Interesting that you didn't mention his point about NASA or other countries who don't share or politics.


They all agree climate change is real and happening and caused by humans.


In order for what you are saying to be true, there necessarily has to be a conspiracy.


And NASA has to be in on it.


So to preserve your sense of self, it is easier for you to believe in a massive conspiracy than it is to believe in the scientific method.


It's all very interesting on a psychological level. But still super crazy!


And, Malabar, why do you keep trotting out the 31, 000 "scientists" online petition? That's cringeworthy. Have some self respect, man.

 

NASA? The organization that is supposed to be about space exploration but was redirected to a priority of Muslim outreach and now can't even launch it's own satellites much less actually explore space? Not political? Let me laugh harder.

 

Other countries? You mean the ones that are all for using the Climapocolypse to redistribute the wealth of America to the rest of the world? Not political? Are you even paying attention?

 

No, it's a scam. As it always has been.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This is what happens when you're an honest scientist in the 0bama administration...

 

http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/obama-ad...ress.html/

 

Not political?

 

Imaginationland.

 

Those who believe in such junk science are the ones wearing tin foil hats, afraid to leave their homes in fear that man has turned our climate against us.

 

Science is not science when hypotheses are forced, with the outcome not only expected but guaranteed by unscientific methodology.  Honest data and methodology guides us to conclusions.  True science does not dream up unsubstantiated, pre-determined conclusions and hold only data that is purposefully manipulated and even manufactured to support the false premise (dishonest hypothesis.)

 

You do not "prove" man made change by believing it first then looking for "evidence" to back-fill that unsubstantiated claim.  That's the opposite of science.  It's seeking validation of a pre-drawn conclusion.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

NOAA fraud exposed: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/10...tampering/

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

NOAA fraud exposed: <a class="bbc_url" href='http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/'>http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/</a>

I am not a firm believer in global warming. I don't whine about it either, but this site looks like a student put it together.

---

I am not a firm believer in global warming. I don't whine about it either, but this site looks like a student put it together.

Look at the people posting links to these places. Does it come as a surprise to you?

---

A sign that the truth is winning, is when the personal attacks come.  Because the truth itself cannot be refuted.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

A sign that the truth is winning, is when the personal attacks come.  Because the truth itself cannot be refuted.

 

It's like you stole a page from the Trump playbook.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

It's like you the know truth when you see it.

What he really meant.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

This is what happens when you're an honest scientist in the 0bama administration...

 

http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/obama-ad...ress.html/

 

Not political?

 

Imaginationland.

 

Those who believe in such junk science are the ones wearing tin foil hats, afraid to leave their homes in fear that man has turned our climate against us.

 

Science is not science when hypotheses are forced, with the outcome not only expected but guaranteed by unscientific methodology.  Honest data and methodology guides us to conclusions.  True science does not dream up unsubstantiated, pre-determined conclusions and hold only data that is purposefully manipulated and even manufactured to support the false premise (dishonest hypothesis.)

 

You do not "prove" man made change by believing it first then looking for "evidence" to back-fill that unsubstantiated claim.  That's the opposite of science.  It's seeking validation of a pre-drawn conclusion.

 

 

I couldn't wait to get back and respond to your post. If something doesn't immediately confirm your own biases you automatically dismiss it. You should stop acting like you actually have credibility when it comes to science. What expertise do you have? How many papers have you published? How many papers have you peer reviewed? How many committees have you served on to oversee research? What scientific field do you work in and how long have you worked in it? I've studied environmental sciences and public health since 2004. I've been a scientist since 2009. I think I know a bit more about the actual scientific process, as I use it everyday in my line of work. You only pretend to know and use junk political websites to support your own conspiracy theories. 

 

By the way in regards to the firing none of it proves that climate science in general is seeking validation for pre-drawn conclusions. Your article is a red herring. Dr. Noelle Metting was improperly fired by DOE because she advocated for her low-dose radiation research at the behest of DOE officials who wanted to shut the program down. The reason they wanted to shut down the program, and shift funds to other areas including climate research is because current research has revealed that no significantly low dose of radiation is small enough to eliminate the risk of cancer. In layman's terms, there is always a risk of cancer regardless of the radiation dosage. Now the DOE was absolutely wrong in how they handled this situation but saying they did it just to fund climate research is a serious stretch. I wouldn't expect anything else from a climate change denier though.

---

 I've studied environmental sciences and public health since 2004. I've been a scientist since 2009. I think I know a bit more about the actual scientific process, as I use it everyday in my line of work.

 

So what is your scientific opinion on what would have happened to Einstein's theory of General Relativity if no bending of light rays near the sun were found?


 

How does that differ from the lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted by Climate Scientists?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So what is your scientific opinion on what would have happened to Einstein's theory of General Relativity if no bending of light rays near the sun were found?


How does that differ from the lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted by Climate Scientists?

What do you mean what would happen? Either the experimental design is flawed or the original hypotheses need to be reformulated. An alternative is that you don't have the proper technology to conduct sufficient hypothesis testing. Discovering the Higgs-Boson would have been impossible in 1950.


But the tropospheric hot spot was found...

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html'>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html</a>


The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.


Read the paper as there is mention of the tropospheric hotspot. If you cannot access the paper via an institutional login I can Dropbox the original article.

---

 If something doesn't immediately confirm your own biases you automatically dismiss it. 

 

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then I'm not sure there's even such a thing.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

What do you mean what would happen? Either the experimental design is flawed or the original hypotheses need to be reformulated. An alternative is that you don't have the proper technology to conduct sufficient hypothesis testing. Discovering the Higgs-Boson would have been impossible in 1950.


But the tropospheric hot spot was found...

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html'>http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html</a>


The question of how climate model projections have tracked the actual evolution of global mean surface air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their projections. Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution. Such comparisons are not evidence against model trends because they represent only one realization where the decadal natural variability component of the model climate is generally not in phase with observations. We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation) largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model ensembles for comparison with observations. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of 15-year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns.


Read the paper as there is mention of the tropospheric hotspot. If you cannot access the paper via an institutional login I can Dropbox the original article.

 

I do know that the tropospheric hotspot has not been found. Your analogy is poor because we do have the tools to measure atmospheric temperatures, and they did have tools to measure the bending of light rays around the sun back then.


 

Your clip says nothing about the hot spot, and it reads as if they jumped through a lot of hoops to find the models that agree with the temperature trend. The models don't even agree with each other, so they picked the few that fit the observations. This time! This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.


I can't read the article. Please post a clip of the part that discusses the hot spot. I'd be interested to read the lame way they create a hot spot out of nothing.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, then I'm not sure there's even such a thing.

This is the best you can muster?


Let me ask you something. Who would you need to hear it from to believe climate change is real and happening and caused by humans?


The foremost authorities on these things have already confirmed it but you continue to believe your politicians.


What would happen if Trump said it? Would you flip flop on your support of him or would you believe him?

---

This is the best you can muster?


Let me ask you something. Who would you need to hear it from to believe climate change is real and happening and caused by humans?


The foremost authorities on these things have already confirmed it but you continue to believe your politicians.


What would happen if Trump said it? Would you flip flop on your support of him or would you believe him?

CONFIRMED is a big word talking about the scientific method. At this point theorized is a stretch.


Amazing how people touting the scientific method are the ones duped into thinking that it just means someone with a white lab coat and his projections said so.

---

This is the best you can muster?


Let me ask you something. Who would you need to hear it from to believe climate change is real and happening and caused by humans?


The foremost authorities on these things have already confirmed it but you continue to believe your politicians.


What would happen if Trump said it? Would you flip flop on your support of him or would you believe him?

 

This is the entire problem with the sheep who buy into the alarmist claims. In science there is no "who." What matters is the data, just the data.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This is the entire problem with the sheep who buy into the alarmist claims. In science there is no "who." What matters is the data, just the data.

The data points to a significant effect of human induced climate change when accounting for potential confounders such as solar activity. You refuse to examine all the evidence there is that suggests anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon based on actual scientific data.

---

The data points to a significant effect of human induced climate change when accounting for potential confounders such as solar activity. You refuse to examine all the evidence there is that suggests anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon based on actual scientific data.

 

You clearly have no idea what conclusion I've arrived at concerning the topic. Where did I ever say that it's not a real phenomenon?


 

What is "significant?" Give me a number. Should we really be concerned with 1 degree of warming? The temperature in my house varies more than that from room to room. That's the effect of a doubling of CO2, and agrees with the measurements. The atmosphere is not a simple bell jar, and there are plenty of confounding factors, the main one being cloud cover which the models don't handle. There is also the problem that the temperatures rose at the same rate in the early 1900s when anthropogenic CO2 was not significant.


 

I also have a problem with the lies being perpetrated by the scientific community. Here is a quote from climate.nasa.gov:


 

 

 

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level<span style="color:rgb(43,43,43);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16.32px;">
rise</span> and longer, more intense heat waves.

 

If you go to NOAA.gov, they have a large collection of tide gauge records. None of them, some going back more than a century, show any change in the rate of sea level rise. There is no acceleration! The quote above is a flat out lie. As far as I know not a single Climate Scientist has publicly criticized it.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You clearly have no idea what conclusion I've arrived at concerning the topic. Where did I ever say that it's not a real phenomenon?


 

What is "significant?" Give me a number. Should we really be concerned with 1 degree of warming? The temperature in my house varies more than that from room to room. That's the effect of a doubling of CO2, and agrees with the measurements. The atmosphere is not a simple bell jar, and there are plenty of confounding factors, the main one being cloud cover which the models don't handle. There is also the problem that the temperatures rose at the same rate in the early 1900s when anthropogenic CO2 was not significant.


 

I also have a problem with the lies being perpetrated by the scientific community. Here is a quote from climate.nasa.gov:


 

 

If you go to NOAA.gov, they have a large collection of tide gauge records. None of them, some going back more than a century, show any change in the rate of sea level rise. There is no acceleration! The quote above is a flat out lie. As far as I know not a single Climate Scientist has publicly criticized it.

 

Not understanding what "significant" means makes it clear you don't have a background in science. If results are statistically significant it means that you accept or reject the null hypothesis (something like there is no warming or warming = 0). There are various test to determine the degree of significance usually based on the probability of having a 5% (p < 0.05, 95% confidence) chance of finding a difference as large or larger than the one in your study given that the null hypothesis is true. I'll give you a very basic illustration of how this works. 

 

Say I am interested in the effect of solar radiation on tropospheric warming, and using average temperatures over a span of 50 years as an endpoint. Say you took 100 temperature measurements for each of those 50 years (you might need to run a power calculation to determine if this is an adequate sample size).You could use other endpoints but I am using temperature as one in this example. 

 

HO (null hypothesis): Solar activity has no significant effect on tropospheric warming.

HAalternative hypothesis): Solar activity has a significant effect on tropospheric warming. 

 

So in this very very simplistic exercise you might run a ANOVA (this would probably be a bad test because the data is likely not normally distributed and the test is not very robust, Kruskal-Wallis, PERMANOVA, etc might be better). on the averages using a program like R.

 

The output will have a test statistic (F-value) and the degree of significance. Let's say we were testing at p < 0.05. If our results indicate p = 0.002, then we would reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative. We reject the null because at the significance level of 0.05, the results obtained happen too frequently for us to be confident that solar activity has a effect on tropospheric warming. The opposite can also happen. If p = 0.06, the you would accept the null and the results would indicate that solar activity has no effect on tropospheric warming. Again this is very very basic. 

 

You could do other things like create a linear mixed model but I won't get into that.

---

Also I am not going to waste many more brain cells arguing with you MalabarJag but here are two studies that discuss the tropospheric hotspot. 

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108...ld.iop.org

 

Abstract


<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood <i>et al</i> 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data <i>J. Clim.</i> 21 5336–52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods. One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time. This, and several other small modifications made to the original method sometimes affect results at individual stations, but do not strongly affect broad-scale temperature trends. Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. Second, as shown in previous studies, tropospheric warming does not reach quite as high in the tropics and subtropics as predicted in typical models. Third, cooling has slackened in the stratosphere such that linear trends since 1979 are about half as strong as reported earlier for shorter periods. Wind trends over the period 1979–2012 confirm a strengthening, lifting and poleward shift of both subtropical westerly jets; the Northern one shows more displacement and the southern more intensification, but these details appear sensitive to the time period analysed. There is also a trend toward more easterly winds in the middle and upper troposphere of the deep tropics.

<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">The original IUK dataset (Sherwood et al <a class="" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl510711bib20'>2008</a>) extended only through 2005. Here we present changes over time from an extension of this dataset through February 2013. These results confirm those of the other newer studies, suggesting that tropospheric warming has indeed proceeded as expected in spite of the problems that earlier studies have had in detecting it.

<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">3. Updated trend results

<div style="margin:0px;font-size:18px;">

3.1. Temperature
<div style="margin:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;">
<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">The chief value of such records is in the more accurate estimation of long-term changes, of which the simplest characterization is the linear trend. The estimated temperature trend versus latitude and height (figure 1) is somewhat noisy since each latitude band is based on a different and independent set of stations, but its features are clearer and somewhat stronger than those shown in S08. A maximum can be seen in the tropical upper troposphere in every latitude band from about 30S–20N, centred near 300 hPa. Because the trend reliability varies significantly among stations (with very scattered results in particular for stations in India), we follow S08 in taking the median of stations in latitude bands, although results are not highly sensitive to this choice.

<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;">The time evolution of average temperature in the troposphere (from roughly 1.5–14 km) in each of three latitude bands agrees closely with those of the Hadley Centre-Climate Research Unit Temperature Version 4 (HadCRUT4) surface record (Morice et al <a class="" href='http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=BF2E4FB1F77915ADC6010A9F83D32C01.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl510711bib13'>2012</a>), both in terms of overall warming trend and year-to-year variation (figure 3) supporting the accuracy of the estimates at least on large scales. Atmospheric warming is slightly slower than surface warming in the extratropical bands, but faster in the tropics, as expected. The southern extratropics warmed rapidly from 1960 up until the late 1970s but more slowly after that, while the Northern extratropics warmed only after the mid−1970s; these features are similar in the troposphere and surface data. Interestingly, tropical warming appears steadier in the troposphere than at the surface, and did not slow after 1998 despite slower warming in the surface record. This is the main reason why the trends are now slightly stronger than those shown in S08.

<a></a>
<div style="margin:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;"> 
</div>
</div>
<p style="font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;"> 

</div>

---