Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Good for you, acknowledging something at least.

Or so you simply "claim" with zero empirical support. Because who are you again? Just another shameless, screaming denier. Obviously. Else you would at least attempt to support your claims with analysis and data from reasonable credible sources. Like this, for example:

And to refute these findings from studying "a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model" you offer what again?

Shameless.

 

No, that's the complete opposite of reality.

The wild conspiracy theories that your side fabricates, and which you parrot, they always try to push the opposite of reality. Given how you keep peddling such brazen fictions, and how you show no regret when those fictions get debunked, why should anyone pay attention to anything you say?

The adjustments have made the warming look _smaller_, and anyone saying otherwise is lying.

http://variable-variability.blogspo...zation-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

 

Two out of three of those factors would have a cooling effect. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

It's proof that you're very hostile to any data that doesn't support your religious beliefs.

And by _your_ standards, that data is completely worthless, maybe because you installed a new birdbath, or painted the trellis, or watered the lawn more often.

Stinks when you get hoisted by your own petard, eh?

 

I'm not really interested in your non-standard use of English, or you strange claims that the earth's climate has to act like a simple circuit you sketched out.

And I said that makes no sense at all. You seem very confused about cause and effect.

And I still say that makes no sense at all. You seem very confused about cause and effect.

You're the only person here who is constantly deflecting by screaming about catastrophism. Catastrophism seems to be part of your religion. The normal people are pointing out that a higher mean means it's warming, because that's the definition of "warming" that the entire planet uses, other than you.

Nobody can understand it, because that reality-defying claim is completely bonkers.

We would like to hear more about it, of course. Please explain it in detail.

I did. Now I'm really impressed at how smart I am.

You're inability to understand simple logic only reflects badly on you.

No, NOAA didn't say that. You made that up. You do that a lot.

It's gone up because it's gotten warmer. Come on, this is very basic stuff. You need to educate yourself before embarrassing yourself like this again.

So now you're challenging the fact that water vapor forms into clouds. Again, this is basic stuff that you fail at. An average middle-schooler is better at science than you are.

 

So you have conveniently "forgotten" the adjustments to the global land temperature record, which YOUR OWN SOURCE admits were adjusted to show more warming:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lwQfxPaXFd0/VNoo9h7vUhI/AAAAAAAAAhA/iW8rexGjbgU/s1600/land+raw+adj.png

"They adjust the trend upwards. In the raw data the trend is 0.6°C per century since 1880 while after removal of non-climatic effects it becomes 0.8°C per century."

 

The positive claim requires empirical support.

Obviously not.

The observation that AGW screamers' claims are unsupported by EMPIRICAL evidence.

You do know what simulations are, don't you?

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

"Supported" by models and simulations, not empirical evidence.

 

you're not telling the truth

i've posted data, science, facts, evidence and logic

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/MANNETAL98/mbh98.html

the adjustments make the data more accurate

 

Mann? Really? You realize his hockeystick has been abandoned by everyone except the true believers don't you?

 

the graph is accurate, false accusations from big-oil lobbyists have been refuted

 

They will all either increase heat absorption which increases IR radiation or will increase the water vapor in the atmosphere. Both of which will increase temperatures.

In other words you have no refutation to put forth and nothing of import to offer. So you just fall back on your typical tactic, the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well.

1. My weather station is isolated from the house.
2. My house is the same color it has been for 32 years. Palomino.
3. My lawn gets watered when God sees fit to do so. Over a five year interval this only affects daily volatility and not the mean.

Stinks when your whining gets shown to be whining, eh?

 

1. My weather station is isolated from the house.
2. My house is the same color it has been for 32 years. Palomino.
3. My lawn gets watered when God sees fit to do so. Over a five year interval this only affects daily volatility and not the mean.


Who cares...

 

Even the IPCC dumped it. FAIL

 

I am giving you standard physics definitions. And I did not give you a "circuit", I gave you a standard system layout used in thermodynamics, civil or mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or any of a myriad of other disciplines.

I *KNOW* you aren't interested in anything that might contradict your religious dogma. That has been obvious for quite a while.

Which just goes to show that your understanding of statistics hasn't advanced since you claimed you could tell the slope of the mean from the variance and the standard deviation!

Assume your mean is 70degF. If in year 0 you have 90 days of 80degF temperatures and 270 days of 67degF which determines the mean of 70degF for year 0 and then in year 1 you have 120 days of 80degF temperatures and 240 days of 67degF temps then your mean *will* go up to 71.3 degF, a 2degF difference. Your trend line will be UP. The temps never got "hotter" than 80degF but the mean went up!

All you got was a longer growing season!

 

If the only thing we get out of global warming is longer growing seasons then there is *no* catastrophe and making paupers out of the US to "fix" CO2 is a ruse by the politicians to take more of our money!

The *real* answer will be zoning and insurance regulations concerning coastal areas by the States. Nothing need be done by the federal government!

I just explained it in my earlier post. You *still* won't understand it though!

I'm sure everyone is impressed by how you can tell the slope of a mean by using the variance and the standard deviation! I'm sure everyone is impressed by how you believe record high temps will get less as it gets warmer!

You are a legend in your own mind, aren't you?

that is *exactly* what NOAA says. I'm not going to post it for you a fourth time. At some point your willfull ignorance just becomes too big of a bandwidth hog for everyone else!

But you have absolutely *NO* idea what "warmer means! The only one embarrassing themselves here is you!

I'm not challenging that water vapor turns into clouds. But it doesn't do it magically except in your mind. You can't explain *why* the water vapor precipitates out. You can't explain the timing, the process, or anything! All you can do is parrot AGW religious dogma.

You shoudn't be surprised that no one puts any credence in anything you have to say!

 

So tell us, is the global mean going up because of higher temperatures of longer growing seasons?

Or don't you care about that either?

 

you're being dishonest again, mann is all over the ipcc's website

he helped pioneer temperature reconstruction and the 'hockey stick' graph was a breakthrough





https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

how many times do you have to be shown that

temperatures are going up because of co2 from fossil fuel usage?

 

In this case, "simulation" means:

All models and simulations done to usefully combine and present what can be concluded from various collections of empirical evidence, including reporting their levels of confidence.

Shameless denial after shameless denial. Grow up and get a life. Your grandchildren will appreciate it.

 

Except temperatures are *NOT* going up in Kansas or Iowa. Maximum temps are actually going *down*. Fewer 100degF days every year for the past five years!

How many times do *you* have to be shown that? How long will it take for you to even attempt to reconcile that with your statement of "temperatures are going up"?

How do you *know* temperatures are going up? All the climate models tell you is that the mean is going up!

Are you in the same camp as mamooth who says he can tell the slope of the mean from the variance and the standard deviation? Do you even know what variance and standard deviation *are*?

 

that doesn't change the fact that the average global-temperature is increasing

data in the instrumental temperature record shows that temperatures are increasing

as opposed your parroting of big-oil misinformation

 

Sorry, the MEAN is going up. That does *not* mean that temperatures are going up.

As I tried to explain to mamooth:

If in year 0 you have 90 days of 80degF weather and 270 days of 67degF you get a mean of 70degF.

If in year 1 you have 120 days of 80degF weather and 240 days of 67degF weather you get a mean of 71.3degF. The mean went up but not a single day with a temperature above 80degF is required.

When all you have is knowledge that the mean is going up you know nothing about what the temperature is actually doing.

I know that is hard for an AGW religionist to understand but you need to at least try. Forget your bible for a minute and actually *think* for a change!

 

You have conveniently used the quote out of context to make an incorrect conclusion. I'll be charitable and assume that you just didn't understand what you were reading.

For _land_ stations, which make up 29% of the total effect. The sea temps have been adjusted much further the other way, hence the total effect is to make the warming look _smaller_. That's not arguable, as is the fact that the fundamental denier conspiracy theory is a big ol' lie.

 

No, no, no. Evaporation always cools the local area.

Again, this is basic stuff, and you flub it totally.

Special pleading fallacy on your part, claiming that your "isolated" station is superior to the other rural stations tha are just as isolated. You iknow, the rural weather stations are as well. The ones that show the same warming as urban stations, which compoletely destroys yoru kook conspiracy theory about UHI causing warming.

So, the paint has faded, or gotten dirty, or you've added something. By your standards, you data is now worthless.

So the trees have grown, changing the area, and your data is now worthless.

I'm sorry, but we have to hold you to your own standards, which say that your data is worthless.

 

Urban stations show more night warming than rural stations.

 

If that's the case, I'm sure you can show us an illustration of a thermodynamic system or civil engineering system using an op amp. You can't, because you're just making stories up. It's the engineer's fallacy on display there, assuming the universe must act like your own tiny specialty.

The whole planet agrees with me, and says you're totally wrong. Not being a paranoid narcissist, I know if the whole planet said I was wrong about something, I'd assume I was wrong. I wouldn't declare there was a vast conspiracy directed at me because I saw something on a conspiracy blog.

No, I've never said anything of the sort. If you're just going to tell lies in response to anything that anyone says, why should anyone waste time speaking with you?

So, your claim was "What I said was that global warming can be caused by a longer growing season just as easily as by higher temperatures." I pointed out that was nonsense, and asked you to explain it, and you give us this;

That illustration only shows how a longer growing season is a _result_ of warming, and nobody ever said otherwise.

The issue was your bizarre repeated claims that a longer growing season _causes_ warming. Are you backing away from that crazy claim now, finally having gotten the concepts of cause and effect sorted out?