Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[sculleywr]

Got it. You are choosing to refuse data, in this case, the PEER REVIEWED DATA OF OVER 1000 SCIENTISTS, simply because it doesn't fit your model. No need to go on. Thanks.

WHAT PEER REVIEWED DATA? I looked at the website. Finding peer reviewed articles in that would be like finding latinum in your tea cup. Since latinum is a fictitious substance from Star Trek, we can guess how much peer reviewed data I found.

Do you think I'm too stupid to look at the data first hand? Do scientists normally spoon feed data with no context or surrounding data?

I didn't see the source citations. There were no error bars, methodologies, or source types listed. In fact, the entire website looks like it was designed by my 15 year old sister. You want me to blindly accept that over actual journal articles?

I'm not an idiot. I don't want to be coddled. Get a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE FROM A TRUSTED AND QUALIFIED JOURNAL PUBLICATION. Not a geocities website that put some numbers through an Excel Starter spreadsheet.

 

[andypro7]

WHAT PEER REVIEWED DATA? I looked at the website. Finding peer reviewed articles in that would be like finding latinum in your tea cup. Since latinum is a fictitious substance from Star Trek, we can guess how much peer reviewed data I found.

Do you think I'm too stupid to look at the data first hand? Do scientists normally spoon feed data with no context or surrounding data?

I didn't see the source citations. There were no error bars, methodologies, or source types listed. In fact, the entire website looks like it was designed by my 15 year old sister. You want me to blindly accept that over actual journal articles?

I'm not an idiot. I don't want to be coddled. Get a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLE FROM A TRUSTED AND QUALIFIED JOURNAL PUBLICATION. Not a geocities website that put some numbers through an Excel Starter spreadsheet.

Look, you can stop pretending. I've given you the chance to look at the data, and you criticized the look of the web site.

You're not interested in truth, you will just continue to ignore data that doesn't fit your model.

Warmists like you insist on proof, but when it's presented, you refuse to accept it or even look at it. There's no need to continue a discussion like that, it's fruitless.

And it's idiotic to think that the peer reviewed, decades long work of over 1000 scientists would appear on one web page. Maybe you should go to the local library under 'N', for how to navigate a web site.

You'll get nothing more from me. Everything is there. Feel free to continue to ignore data that doesn't fit your model.

 

[sculleywr]

Look, you can stop pretending. I've given you the chance to look at the data, and you criticized the look of the web site. You're not interested in truth, you will just continue to ignore data that doesn't fit your model. Warmists like you insist on proof, but when it's presented, you refuse to accept it or even look at it. There's no need to continue a discussion like that, it's fruitless. And it's idiotic to think that the peer reviewed, decades long work of over 1000 scientists would appear on one web page. Maybe you should go to the local library under 'N', for how to navigate a web site. You'll get nothing more from me. Everything is there. Feel free to continue to ignore data that doesn't fit your model.

No. I criticized the lack of data that wasn't already sifted to the point that nobody can recognize the source.

I don't have data to ignore. I have a theory...less. I have a hypothesis. No data. No articles to read. I saw the pretty little graphs. The pretty little graphs are meaningless. They look nothing like the copious numbers of tables, graphs, and methodology explanation found in your average journal article.

Your website is propaganda. Pure and simple. No journal articles. No peer reviewed research. No data to analyze. It's a pundit.

I won't be taken in by such a religion. I want RESEARCH. I want something I can dig into and look at the meat of the product. I'm a microbiologist. Not some dope who traipsed in off the street.

 

[andypro7]

No. I criticized the lack of data that wasn't already sifted to the point that nobody can recognize the source.

I don't have data to ignore. I have a theory...less. I have a hypothesis. No data. No articles to read. I saw the pretty little graphs. The pretty little graphs are meaningless. They look nothing like the copious numbers of tables, graphs, and methodology explanation found in your average journal article.

Your website is propaganda. Pure and simple. No journal articles. No peer reviewed research. No data to analyze. It's a pundit.

I won't be taken in by such a religion. I want RESEARCH. I want something I can dig into and look at the meat of the product. I'm a microbiologist. Not some dope who traipsed in off the street.

Look, I don't no how many different ways I can say this: There's NO NEED for you to go on about this.

You've shown that you don't want to look at anything that doesn't fit your ideas. That's fine. That's your choice.

But I'm not wasting anymore time, since you've made that choice - there's no reason for me to.

 

[sculleywr]

I've found their methodology for measuring CO2. And I find it hilarious. While climate science looks directly at the atmosphere using devices that are fine tuned and expensive, CO2 "science" purports to use a CO2 meter for freshwater aquariums to make a measurement of all water everywhere. That is, quite possibly, the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The error bars using that kind of instrumentation are somewhere around the 50+% range! Sure, that 400 ppm reading might be correct, but it might be anywhere from 200-600!

My IQ has been lowered simply looking at that part of the website.

 

[sculleywr]

Look, I don't no how many different ways I can say this: There's NO NEED for you to go on about this. You've shown that you don't want to look at anything that doesn't fit your ideas. That's fine. That's your choice. But I'm not wasting anymore time, since you've made that choice - there's no reason for me to.

I want something to look at. I don't have anything. I have a website with a theory. I don't have data to peruse. What am I supposed to do? Make a website give me their sources now? Do you just accept anything a website says because "hey, I found it on the Internet"? Or do you dig in past the first level? That's what differentiates a scientist from some schmuck off the streets.

 

[sculleywr]

I guess that answers it. We should blindly accept any website no matter what. Never mind that the website offers no proof

 

[[serious]]

Actually, the MWP Project just uses the FINDINGS in the PEER REVIEW papers to SHOW SCIENTIFICALLY that the MWP Period was warmer than today and it was global.

You still seem to be confusing your opinion for science.

And the PEOPLE who wrote the papers MAY OR may NOT agree with THE PREMISE of the IDSO family. REGARDLESS, 600 (or 1000 or whatever YOU ARE claiming currently) SCIENTISTS did not author the BLOG you cited IN YOUR POST.

Why are we using RANDOMLY CAPITALIZED words ANYWAY?

Really though, do you actually think that argument by list-O-scientists is convincing? I mean, how many steves are even on that list?

But let's say that the number of scientists cited on a website was some sort of measure of the credibility of the website. Wikipedia would be the most reputable website in the history of ever. I mean, they have lists of their lists of scientists

 

[andypro7]

And the PEOPLE who wrote the papers MAY OR may NOT agree with THE PREMISE of the IDSO family. REGARDLESS, 600 (or 1000 or whatever YOU ARE claiming currently) SCIENTISTS did not author the BLOG you cited IN YOUR POST.

I think you miss the point of the project. No one is asking or suggesting that all of the scientists agree with anyone's premise about anything. Here's how it works:

Let's say some scientist in China in 2002 writes a paper that shows that in China the temperatures were much greater during the MWP. The paper goes through peer review and gets published.

Now we can say that there is peer reviewed material that in that region that was covered in the paper, it was warmer during the mwp than today. The scientist in China who wrote the paper doesn't have to be contacted, or sign up on the website or anything like that. This is his work that he got published specifically so people could use it to say what he proved.

Now, multiply that by 1000, and at spots all over the world.

THAT is how the mwp project works, pretty much like anything else you'd want to prove that was global for a time period hundreds of years ago.

It's not the number of scientists that matters, it's what their peer reviewed work says.

 

[andypro7]

And it's so illogical and anti science to argue against this methodology.

For instance, what if someone suggested that it rained a lot more in the 1500s? What would you do to prove it?

First, you'd find some peer reviewed paper where some guy proved that it was much wetter in Great Britain in the 1500s. Then you'd find some peer reviewed paper that showed it was wetter in Russia in the 1500s. Etc, etc.

When you had a whole bunch of peer reviewed papers from all over the globe that all say pretty much the same thing, then you could reach a conclusion that is supported by a ton of data. You know, science.

 

[sculleywr]

And it's so illogical and anti science to argue against this methodology. For instance, what if someone suggested that it rained a lot more in the 1500s? What would you do to prove it? First, you'd find some peer reviewed paper where some guy proved that it was much wetter in Great Britain in the 1500s. Then you'd find some peer reviewed paper that showed it was wetter in Russia in the 1500s. Etc, etc. When you had a whole bunch of peer reviewed papers from all over the globe that all say pretty much the same thing, then you could reach a conclusion that is supported by a ton of data. You know, science.

Dude, the methodology I found was using a CO2 measuring tool for freshwater aquariums (a controlled, specific environment) and trying to measure brackish, spring, and even salt water with it. This despite the fact that said tool states very plainly that it is not designed for anything except aquariums (a fact they even acknowledge on their methodology) and has a 200 ppm error bar on all measurements.

Instead of publishing the studies and their detailed results, it publishes sciencey sounding titles and results. When I go to search the title, I find nothing but the same website. No journals. Nothing even from websites connected to the institutions they purport to cite.

The studies exist nowhere except that website. Why is that? Because they weren't published and peer reviewed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look, I don't no how many different ways I can say this: There's NO NEED for you to go on about this.

You've shown that you don't want to look at anything that doesn't fit your ideas. That's fine. That's your choice.

But I'm not wasting anymore time, since you've made that choice - there's no reason for me to.

Someday you may realize that science is not found on blogs written by crackpots. Science is found in real scientific peer reviewed journals.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There were reports in the paper that global warming was causing the bush fires in Australia.

Those were newspaper reports not the scientific literature, stevevw !

The warm weather that can create weather events has been there for as long as the Earth has existed ! The point is that warmer climate (which is not weather) produces a higher frequency of extreme weather events.

One study in 2011 found that the "current worst-case scenarios for global warming were exaggerated" where "current" is the 2007 IPCC report. These worst-case scenarios are the ones with climate sensitivity greater than the range in that report (2°C to 4.5°C with a likely average of 3°C).
The doubling of CO2 with an increase of 4.5°C is not ruled out by the paper.
And: Positives and negatives of global warming

The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

So even the average of 3°C will be damaging.

 

[andypro7]

Dude, the methodology I found was using a CO2 measuring tool for freshwater aquariums (a controlled, specific environment) and trying to measure brackish, spring, and even salt water with it. This despite the fact that said tool states very plainly that it is not designed for anything except aquariums (a fact they even acknowledge on their methodology) and has a 200 ppm error bar on all measurements.

Instead of publishing the studies and their detailed results, it publishes sciencey sounding titles and results. When I go to search the title, I find nothing but the same website. No journals. Nothing even from websites connected to the institutions they purport to cite.

The studies exist nowhere except that website. Why is that? Because they weren't published and peer reviewed.

You are blind, and now you are just lying to save face. Pathetic.

Everything you need is right there. It's separated by region, and when you click on the region, it opens up and shows you all the materials based upon that region. When you click one of those, it opens up with a summary and tells you exactly where it is published even including the page number.

Go lie somewhere else, your pathetic attempt to dismiss the work of over 1000 scientist nauseates me.

Please don't respond to me again until you educate yourself.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yea, I think I'll take the peer reviewed work of over 600 scientists over a guy who has spent the entire evening trying to defend a guy who lied about scientists in order to come up with a fake consensus

Yea, still the delusion that a list of "peer reviewed work of over 600 scientists" magically means that the MWP was global and warmer than today !
Still lying about Cook et al. faking their data, andypro7 :eek?
For someone who claims a background in mathematics you seem to be unaware of basic arithmetic:
Let us assume that the scientists linked in that blog are right.
* That is 7 abstracts out of all of the 12,000 abstracts. That is a really tiny change in any percentages.
* That is 7 abstracts out of 4011 abstracts with positions. That is a tiny change in any percentages.

But they are not right
* the classifications are based on the abstracts of the papers, not their contents .
* any reasonable person who bothers to read their abstracts can see that the classifications are correct

15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Why have the 7 scientists not complained about their other 31 papers in the Consensus Project?

And now:
16th March 2015 andypro7: Why have the 7 scientists not changed the endorsement level of their 7 papers or even their other 31 papers in the Consensus Project?

 

[andypro7]

Someday you may realize that science is not found on blogs written by crackpots. Science is found in real scientific peer reviewed journals.

Is this what you call science:

Phil Jones - Hadley CRU
IN HIS OWN WORDS

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Let me guess, you're fine with calling this type of peer review 'science'.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I think you miss the point of the project.....

You need to look at the MWP Project and see how it actually works, andypro7.
It is a ongoing collection of papers about the MWP and that is that !
There is no scientific analysis of the papers to see if the MWP was global.
There is no scientific analysis of the papers to see if a global MWP was warmer or cooler than the global temperatures today.
12th March 2015 andypro7: Please link to the analysis of the thousands of papers that MWP Project did (that is not an interactive map!).

And you seem to be ignorant of the actual contents of the MWP Project other than the list of papers:
15th March 2015 andypro7: Do you know that the MWP Project has one (and only one so far) simple and wrong quantitative analysis of the MWP papers?

P.S. We now have 8 outstanding questions (from 3 March 2015) for and 5 points of ignorance from andypro7

 

[andypro7]

Yea, still the delusion that a list of "peer reviewed work of over 600 scientists" magically means that the MWP was global and warmer than today !
Still lying about Cook et al. faking their data, andypro7 :eek?
For someone who claims a background in mathematics you seem to be unaware of basic arithmetic:
Let us assume that the scientists linked in that blog are right.
* That is 7 abstracts out of all of the 12,000 abstracts. That is a really tiny change in any percentages.
* That is 7 abstracts out of 4011 abstracts with positions. That is a tiny change in any percentages.

But they are not right
* the classifications are based on the abstracts of the papers, not their contents .
* any reasonable person who bothers to read their abstracts can see that the classifications are correct

15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Why have the 7 scientists not complained about their other 31 papers in the Consensus Project?

And now:
16th March 2015 andypro7: Why have the 7 scientists not changed the endorsement level of their 7 papers or even their other 31 papers in the Consensus Project?

Look, I get it, no need to go on.

You believe it's ok for Cook to lie in order to get a fake consensus. You are so ok with it, that you believe that even though it is PROVEN that he lied about some of them, ALL of the rest he didn't lie about. That's called blind faith

You also believe that the peer reviewed work of over 1000 scientists has to be wrong, even though you have no proof.

Once you've said it's ok to lie if it supports your side, and it's ok to dismiss science if it supports the other side, you've disqualified yourself from having an honest discussion. I don't need to hear your propaganda.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...Let me guess, you're fine with calling this type of peer review 'science'.

Let me guess - you want to remain ignorant about science and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, andypro7 !
Thus the continuous repeating of this question when in the real world:
Scientists try to keep bad science out of publications - that is what peer review means !
Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]

ETA: Let us start with removing your quote mining of Phil Jones - Hadley CRU IN HIS OWN WORDS IN FULL:
Phil Jones in an email to Michael Mann

“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

There were a number of independent reviews non of which found this email objectionable.
For example: The Independent Climate Change Email Review

AR4 even included McKitrick and Michaels (2004) along with its refutation

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Look, I get it, no need to go on. ...

Wrong, andypro7, you do not get it.
I believe that it is wrong for you to lie about my beliefs and insult Cook et al by accusing them of faking their results without any evidence.

So I ask you to produce evidence, to think logically and even do simple math!
15th March 2015 andypro7: Please cite the analysis that shows that the Cook et al. results are wrong.
15th March 2015 andypro7: Why have the 7 scientists not complained about their other 31 papers in the Consensus Project?
16th March 2015 andypro7: Why have the 7 scientists not changed the endorsement level of their 7 papers or even their other 31 papers in the Consensus Project?

Let us assume that the scientists linked in that blog are right.
* That is 7 abstracts out of all of the 12,000 abstracts. That is a really tiny change in any percentages.
* That is 7 abstracts out of 4011 abstracts with positions. That is a tiny change in any percentages.

But they are not right
* the classifications are based on the abstracts of the papers, not their contents .
* any reasonable person who bothers to read their abstracts can see that the classifications are correct