Global Warming

[DavidSSS]

Sure, but try 1997 to 2016 and you get a different slant on the readings, see I can cherry pick too, but I only do it to make a point.

Which is why I keep saying: look at the trend.

Oh, and use the latest data, not some outdated versions of HadCrut (try version 4 which started in 2012), UAH (revised to version 6 in 2015) etc.

DS

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Which one?

Does any one of these charts look substantially different to the others for 1998-2012?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The point it is doesn't make any rational or logical or intellectual sense to pick (cherry-pick?) any particular decade and claim it is illustrative of a something that is measured over centuries/millenia. And that it seems at least intellectually dishonest to present this in a graph that starts in 1998 because this will absolutely create a false impressiin of the larger trend. I can show you a photo of a patch of my hair that has only a few greys in it. You could extrapolate that I have mostly brown hair. You'd be wrong. Because that is a selective, cherry-picked sample.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Diversion etc.

Was the question too difficult?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

use the latest data

I'm getting there, David. I would like Knighter to answer the question concerning which of the three charts is intentionally skewed, given his earlier claim.

 

[Djevv]

Hey Lee I’m struggling to see exactly what it is you are saying with all your graphs. The data has been manipulated? Howso? The pause shows on your graphs but not David’s. It’s a pretty simple time series graph and a linear correlation, where do the differences come from?

Also excuse my ignorance but what are the different data sets?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Hey Lee I’m struggling to see exactly what it is you are saying with all your graphs. The data has been manipulated? Howso? The pause shows on your graphs but not David’s. It’s a pretty simple time series graph and a linear correlation, where do the differences come from?

Also excuse my ignorance but what are the different data sets?

It'll become very clear as soon as we can get over this little hurdle.

The three charts in order are

HadCRUT (Hadley/Climatic Research UniT) terrestrial - the IPCC gold standard, overseen by University of East Anglia in the UK
UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite - overseen by Spencer & Christy
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) satellite - private US company using data from NASA satellites

Does any one of the three charts show a different basic trend to the others for the period 1998-2012?

(Knighter, I'm not out to hang you for the "intentionally skewed" claim. I won't mention it again. I would just like your assent that the three independent sources essentially show the same thing - no net warming 1998-2012.)

 

[lamb22]

It'll become very clear as soon as we can get over this little hurdle.

The three charts in order are

HadCRUT (Hadley/Climatic Research UniT) terrestrial - the IPCC gold standard, overseen by University of East Anglia in the UK
UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite - overseen by Spencer & Christy
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) satellite - private US company using data from NASA satellites

Does any one of the three charts show a different basic trend to the others for the period 1998-2012?

(Knighter, I'm not out to hang you for the "intentionally skewed" claim. I won't mention it again. I would just like your assent that the three independent sources essentially show the same thing - no net warming 1998-2012.)

(a) Those charts are wrong
(b) If those charts aren't wrong the results were rigged
(c) The charts were politically motivated as any release of the private emails of anyone indirectly involved would show.
(d) Any cooling relates to undersea volcanoes
(e) Its all Knights Templar conspiracy specifically designed to con the public into buying more Dan Brown novels.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Was the question too difficult?

Nope. I'm at work.

This is the graph, but all three are over far too short a range to be considered representative of anything other than a short term trend. AGW is likely associated with the industrial revolution and concurrent population growth so looking at specific decades is pretty pointless. It is deeply weird that you can't see that.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Nope. I'm at work.

This is the graph, but all three are over far too short a range to be considered representative of anything other than a short term trend. AGW is likely associated with the industrial revolution and concurrent population growth so looking at specific decades is pretty pointless. It is deeply weird that you can't see that.

Right. You agree that the RSS chart shows no warming trend for 1998-2012?

Does either the HadCRUT or UAH chart show any warming trend for 1998-2012?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Right. You agree that the RSS chart shows no warming trend for 1998-2012?

Does either the HadCRUT or UAH chart show any warming trend for 1998-2012?

Jesus H Christ mate, does the analogous photo of my hair show 60% grey brown hair?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Jesus H Christ mate, does the analogous photo of my hair show 60% grey hair?

If you could just answer the question, I'll wrap it up. Do you think any of those three important sources of climate data suggest temperatures increased 1998-2012?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If you could just answer the question, I'll wrap it up. Do you think any of those three charts suggest temperatures increased 1998-2012?

No L2. That isn't how this works. If you think you have a point, make it! You've been making the same claim for years now. No-one other than nutballs think it means anything, and some data refute it all together. I'll concede only that anyone can select a section of a graph that gives their reward centres a confirmation-bias-fuelled dopamine shot. It isn't compelling L2. It's batshit.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

No L2. That isn't how this works. If you think you have a point, make it! You've been making the same claim for years now. No-one other than nutballs think it means anything, and some data refute it all together. I'll concede only that anyone can select a section of a graph that gives their reward centres a confirmation-bias-fuelled dopamine shot. It isn't compelling L2. It's batshit.

If you would just answer the simple question, I'll make my point.

I don't want to make it in advance, only to have you point to one of the three charts and claim it is significantly different to the others. I would just like to know that we are seeing the same thing on those three charts, i.e. no obvious temperature increase from 1998-2012.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If you would just answer the simple question, I'll make my point.

I don't want to make it in advance, only to have you point to one of the three charts and claim it is significantly different to the others. I would just like to know that we are seeing the same thing on those three charts.

No L2.
.
.
I'll concede only that anyone can select a section of a graph that gives their reward centres a confirmation-bias-fuelled dopamine shot.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I think you know very well what's coming, and I'm tiring of this as much as you are. So I'm going to assume your answer is the same as I'd expect from anyone with an IQ over 80 - that the three charts show essentially the same trend 1998-2012, with no obvious warming.

Here are the up-to-date charts for those three sources - HadCRUT, then UAH, then RSS.

One of the charts has undergone a dramatic transformation compared with the earlier version, while the other two are more or less unchanged.

HadCRUT was infamously altered in 2015 to show that the pause never happened because a) the climate models could not account for the pause and b) world leaders were asking uncomfortable questions about the pause and the IPCC required a tool to whip them into line with the Paris summit around the corner.

This alone validates my skepticism, and is no different in principle to any of the other major manipulations where data is tortured until it confesses what its tormentors want to see - manipulations which invariably either lower the past or raise the present, or both. Sure it can be explained away and validated by like-minded colleagues using the broken peer-review system. But explaining away the hockey stick, Climategate, the thriving polar bear population, our own BoM's methods and overt narrative, Tim Ball, John Bates, Al Gore, failed models... the list goes on.

In light of the above, a healthy skepticism is the only sensible attitude for the layperson to take.

Sure, the planet is warming modestly, and only a genuine "denialist" would dispute it. But what you people are subscribing to is akin to Reece Conca's playing statistics being adjusted to make him look like a gun player. The concern and even worry it is causing some people is dead set criminal.

Stick to the truth in all things.

Out.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I think you know very well what's coming, and I'm tiring of this as much as you are. So I'm going to assume your answer is the same as I'd expect from anyone with an IQ over 80 - that the three charts show essentially the same trend 1998-2012, with no obvious warming.

Here are the up-to-date charts for those three sources - HadCRUT, then UAH, then RSS.

One of the charts has undergone a dramatic transformation compared with the earlier version, while the other two are more or less unchanged.

HadCRUT was infamously altered in 2015 to show that the pause never happened because a) the climate models could not account for the pause and b) world leaders were asking uncomfortable questions about the pause and the IPCC required a tool to whip them into line with the Paris summit around the corner.

This alone validates my skepticism, and is no different in principle to any of the other major manipulations where data is tortured until it confesses what its tormentors want to see - manipulations which invariably either lower the past or raise the present, or both. Sure it can be explained away and validated by like-minded colleagues using the broken peer-review system. But explaining away the hockey stick, Climategate, the thriving polar bear population, our own BoM's methods and overt narrative, Tim Ball, John Bates, Al Gore, failed models... the list goes on.

In light of the above, a healthy skepticism is the only sensible attitude for the layperson to take.

Sure, the planet is warming modestly, and only a genuine "denialist" would dispute it. But what you people are subscribing to is akin to Reece Conca's playing statistics being adjusted to make him look like a gun player. The concern and even worry it is causing some people is dead set criminal.

Stick to the truth in all things.

Out.

No mate, it really doesn't "validate your skepticism". The reason it doesn't is that you can't support the highlighted conclusion with any facts at all. You keep stating it, but it is a bald assertion. It is narrative driven (that thing you keep accusing everyone else of). Instruments often cause problems. I gave you an example of how and why peer-review works, based on faster-than-light neutrinos. The reason the results were wrong was because of an extremely fine error introduced by the equipment. They had to adjust their data to account for the error. There was no conspiracy trying to hide the truth that neutrinos really can defy relativity. The boring truth was that sometimes your data is bad.

It really seems like you've "drunk the koolaid" on this one L2. Your devotion to the conclusions of a tiny group of people using anything but the tried-and-tested system that we know produces the most robust results, requires a grand conspiracy.

You spent several posts trying to get me to admit to something because you thought you had me cornered. Well here's a question for you:

Will you admit that in order for the conclusion that climate data was altered specifically to keep it in line with a narrative and not because there was a good scientific reason, requires a grand conspiracy? That all of the scientists across the globe who both produce data that feeds into the system and use that data in their models, that all of them (bar your rag-tag bunch of course) have to be in on the scam?

 

[Djevv]

I think you know very well what's coming, and I'm tiring of this as much as you are. So I'm going to assume your answer is the same as I'd expect from anyone with an IQ over 80 - that the three charts show essentially the same trend 1998-2012, with no obvious warming.

Here are the up-to-date charts for those three sources - HadCRUT, then UAH, then RSS.

One of the charts has undergone a dramatic transformation compared with the earlier version, while the other two are more or less unchanged.

HadCRUT was infamously altered in 2015 to show that the pause never happened because a) the climate models could not account for the pause and b) world leaders were asking uncomfortable questions about the pause and the IPCC required a tool to whip them into line with the Paris summit around the corner.

This alone validates my skepticism, and is no different in principle to any of the other major manipulations where data is tortured until it confesses what its tormentors want to see - manipulations which invariably either lower the past or raise the present, or both. Sure it can be explained away and validated by like-minded colleagues using the broken peer-review system. But explaining away the hockey stick, Climategate, the thriving polar bear population, our own BoM's methods and overt narrative, Tim Ball, John Bates, Al Gore, failed models... the list goes on.

In light of the above, a healthy skepticism is the only sensible attitude for the layperson to take.

Sure, the planet is warming modestly, and only a genuine "denialist" would dispute it. But what you people are subscribing to is akin to Reece Conca's playing statistics being adjusted to make him look like a gun player. The concern and even worry it is causing some people is dead set criminal.

Stick to the truth in all things.

Out.

Hi Lee I am not sure these graphs show any data torturing, in fact I think they all show the same thing. The difference between them is the time scale. The hadCRUT graph has a time scale of 180 years wheras the other two being much newer technology have timescales of 30 years. This has the effect of making the gradient of the last 30 years temperature LOOK much steeper for the hadCRUT data than the other two. But that is illusory because they all have roughly the same gradient of 0.25 degrees C per decade (if you do a quick, by eye linear correlation on each one) in the last 30 years.

I must add that 0.25 of a degree per decade is concerning if it continues.

 

[lukeanddad]

Hi Lee I am not sure these graphs show any data torturing, in fact I think they all show the same thing. The difference between them is the time scale. The hadCRUT graph has a time scale of 180 years wheras the other two being much newer technology have timescales of 30 years. This has the effect of making the gradient of the last 30 years temperature LOOK much steeper for the hadCRUT data than the other two. But that is illusory because they all have roughly the same gradient of 0.25 degrees C per decade (if you do a quick, by eye linear correlation on each one) in the last 30 years.

The point L2 is making is that the previous HadCRUT and the one above are different. Substantially.

Other than that, I'm confused.

 

[Djevv]

The point L2 is making is that the previous HadCRUT and the one above are different. Substantially.

Other than that, I'm confused.

OK I had a look at a number of the graphs produced in the last few pages
DavidS produced this one with all the data sets overlayed which shows what I said to be true - all data sets show the same warming trend:


Then Lee showed this one which is the land based thermometer data (HadCRUT) it starts in 1980 and finishes finishes in 2012. It seems to show a different trend. It starts at around +0.1 and finishes at +0.4 if you put a line of best fit on it. A gradient of around 0.14 degrees per decade.



Finally you have this one from Lee and David showing HadCRUT data from the 1850s onwards:



Here you start in 1980 at around 0 and finish in 2012 at about +0.5 so 0.23 degrees per decade. So a bit of a discrepancy here but nothing huge.

 

[Baloo]

The point L2 is making is that the previous HadCRUT and the one above are different. Substantially.

Yep, that's how I see it too. So it's either a conspiracy or an adjustment of the data for a technical reason.

Any windowless planes seen near the convention centre?