Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[sculleywr]

the records they discovered were peer reviewed and found lacking. The methodology lacked in the redundancy required by data collection. The data has since been corrected by more accurate studies.

Essentially, they were wrong for the same reason a person identifying an electromagnetic burst with high frequency and low wavelength as an infrared burst is wrong.

 

[sculleywr]

What makes you say they aren't climate scientists? Just askin'

because 95% of climate scientists from every corner of the world and even in space have come to the same conclusion. The rest are either frauds or haven't examined the evidence at length.

You are essentially the man denying that gravity exists.

 

[andypro7]

warmest year on record, and the "pause" is saying no statistical warming?

Yep. Statistical analysis from RSS/UAH

There wasn't a real mWP

Didn't read a word after that. If you're gonna ignore the science, I don't care about your opinions.

 

[andypro7]

the records they discovered were peer reviewed and found lacking. The methodology lacked in the redundancy required by data collection. The data has since been corrected by more accurate studies.

Essentially, they were wrong for the same reason a person identifying an electromagnetic burst with high frequency and low wavelength as an infrared burst is wrong.

So, if they were wrong then, and they were saying the same things then, and they were accusing anyone who deal kneel at their altar of being anti-science deniers, and they have the same people, and they are focusing on the same CO2, and looking at the same hockey sticks, and sticking to the same methods and models, how are you so sure they aren't wrong now?

Remember, it wasn't one guy who was wrong, it was ALL of them. All your doing in all your posts is saying the exact same things that they were saying and were wrong about. Maybe it's time for a new playbook.

 

[andypro7]

because 95% of climate scientists from every corner of the world and even in space have come to the same conclusion. The rest are either frauds or haven't examined the evidence at length.

Nice, you've created your own little illogical and VERY unscientific feedback loop:

How do we know global warming is real?
All the climate scientists say so
What about the ones who don't?
They're not really climate scientists
Why do you say that?
Because they don't believe in global warming

Haven't examined the evidence at length?

The MWP Project is the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists, and your answer to that, presumably after examining the evidence at length, is: there wasn't a real MWP. Yep, scientific analysis, as done by global warming believers.

You are essentially the man denying that gravity exists.

Well, by that logic, and by the errors we've shown from the past climate proclamations, that would essentially mean that 20 years ago it was your side denying that gravity doesn't exist.

 

[sculleywr]

warmest year on record, and the "pause" is saying no statistical warming? Yep. Statistical analysis from RSS/UAH There wasn't a real mWP Didn't read a word after that. If you're gonna ignore the science, I don't care about your opinions.

I ignore local weather trends caused by the reactivation of the hydrothermal belts in favor of global climate trends, which showed us in a cooling trend.

You, sir, don't like that decades of science has overwritten and debunked your theories long ago.

 

[sculleywr]

because 95% of climate scientists from every corner of the world and even in space have come to the same conclusion. The rest are either frauds or haven't examined the evidence at length. Nice, you've created your own little illogical and VERY unscientific feedback loop: How do we know global warming is real? All the climate scientists say so What about the ones who don't? They're not really climate scientists Why do you say that? Because they don't believe in global warming Haven't examined the evidence at length? The MWP Project is the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists, and your answer to that, presumably after examining the evidence at length, is: there wasn't a real MWP. Yep, scientific analysis, as done by global warming believers. You are essentially the man denying that gravity exists. Well, by that logic, and by the errors we've shown from the past climate proclamations, that would essentially mean that 20 years ago it was your side denying that gravity doesn't exist.

They don't believe the data that has been collected hundreds of times. Not the theory. The data. The hard, cold facts.

But hey, if YOU want to drive our world into the ground and bring about a mass extinction event simply because you don't believe the data, who am I to stop you? Oh wait. Only someone who gives a rip about whether my kids are able to go play outside on the beach.

 

[sculleywr]

So, if they were wrong then, and they were saying the same things then, and they were accusing anyone who deal kneel at their altar of being anti-science deniers, and they have the same people, and they are focusing on the same CO2, and looking at the same hockey sticks, and sticking to the same methods and models, how are you so sure they aren't wrong now? Remember, it wasn't one guy who was wrong, it was ALL of them. All your doing in all your posts is saying the exact same things that they were saying and were wrong about. Maybe it's time for a new playbook.

Because your science is outdated and fundamentally flawed. No redundancy. No peer reviews. No consistent or reliable methodology. And no global data markers on much of it.

You like your local data points because you're cherry picking data where it fits. The fact that people are losing their homes and animals are losing their habitats doesn't matter to you. Only being right.

I WISH you were right. I actively WANT to be wrong.

And that's the mark of a scientist. He stands by the facts, defending them in the open while he tries to blatantly disprove them.

 

[andypro7]

The data. The hard, cold facts

which you have consistently ignored:

There's you data. Feel free to ignore it and be a hypocrite. Unless you'd like to talk science, I'm not interested in your philosophy

 

[sculleywr]

The data. The hard, cold facts which you have consistently ignored: There's you data. Feel free to ignore it and be a hypocrite. Unless you'd like to talk science, I'm not interested in your philosophy

old, out of date and debunked data is not data. It's bunk. It's not scientific to accept something that has been disproven. I can't accept it because it's been proven incorrect.

 

[sculleywr]

So if you want to talk science, since this is a field that is using young data, I want charts that aren't more than five years old. I want data that is local to our time frame. Not the same graphs I was using to make the same argument you're making. Except that was 15 years ago and I was a twelve year old on Volconvo.

 

[andypro7]

old, out of date and debunked data is not data. It's bunk. It's not scientific to accept something that has been disproven. I can't accept it because it's been proven incorrect.

You forgot to add 'unless there's a hockey stick at the end of it'

I want charts that aren't more than five years old

The data on this graph, which proves that there has been no statistical global warming for 18 years, includes up to December of 2014.

 

[sculleywr]

old, out of date and debunked data is not data. It's bunk. It's not scientific to accept something that has been disproven. I can't accept it because it's been proven incorrect. You forgot to add 'unless there's a hockey stick at the end of it' I want charts that aren't more than five years old The data on this graph, which proves that there has been no statistical global warming for 18 years, includes up to December of 2014.

18 years? And local data at that? Too bad it doesn't line up with NOAA, NASA, USGS, and virtually every other country in the world.

When 95% of the data contradicts your single data set that you must have married at some point given your fascination with it, you have a problem. Here's some videos to catch you up.

From SciShow, hosted by Hank Green, who has a masters degree in the science, and is backed up with a team of scientists funded by PBS including 18 doctors, and several hundred independently cited sources on various videos about climate change:
http://youtu.be/dC_2WXyORGA

 

[sculleywr]

More from hank green. These are the results of only three degrees difference. Also, the reality that the last 30 years have been worse than you say. http://youtu.be/M2Jxs7lR8ZI

 

[andypro7]

18 years? And local data at that? Too bad it doesn't line up with NOAA, NASA, USGS, and virtually every other country in the world

Once again, EVERYTHING you say is wrong. I'm beginning to see that you probably don't have the knowledge necessary to continue this conversation.

It's 18 years for a reason. Because that's how long it's been with no statistical warming of the planet. Additionally, and this is the big point here, the priests of global warming started making predictions of doom about 25 years ago, and it really started ramping up about 5 years after that.

The 18 years of no global warming just so HOW UTTERLY TERRIBLE global warming models are, as we now have over 100 major predictions from the climate-heads that have been proven entirely false.

But this is the capper:

And local data at that?

The RSS/UAH data set is one of the main SATELLITE temperature data sets, or, the EXACT OPPOSITE of local. And, it pretty much lines up with most major temp data sets.

But after this last round, I think I've pretty much figured you out. You have your belief, and you will oppose any information that contradicts your belief, even if you don't have the knowledge to do so.

I guess that's fine, but I don't have time to keep educating you. Read up for awhile and then come back.

 

[Heissonear]

More from hank green. These are the results of only three degrees difference. Also, the reality that the last 30 years have been worse than you say. http://youtu.be/M2Jxs7lR8ZI

.

Sounds like you caught the Alarmism bug. Piecing "reality" together at this point is not going to be easy. It is not just propaganda ingestion but now the belief in such Alarmism propaganda.

How can you reconcile "it's catastrophic what is going to happen" with:

1. Someone who says they CAN prophecy or predict the future?

2. There is no EVIDENCE that an additional ~150 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere DOES ANY THING (except excite Alarmists)?

You do know that ingestion followed by belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda causes one to catch the Alarmism bug, right?

.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's 18 years for a reason.

We know. If you extended it to 100 years, everyone would see the obvious warming trend.

 

[Loudmouth]

.

Sounds like you caught the Alarmism bug. Piecing "reality" together at this point is not going to be easy. It is not just propaganda ingestion but now the belief in such Alarmism propaganda.

How can you reconcile "it's catastrophic what is going to happen" with:

1. Someone who says they CAN prophecy or predict the future?

2. There is no EVIDENCE that an additional ~150 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere DOES ANY THING (except excite Alarmists)?

You do know that ingestion followed by belief in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda causes one to catch the Alarmism bug, right?

.

Are you still denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

 

[Heissonear]

warmest year on record, and the "pause" is saying no statistical warming?

Warmist year on record? That is pure propaganda, unless you can factually determine Earth's temperature to the second decimal for an entire year measurement.

Look it up.

And you believe the earth can have one data point that represents it's temperature for an entire year. What else do you want to "believe" in?

.

 

[Loudmouth]

Warmist year on record? That is pure propaganda, unless you can factually determine Earth's temperature to the second decimal for an entire year measurement.

Look it up.

And you believe the earth can have one data point that represents it's temperature for an entire year. What else do you want to "believe" in?

.

The fact of the matter is that you will never accept the data.