Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

andypro7 said:

Yes, if it was happening and we were causing it, then we should do something about it. And how did the pika survive the much warmer temps during the MWP, the much much warmer temps during the Roman Warming Period, and the much, much, much warmer temps druing the Minoan Warming Period? Can't find any info on your 95%. Where's that from?

Click to expand...

here's a guess, it survived normal temperatures. Not an MWP. The evidence behind your MWP is dubious at best, since it doesn't fit with most of the gathered data from the era. An MWP would also have resulted in a famine in Egypt.

The last warming period was much earlier than that. The ice records coincide with the written records in Egyptian history and Genesis, placing a warming period somewhere around the time of the early Egyptian dynasties. This would also coincide with geological evidence of eruptions of volcanos around what is now Indonesia.

This gives a cause and effect relationship. The warming period was followed by a compensatory cold period, with the temperatures dropping quickly as a result of the natural failsafes, including rapid plant growth (more CO2 means more photosynthesis). This reset the system back to normal.

sculleywr said:

The evidence behind your MWP is dubious at best, since it doesn't fit with most of the gathered data from the eral.

Click to expand...

Except for the peer reviewed submissions of over 600 scientists from over 1000 research institutions. You mean that gathered data? Remember, we went over this before and your only answer was "BIG OIL"

Either accept that saying you won't accept anyone who uses the hockey stick is ridiculous or don't

The hockey stick is a PROVEN FRAUD. McIntyre and Mckintrick proved that you can put any random numbers in to Mann's formula and you get a hockey stick shape. FACT. Anyone who believes that Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate is not only ridiculous, but very, very unscientific.

andypro7 said:

Except for the peer reviewed submissions of over 600 scientists from over 1000 research institutions. You mean that gathered data? Remember, we went over this before and your only answer was "BIG OIL" Either accept that saying you won't accept anyone who uses the hockey stick is ridiculous or don't The hockey stick is a PROVEN FRAUD. McIntyre and Mckintrick proved that you can put any random numbers in to Mann's formula and you get a hockey stick shape. FACT. Anyone who believes that Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate is not only ridiculous, but very, very unscientific.

Click to expand...

"Proven fraud". Proven by two people. Two people who were rejected. The numbers were hockey sticks BEFORE the formula was applied. That's what you're ignoring. The graphs I showed earlier were the actual numbers laid next to the originals. They were both hockey sticks. One was simply sharper

sculleywr said:

"Proven fraud". Proven by two people. Two people who were rejected. The numbers were hockey sticks BEFORE the formula was applied. That's what you're ignoring. The graphs I showed earlier were the actual numbers laid next to the originals. They were both hockey sticks. One was simply sharper

Click to expand...

You still have no clue. I'm here are the two graphs side by side, the first is the ORIGINAL RAW DATA that was accumulated to construct Mann's graphs. The second is the fake hockey stick crap that Mann and his cronies foisted up on the world.

The reason I'm using these two images specifically, is that they come from a short 5 minute youtube video by Berkeley Physics professor Richard Muller, who is a full-fledged, 100% man-made CO2 believer. EVEN THOUGH he fully believes in this crap, he hates the hockey stick graph because it's bad science and it makes his side look bad:




Mann and his lying, corrupt, fraudulent cronies threw out the post 1960 tree ring data, etc because it didn't give them the result they wanted. They now say it's unreliable, but Muller says that when they say that, then they make ALL the rest of the data unreliable

Muller (again, full-on believer) says: "We don't do that in science"

There is your official NOT hockey stick.

andypro7 said:

You still have no clue. I'm here are the two graphs side by side, the first is the ORIGINAL RAW DATA that was accumulated to construct Mann's graphs. The second is the fake hockey stick crap that Mann and his cronies foisted up on the world. The reason I'm using these two images specifically, is that they come from a short 5 minute youtube video by Berkeley Physics professor Richard Muller, who is a full-fledged, 100% man-made CO2 believer. EVEN THOUGH he fully believes in this crap, he hates the hockey stick graph because it's bad science and it makes his side look bad: Mann and his lying, corrupt, fraudulent cronies threw out the post 1960 tree ring data, etc because it didn't give them the result they wanted. They now say it's unreliable, but Muller says that when they say that, then they make ALL the rest of the data unreliable Muller (again, full-on believer) says: "We don't do that in science" There is your official NOT hockey stick.

Click to expand...

Andy. I don't know where your graph came from. I do know where mine came from. Mine came from the GCSN, which is where yours claims to come from. However, while one comes off of their own articles, yours comes from a blog.

Both of the ones I saw from their own research are hockey sticks, adjusted and unadjusted.

sculleywr said:

Andy. I don't know where your graph came from. I do know where mine came from. Mine came from the GCSN, which is where yours claims to come from. However, while one comes off of their own articles, yours comes from a blog.

Both of the ones I saw from their own research are hockey sticks, adjusted and unadjusted.

Click to expand...

What a load of crap. You're lost.

It says it right on the graph. It even gives you the freakin' page numbers.

As explained in the video, YOUR graph is NOT the graph of the actual data. YOUR graph is the one that was hockey-sticked at the end. That's the whole point.

The graph on the left is the graph of the actual tree ring data collected. The graph on the right is the one that was added to and smoothed over, something that 'you don't do in science'

Do you know why the tree rings stop in 1960? because after that, they show a decline. So Mann creates a graph and tells us that 1000 years of tree ring data is perfectly legit and should be taken as the gospel, but the last 40 years (at the time) are not legit at all, because they show the exact opposite of what they wanted it to show.

My graph is the graph of actual data. Your graph is actual data up to a point, then fantasy data to create a fake hockey stick.

But you don't care. You don't care the least bit about truth.

andypro7 said:

What a load of crap. You're lost. It says it right on the graph. It even gives you the freakin' page numbers. As explained in the video, YOUR graph is NOT the graph of the actual data. YOUR graph is the one that was hockey-sticked at the end. That's the whole point. The graph on the left is the graph of the actual tree ring data collected. The graph on the right is the one that was added to and smoothed over, something that 'you don't do in science' Do you know why the tree rings stop in 1960? because after that, they show a decline. So Mann creates a graph and tells us that 1000 years of tree ring data is perfectly legit and should be taken as the gospel, but the last 40 years (at the time) are not legit at all, because they show the exact opposite of what they wanted it to show. My graph is the graph of actual data. Your graph is actual data up to a point, then fantasy data to create a fake hockey stick. But you don't care. You don't care the least bit about truth.

Click to expand...

So all the thousands of graphs and studies, hundreds for every one that doesn't show the hockey stick. They are all wrong. Good. You keep those blinders on while you walk off the cliff.

Here is the information I found. From multiple sources.

sculleywr said:

View attachment 134321



View attachment 134322



View attachment 134323

Here is the information I found. From multiple sources.

Click to expand...

Not ONE of those things has ANYTHING to do with what we were discussing.

I don't even think you understand any of this, so here goes:

I say that Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph was a fraud.

I give you a side by side comparison of the raw data graphed and the hockey stick data graphed from Mann's collected data

You send me 3 totally unrelated graphs, one not even labeled, and they have nothing to do with Mann's graph.

Please don't reply again until you understand the issue.

andypro7 said:

Not ONE of those things has ANYTHING to do with what we were discussing. I don't even think you understand any of this, so here goes: I say that Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph was a fraud. I give you a side by side comparison of the raw data graphed and the hockey stick data graphed from Mann's collected data You send me 3 totally unrelated graphs, one not even labeled, and they have nothing to do with Mann's graph. Please don't reply again until you understand the issue.

Click to expand...

I'm looking at the broader picture. Not one single set of data. Framed or not, Mann's data fits with the rest of the data collected.

sculleywr said:

I'm looking at the broader picture. Not one single set of data. Framed or not, Mann's data fits with the rest of the data collected.

Click to expand...

Yep, that trend line shows a clear hockey stick.

Note, this isn't Mann-made global warming, hockey stick data, tree ring mumbo-jumbo, or infinitely smoothed over data. Just good old fashioned actual satellite temps.

OH MY GOSH! It's worse than we thought!

andypro7 said:

Yep, that trend line shows a clear hockey stick. Note, this isn't Mann-made global warming, hockey stick data, tree ring mumbo-jumbo, or infinitely smoothed over data. Just good old fashioned actual satellite temps. OH MY GOSH! It's worse than we thought!

Click to expand...

for every one of your graph, there are hundreds of hockey stick graphs, unedited and unadjusted.

It's not propaganda. It's reality. And all of the data put together shows a warming trend that began in the industrial era.

andypro7 said:

Yes, you have missed the reason. But you've done so because it's a LONG thread, and no one can be expected to go back and read and comprehend everything before posting.

Click to expand...

andypro7 said:

Here's how I got here:

I assert that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today and was global. As proof, I offer up the Medieval Warming Period Project, which collected the peer reviewed work of over 600 scientists which shows that the MWP was much warmer than today and was global in nature.

In response, the global warming believers cry "BIG OIL" and say that since the MWP Project was funded by "BIG OIL", there results can't be taken seriously.

So, since you can't have any kind of logical or scientific debate when the other person's default position is Funded by Big Oil = illegitimate, I decided to turn it around, TO SHOW THEM how illogical their point about big oil was.

So, when scullywr submitted HIS papers and institutions etc that he claimed proved his point, I THEN showed him that all of his sources were ALSO funded by "BIG OIL", and thus, BY HIS STANDARD, were invalid.

I personally think it's highly illogical to think like that, but I was trying to make a point illustrating how illogical it is. Hopefully, you're with me so far.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the hard position of downright rejecting a source due to the possibility of funding bias is wrong.

But the funding bias does not apply the other way. His standard was, if I understood correctly, a harder version of funding bias, rejecting those whose conclusions might have been influenced.

This is problematic as the research reporting conclusions which are beneficial for the funding parties can still be sound. At most, and reasonably so, one would have a higher threshold for accepting the beneficial research. This increased scepticism does not apply for disadvantageous conclusions, unless one would suspect the conclusions should be more drastic.

andypro7 said:

I'm not sure, but I believe what you're saying here is that you should not only show the link to "BIG OIL", but also show how big oil funding could push the findings in a particular direction. Here's some points on that:

Click to expand...

Not quite, I was merely trying to describe how you could have applied funding bias arguments yourself.

andypro7 said:

The typical trick of the warmists is to say that if someone gets funding by big oil, then big oil HAS to sway their opinion. But, on the other hand, ANY funding that comes to the global warming believers only comes because they believe sincerely in their cause and it doesn't effect their findings at all. That's the way they play that game.

So, the logic would be this: Exxon, when they fund someone who disagrees with CAGW, are a greedy, evil corporation that only cares about it's bottom line and harming the planet. But when the fund people who agree with CAGW, their only care about the best interests of all mankind.

You can see how this kind of logic is a huge roadblock to having an intelligent discussion.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's an enlarged response to funding bias.
Funding bias does not allow for immediate rejection, it does call conclusions into question, but rarely more than that. Applying statistical analysis as a meta study, which takes funding bias into consideration, would be the reliable method to eliminate the effect.

Heissonear said:

.

When you are free from following men it shows!

When one looks for himself at what the data and observations show they see there is "No Settled Science", far from it, and Environmental Extremists, along with those who seek greed and prominence, we have no need to line up to them, rather the opposite, expose them and the trail of error they leave.

We buck the headlines but ridicule has lost it's effect! They utilize smear and ad hominem but those too have lost their effect. It is truth that allows one to stand against many.

.

Click to expand...

When we look at that graph, it tells us two things:

1. There has been no statistical increase in temps for over 18 years
2. EVERYONE who insisted we believe EVERYTHING they say about global warming has been dead wrong about EVERYTHING they predicted.

Normally, if that were the case, those who had blind faith in a particular cause would start to question what they were being told. But look through this entire thread, that's not the case here.

The past 18+ year graph is a graph of raw satellite temps - no bias, no fiddling with the numbers, no smoothing, no hockey-sticking, etc. And despite the fact that it virtually HAS TO BE TRUE, I haven't seen even one member of the global warming religion that will accept it. NOT ONE.

That's the most amazing thing in this entire thread.

andypro7 said:

When we look at that graph, it tells us two things: 1. There has been no statistical increase in temps for over 18 years 2. EVERYONE who insisted we believe EVERYTHING they say about global warming has been dead wrong about EVERYTHING they predicted. Normally, if that were the case, those who had blind faith in a particular cause would start to question what they were being told. But look through this entire thread, that's not the case here. The past 18+ year graph is a graph of raw satellite temps - no bias, no fiddling with the numbers, no smoothing, no hockey-sticking, etc. And despite the fact that it virtually HAS TO BE TRUE, I haven't seen even one member of the global warming religion that will accept it. NOT ONE. That's the most amazing thing in this entire thread.

Click to expand...

one satellite. Let's just forget the ISS and all the weather stations across the world.

Also, with18 years, there won't be hockey sticks. The hockey stick is visible over a multi-century graph. By cherry picking the 18 years, you pick a period that also coincides with decisions made based on global warming, including the advent of catalytic converters in cars and strict regulations on carbon outputs by fossil fuel burning plants and factories.

When one satellite disagrees with hundreds of sources of data, it is likely that satellite has an error.

Also, it isn't a religion, it is a literal understanding of the information available.

sculleywr said:

When one satellite disagrees with hundreds of sources of data, it is likely that satellite has an error.

Click to expand...

Please supply the 'hundreds of sources' of data that shows a great deal of warming over the past 18 years. Please don't just include graphs, MAKE SURE you draw a statistically correct trend line.

You'll search and search and you won't be able to find your 'hundreds of sources of data'. And yet, you still won't admit you're wrong.

And that's sad.

sculleywr said:

By cherry picking the 18 years

Click to expand...

First of all, it's not 'cherry picking'. It's roughly the amount of time that we've had official, dire, doomsday predictions from the CAGW crowd, so that we can compare the utterly failed predictions and models with, you know, actual data.

sculleywr said:

you pick a period that also coincides with decisions made based on global warming, including the advent of catalytic converters in cars and strict regulations on carbon outputs by fossil fuel burning plants and factories.

Click to expand...

Thanks, you've just solved this entire thread. CO2 has been increasing pretty steadily and temps have remained flat, once again disproving EVERY prediction made and model. But if you're now suggesting that the changes we've made have halted global warming, then we're done. We've now done enough to stop the halt of global warming, so now we can all stop worrying.

andypro7 said:

Please supply the 'hundreds of sources' of data that shows a great deal of warming over the past 18 years. Please don't just include graphs, MAKE SURE you draw a statistically correct trend line. You'll search and search and you won't be able to find your 'hundreds of sources of data'. And yet, you still won't admit you're wrong. And that's sad.

Click to expand...

Been there, done that. Several pages ago i supplied you with several research articles. You rejected them off hand because you reject everyone that doesn't line up with your view.

Besides that, most studies focus on the last two centuries, rather than a cherry picked time frame. Sure, the warming SLOWED in the last two decades, but it hasn't stopped and signs point to it increasing over time. We only have 18 or so years of satellite data, but we have records back to 1880 in recorded data gathered with various instruments. That data show the hockey stick

andypro7 said:

...snipped screed...Now, none of your off-topic rants, just answer one simple question:

Who do you believe, Cook and his 97% fake, hockey stick study, or do you believe the scientists listed above?

Click to expand...

You have

• Physicist Nicola Scafetta stating that a Cook study that was not about the hockey stick misclassified one of his peer-reviewed papers.
• Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv stating that a Cook study that was not about the hockey stick misclassified one of his peer-reviewed papers.
• Soon, an astrophysicist, stating that a Cook study that was not about the hockey stick misclassified one of his peer-reviewed papers.
• Morner, a sea level scientist, stating that a Cook study that was not about the hockey stick misclassified one of his peer-reviewed papers.

Now, none of your off-topic rants, just answer 3 simple questions:

1. Cite this "97% fake, hockey stick study" from Cook.
2. Quote the part of the study about the hockey stick graph.
3. Show that this study is "fake".

, andypro7?