument is reading air temperatures & anomalies influenced by unnatural events.

The readings bear no relationship to either the actual temperature nor the actual anomaly - the data's no good, can't be corrected, and will not be used by a reputable researcher.

Finally, it's not entirely surprising that Menne finds a downward bias in his individual anomaly readings at poorly situated sites. Because: 1) a poorly located instrument produces a higher mean temperature; hence, the anomaly will appear lower; and 2) generally there's a limit to how hot an improperly placed instrument will get (i.e. mixing of unnaturally heated air with ambient air will tend to cool the instrument - so the apparent temperature rise is lower than one might expect).

Had Mennen (NASA) actually measured both absolute temperature and calculated anomaly data using instrumentation at properly setup sites, within say a couple of hundred feet of the poor sites, as a proper standard to measure the bias against - our conversation would be different.

As it stands Menne's data is useless nonsense and not really worth serious discussion.

/quote]

[" A poor station with an absolute temperature error of +5 degrees C still has a bias error of +5 degree C - no matter what the variation occurring due to instrumentation type."

We're interested in trends, so a constant bias has no effect, nor does the choice of baseline from which to compute the anomaly.

For any bias B, and any two temperature reading at points in time N0 and N1, (N0- - (N1- = N0 - N1.

And you can extend that into any statistical trend analysis taken over a time series N0 ... Nn.

"I'm a chemical engineer with U.S. government and 20 years of research experience in various areas including environmental mitigation. If one of my phD's came to me with this nonsense, I'd fire him on the spot. "

I could make a snarky statement about 9th grade algebra students but I'll withstrain myself/quote]

Again...why did they place them in the wrong spots in the first place which went against there own guidelines. Why mate...Why?

[WoodDragon]

Sheather:

Also, in having downloaded something it is automatically saved, so stating that you downloaded AND saved the document is kind of redundant

I think you missed the points. Yes, there are more than one.

1) Hutch claimed that I didn't read Joanne Codling's document:

You didn't even look at the pdf file did you? You disagree so you just ignore it and treat the authors and anyone else with the same disdain.

I told him that I had, and that I knew it's size and that it contained references to Anthony Watt's failed SurfaceStations project. Hutch responded by saying:

You don't need to down load something to know what size it is dickwad!

and by doing so implied that I hadn't dowloaded the document. Well, in fact I had, and I indicated the time at which I saved it to one of my folders by including a screenshot of the some of the documents, and which also indicates the size of the document.

I downloaded it, I read it. Or rather, I re-read parts of it and carefully skimmed the rest, because I've seen it and lots of other crap like it before. I didn't need to waste the extra ten minutes of my life it take would to subject myself again to the garbage therein.

Oh, and it's quite possible to

2) download without saving.

My original gripe was:

I'm just pissed off that I wasted 4.3 mb downloading that shit of a pdf in the first place, and half an hour of my life, that I won't get back, on this post.

I was talking about wasting 4.3 mb of broadbandwidth that I could have productively spent downloading (in a broadband context - geddit yet?) something else.

The level of contradiction on this thread is pitiful. The sad thing is, all of the denialists here are vocal about dismissing the science, yet I doubt that they've ever darkened the door of a laboratory or a tertiary-level technical library.

And yet they're all keyboard experts.

[WoodDragon]

Followed one of your links WoodDragon and found nothing more there than a little boys club but even then there was still is no agreement

You have no idea about how to assess and to distinguish credible information from non-credible information, do you? I suspect that it would take years to get you up to speed with the science and mathematics required to explain it all to you - assuming that your ideology would actually permit your brain to let the science and the maths enter in the first place.

Menne 2010 paper is fundamentally flawed and entirely useless.

If it's useless, then it's strange that no-one has yet published a peer-reviewed refutation of it.

It's also strange that the data that Menne et al 2010 describes is corroborated by ocean temperatures, by temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, by the melting of glaciers, by the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, by other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, by corrected satellite measurements, and, as I said before, by the stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city.

How does that work, huh?

And a little note... The poster on the Skeptical Science thread, Kforestcat, is refuted in subsequent posts. Why did you not indicate that? Is it because you can't actually understand the fact that he was taken to pieces?

It's warming, dude, no matter how much you might try to insist that it's not. Get over it.

Edited January 11, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

IDIOT...It's warming dude get used to it......... you must love me

little old me getting this big scientist man so hot under the collar because I won't succumb to his fraud and bow down to his overly educated feet...mate you are loosing it....

Answer the question! Why did they place them there in the first place?....come on....you know it all remember......

[hutch]

I'm a little tea pot...short and stout

[hutch]

I know your there

[WoodDragon]

Further to hutch's snark about Menne et al 2010.

Anthony Watts has had, for more more than a year or two now, more than about 80% of all the collectible data on US surface temperature stations. He has yet to actually publish the results of his 'project' though, when all he needs to do could be complied and written up by a uni undergaduate in one week. He certainly doesn't need to get any more data than what he has now - even two or three years ago he had enough data that no more is required to do the stats. The extra data will simply make no difference at all to the results.

What Menne et al did is basically what Watts said that he would do himself. They took the most 'unaffected' surface stations in the US and analysed them separately. The warming signal was still there - only bigger. Watts knows that he is completely stuffed, which is why he doesn't publish anything. If and when he does, it'll be destroyed faster than he can say James Hansen, and then his whole reason for being will evaporate.

[hutch]

But WHY did they put them there Einstein? Why have to make all those re-calibrations in the first place?

WHY THE FUCK DID THEY PUT THEM THERE?

Answer the question know-all!!!! Why place them near objects that were bound to create fake warming?

WHHHHHHHHHYYYYYY!!!!!!!

[hutch]

Further to hutch's snark about Menne et al 2010.

 

That wasn't mine it was from your link.......What's that word again...oh yes

IDIOT

[Sheather]

Way to go over the top there.

Oh, and it's quite possible to

2) download without saving.

No.

Download: transfer a file or program from a central computer to a smaller computer or to a computer at a remote location

EDIT: (That means you're wrong, just so you know)

I did not miss the point at all. I am aware of the points you made, that's still barely reasonable though.

The level of contradiction on this thread is pitiful.

You included.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Sheather

[Slybacon]

DEGENERATED THREAD.........

Be careful how rigidly you use science to construct your reality...... You never know what you may manifest for your self, fear can be incredibly damaging to your health ;)

To sum up my feelings on this thread....

Even if we took all current measures to be "green" would it be worth the freedoms we sacrifice....... After all, what makes us human?

[hutch]

DEGENERATED THREAD.........

Be careful how rigidly you use science to construct your reality...... You never know what you may manifest for your self, fear can be incredibly damaging to your health ;)

To sum up my feelings on this thread....

Even if we took all current measures to be "green" would it be worth the freedoms we sacrifice....... After all, what makes us human?

 

Nice!

[Sheather]

Wow Deja Vu on your post there Slybacon.

Anyway that was completely off topic.

EDIT: my post, not yours

Edited January 11, 2011 by Sheather

[hutch]

My fault for stuffing your thread....Me bad......

sorry mate I will back out now...

Respect

Hutch

[Slybacon]

Ive also attempted to balance the positive and negative points. I did this non bias and simply tried to zero them all.....

Seriously, people are way capable of forming an opinion on there own, with out needing to see if someone else thinks its right or wrong.

ACTUALLY-

I take back my feelings of this thread being degenerated, to be honest , I like posting controversial articles and watching the debate that insues. You all deserve a pat on the back, to defend your ideas takes guts, and you all stood tall. There was condecending ideas but you will all learn it does nothing to further your point. Sorry for stirring the shit.... make sure your all this entertaining in future threads.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Slybacon