climate skeptic changes tune

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/40#post_3431822
Figure 1: (Left) Global annual surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 mean based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Error bars are estimated 2? (95% confidence) uncertainty.
Did you not highlight the word "mean" for any specific reason?
Can you explain how you would have gathered average temperatures if not from surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Please enlighted us on a better way to get the average temperatures.
Edited - I remember now, earlier in this tread you mentioned going out to your porch every day and noticing that it's getting cooler. I suppose that's one way to form an opinion.

 

[stdreb27]

You're going to have to find me an better source of data than that, because you'd have a hell of a time trying to convince any sane person that James Hensen is an unbiased scientist. To give you some background information. This is the guy who ran around complaining about Bush censoring him, then called to put oil company CEO's on trial for their crimes against the environment, then it turns out, he's been making millions being an alarmist, imo, no better than al gore. PETA suing seaworld for equal protection under the law for sea world. This dude has been arrested numerous times (ironically during the Obama admin) for your standard pat crazy democrat protester. But hey, lets talk conflict of interest...

 

[bang guy]

Fair enough. You're able to form a coherant criticism, that's a relief

 

[mantisman51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/60#post_3431826
Did you not highlight the word "mean" for any specific reason?
Can you explain how you would have gathered average temperatures if not from surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Please enlighted us on a better way to get the average temperatures.
Edited - I remember now, earlier in this tread you mentioned going out to your porch every day and noticing that it's getting cooler. I suppose that's one way to form an opinion.
Nope, like climate scientists you made that up.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/60#post_3431830
Nope, like climate scientists you made that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/60#post_3431830
Oh yeah, we beat the old record cold for October 15th by almost 15 degrees here, It was 27° and the previous record was 40°.

 

[mantisman51]

That was the official temperature-had nothing to do with a porch. Doctoring data to fit the argument is the tact most global warming alarmists use, so you've learned from the gurus well. Anyhow, here's the facts on the models, not facts, used by global warming hoaxsters. Don't expect it to do any good.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-study-of-nasa-data-may-debunk-global-warming-predictions/

 

[bang guy]

Thanks for the link but it's off topic. That link is all about predictions.

 

[mantisman51]

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

 

[bang guy]

I guess if you can't understand the difference between climate change and the temperature on your front porch it would be a stretch to expect you to understand the difference between a computer model prediction and a historical recording.
For the record, I'm not currently a beliver in climate model predictions at this time. We're just not smart enough yet.

 

[mantisman51]

http://climateaudit.org/2008/04/06/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/

 

[bang guy]

Finally, some pertinant information. What's your opinion?

 

[darthtang aw]

If I am reading that model, it looks like the temp was relatively stable from the 40's to the early 80's?
Darth (Getting Closer) Tang

 

[mantisman51]

If you ignore what Steve McIntyre says and just look at the actual NASA links, you will see that there are ABSOLUTELY NO "actual observed" temps previous to the 1930's. Since 1987 the "actual historical temperatures" have been changed, literally EVERY YEAR, sometimes every quarter, to fit the new global warming models. What people who believe in global warming are taking as historical "fact" is all speculation and models because the data either a) does not exist or b) are wildly inaccurate. So the global warming hoaxsters put whatever numbers support their current theories.

 

[reefraff]

I am not sure that I buy their "Historical" temperatures myself. It should be possible to get records back at least 100 years from around the globe. I'd be interesting in seeing what the average of KNOWN temperatures has done.

 

[bang guy]

It appear you are correct about the "actual observed numbers". I'll admit that you surprised me with that. Thank you for the perspective. I can agree on the a) opinion you have, there do appear to be holes. I'm not sold on the b) part of your opinion yet, you haven't convinced me that they are wildly inaccurate. I'll go so far at this point to agree that they are suspect. If your right and the data are wildly inaccurate then the satellite data over the next several years should start showing a significant and abrupt cooling trend.

 

[mantisman51]

OK, I admit that in regard to global warming hoaxsters I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist. But with the fudged numbers that are given as fact by scientists who then impugn and malign any who disagree and say they are "uneducated and ignorant", leads me to wonder "what else are they lying about"? Couple that with the many scientist in the global warming community who are getting rich and calling for radical political change, what would they not do to advance both those agendas? The polar bear guy, I can't think of his name right now, openly lied about the amount of ice in the Arctic and the number of polar bears to say global warming was killing them off, was caught by the foundation sponsoring his "research" and suspended. He has since been reinstated, but how can anyone trust him after being caught in such a blatant and pathetic lie? Does the ends justify the means? He only did it to protect the environment after all.

 

[bang guy]

No, the end will not justify the means in the case of climate science in regards to non-scientific manipulation.
That was the original point of the thread though (hope I'm not putting inaccurat portrayals into the words of the OP). A Climat Science skeptic reviewed the data and agreed with it. Just one. It's just one more piece of data in the puzzle but it should just be discarded only because it disagrees with your opinions...right?

 

[mantisman51]

Only if it disagrees with facts. Which when you see up to 48% variation in the global warming hoaxsters numbers for historical temperatures since 1987, makes me wonder how this "skeptic" could confidently say "it's real", when there are no scientifically verifiable numbers for him to compare.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/60#post_3431872
It appear you are correct about the "actual observed numbers". I'll admit that you surprised me with that. Thank you for the perspective. I can agree on the a) opinion you have, there do appear to be holes. I'm not sold on the b) part of your opinion yet, you haven't sold me that they are wildly inaccurate. I'll go so far at this point to agree that they are suspect. If your right and the data are wildly inaccurate then the satellite data over the next several years should start showing a significant and abrupt cooling trend.
There is a reason the last 2 NASA satellites sent up to observe actual tempurature data, crashed, and i think it has to do with getting good data sets... Not extrapolated from tree rings.

 

[mantisman51]

Look, if humans were causing the climate to warm up, I'm with you. We need to act and act firmly within Constitutional restraints. However, with much, if not most, global warming science in doubt, can we really jump into destroying our economy just to act in case they're right, despite the lies and "adjusted" data?