Quote:I'm sorry, it's hard for me to respond to you at thee moment. Your inability to recognize that "too" is grammatically the correct word that can be used is making me question some of your theories.
Too, also... they are synonyms. You may be able to say he should have used a comma, but that's about it...
The use of "too" insinuates that Malabar was also lying. Its not grammar, it's content. That you couldn't decipher his meaning makes me question your ability to understand actual scientific principles.
Jags MB scientists. Nothing better.
Quote:Jags MB scientists. Nothing better.
Jags MB Gramma Nazis are.
OK...
Riddle me this:
Using 1910 - 1940 data to prove that warming has been happening before the current period of time means that they had record temps for a few straight years back then?
And now we have record temps again for the last couple years at least. So which record temp is the higher record temp? Are you using a different scale now?
Do you see how poor this argument is?
Quote:Dig those heels in.
I know you are, but what am I?
And I'll raise you a nanie nanie boo boo
Back to the 1910 thing...
So temps rose, then dropped. Now temps are rising again to even higher levels then back in 1910.
It is very plausible to link the higher levels now to the higher levels of carbon we burn now as opposed to then.
There's your positive feedback, using your own defense.
Now, do I win a cookie?
Quote:Back to the 1910 thing...
So temps rose, then dropped. Now temps are rising again to even higher levels then back in 1910.
It is very plausible to link the higher levels now to the higher levels of carbon we burn now as opposed to then.
There's your positive feedback, using your own defense.
Now, do I win a cookie?
Glad you asked.
There was a major adjustment to the temperature records between 1940 and now. The difference is all in the adjustment. This is from NOAA:
![[Image: ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif]](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif)
There are five separate adjustments contributing to the above total. The time of observation (TOBS) adjustment swamps the other four. Only one of the five, the urban heating adjustment, is negative, and NOAA's adjustment is small. To me that is counter-intuitive, because the urban (and microclimate*) effects on the temperature record should be the largest. Note also that TOBS is not done site to site, which would be the scientific way to do it, but is just applied as a blanket average to every site.
The question is, is the adjustment correct? Those making the adjustment claim that it is, but it is in the direction of more warming which confirms their pre-adjustment beliefs. At best that call into question confirmation bias .Scientists tend to accept what they expect, and only carefully scrutinize results they don't expect. On a more human level, the adjustments also lead to more funding.
Temperatures are adjusted to give more warming. Satellite sea level is adjusted to give a faster rise rate. ARGO ocean sensors are adjusted to give higher temperatures. Global temperature adjustments are updated frequently, and always in the direction of more warming. Could all these adjustments, all in the same direction, all supporting the belief of the adjusters, be correct? It's possible, but very unlikely.
The state high temperature records are mostly in the 1930s. The number of record highs and lows since 1990 are about equal, and what one would expect from random statistics: 1/6th of the total number in 1/6th of the total time since 1900. If anything, one should expect more records in recent times since thermometers are now automated and take temperatures continuously. TOBs does not affect record temperatures so the 1930's records can't be adjusted away.
* Things such as jet exhausts in airports or an AC being installed near the sensors.
Quote:Dig those heels in.
Because you are so CLEARLY flexible in your method of thinking Mr Pot.
Quote:Glad you asked.
There was a major adjustment to the temperature records between 1940 and now. The difference is all in the adjustment. This is from NOAA:
There are five separate adjustments contributing to the above total. The time of observation (TOBS) adjustment swamps the other four. Only one of the five, the urban heating adjustment, is negative, and NOAA's adjustment is small. To me that is counter-intuitive, because the urban (and microclimate*) effects on the temperature record should be the largest. Note also that TOBS is not done site to site, which would be the scientific way to do it, but is just applied as a blanket average to every site.
The question is, is the adjustment correct? Those making the adjustment claim that it is, but it is in the direction of more warming which confirms their pre-adjustment beliefs. At best that call into question confirmation bias .Scientists tend to accept what they expect, and only carefully scrutinize results they don't expect. On a more human level, the adjustments also lead to more funding.
Temperatures are adjusted to give more warming. Satellite sea level is adjusted to give a faster rise rate. ARGO ocean sensors are adjusted to give higher temperatures. Global temperature adjustments are updated frequently, and always in the direction of more warming. Could all these adjustments, all in the same direction, all supporting the belief of the adjusters, be correct? It's possible, but very unlikely.
The state high temperature records are mostly in the 1930s. The number of record highs and lows since 1990 are about equal, and what one would expect from random statistics: 1/6th of the total number in 1/6th of the total time since 1900. If anything, one should expect more records in recent times since thermometers are now automated and take temperatures continuously. TOBs does not affect record temperatures so the 1930's records can't be adjusted away.
* Things such as jet exhausts in airports or an AC being installed near the sensors.
It's amazing you know better than 97% of the world's climate experts and yet there you sit in front of your computer screen down in Malabar (which is right along the coastline ironically enough). Maybe you should present your findings and get yourself published. Heck, you might even win a Nobel peace prize by taking down the Lizard People's secret plan to take over the world.
Oh wait, that's just pseudo science you are posting.
Quote:Because you are so CLEARLY flexible in your method of thinking Mr Pot.
I'm very flexible when the evidence in compelling.
Dadgummit..it hot out there today. The polar icecube in my mojito melted and watered it all down.
Solution...drink faster.
Weird. To combine a thread in the sideline to this. Climate cannot change, but Bruce can go to Caitlyn. Crazy world.
Quote:I'm very flexible when the evidence in compelling.
Hope you are flexible enough to bend over backwards and kiss your [BAD WORD REMOVED] goodbye when you finally smmmmelllll what momma nature is cookin.
~ The Rock...before the earthquake ( or not )
Quote:I'm very flexible when the evidence in compelling.
You are defending something that at the very least was lazy writing from a gentleman that has no problem with writing and wording things in great detail, but yeah you are flexible.
Give me a break.
Quote:You are defending something that at the very least was lazy writing from a gentleman that has no problem with writing and wording things in great detail, but yeah you are flexible.
Give me a break.
My, my...touchy, aren't we? Is it really that hard to say "I misunderstood" when we're using a medium that admittedly costs us a substantial portion of our ability to communicate?
Quote:Dadgummit..it hot out there today. The polar icecube in my mojito melted and watered it all down.
Solution...drink faster.
Weird. To combine a thread in the sideline to this. Climate cannot change, but Bruce can go to Caitlyn. Crazy world.
Yeah, both Warmists and Transgenders are celebrating mental illness.
Quote:Yeah, both Warmists and Transgenders are celebrating mental illness.
Right. Because not disbelieving mainstream news reports on published science instead of accusing climate scientists of orchestrating a new world order through the terror of a warming earth is definitely a mental disease.
It couldn't be the other way around. No chance.
God bless the politicians for always telling us like it is and standing by what they truely believe in. Cause that's what they do. It would be a mental disease to think otherwise. Right?
I'll just leave
this here.
It seems that the scientists at NOAA needed to "adjust" the data.
Quote:My, my...touchy, aren't we? Is it really that hard to say "I misunderstood" when we're using a medium that admittedly costs us a substantial portion of our ability to communicate?
Lol, not touchy. Just pointing things out. The give me a break thing was meant in a pithy manner.