5 Doomsday Predictions for 2015 of the "Settled Science" of AGW

After being grouped, averaged, correlated, grided, corrected, and "fixed" to handle differences in sampling bias....do you really call this data?

Basic uncertainty within a single months data, from a single temperature station, runs some +/- 10C.....and that is only within a 50% confidence interval based on the empirical distributions themselves...as opposed to this..thing. Because to be honest, if these guys assumed normality anywhere along the way (as they have in the peer reviewed paper on temperature uncertainty that Poor Debater provided), I can't get 20% of the empirical distributions to match that assumption within monthly temperature data at a single location. And without the correlation matrix used, do you know what the effect on the average was because to be honest....when the assumption of normality doesn't hold...why don't they use a mode or median?

Do you know ANYTHING about data? I mean...other than pretending this statistical monster has it in there...buried behind all those assumptions you don't know exist, and wouldn't understand if you did?

 

CO2 levels and temps always go up before ice ages. We are around the time for the next ice age. That's the most logical big picture conclusion as to where we are headed. climate occurs over a scale of time we are incapable of measuring. We are looking at stars through a microscope and claiming to know truth.

 

What Japan AND NOAA AND the BOM Aust AND World Metrological organisation ALL are in on the same conspiracy???

Some conspiracy,,,,,,

- - - Updated - - -

And burning 83 million barrel of oil per DAY has nothing to do with CO2 rise:

 

A rise of .7 degrees Celsius in a century? OMFG the sky is falling! If I lived to be 300 years old I could almost feel the difference!

 

I dunno, but co2 always goes up before ice ages.

 

I recommend you learn the difference between data, and the statistics of data manipulation and aggregation.

No one is trying to distract from question by calling it a conspiracy except you.

I would recommend Stats 101 for starters, that you might not confuse the two.

 

That isn't what your "data" said, CO2 wasn't even on the graph. Do try and keep up.

 

That story is just part of your conspiracy theory. Which you'll claim is not a conspiracy theory, even though it says the whole world is engaged in a secret conspiracy.

Let's bring up something that most faux-skeptics are very uncomfortable with, Occam's Razor. If the whole world disagrees with you, what's more likely?

1. You messed up.

2. A vast secret global conspiracy to fake all the data exists.

Normal people, those not consumed with paranoia and narcissism, will pick "1".

You'll want to divert now with some of your stastistobabble-language religious chants, so please proceed.

 

I have said nothing about a conspiracy of the whole world. I have said that if you read the words of the early climate "scientists", they were pretty enthusiastic about using the ignorance of the normal citizen (call it those with an IQ 20 points higher than the average forum climate cut and paste specialist) against them by choosing to tell scary scenarios, as opposed to being honest.

You might call that a conspiracy, I simply reference it as part of the ideas being discussed, in public, during the early days of "the world is warming!!" game, by the people who then went out and DID what they said they would do, and those folks who can be counted on to not think about it, reacted exactly as those folks were hoping. You can always count on the average persons gullibility for "science"...just as they hoped...all those years ago.

Admittedly, I am familiar with the language of science. And those who set up the scary scenario versus honesty angle back in the 80's, are COUNTING on you to denigrate the language you don't understand, in JUST the way you are now attempting. Unfortunately, it doesn't work on those of us who speak the language. Those who were counting on their acolytes doing a fine job name calling and pretending no one needs to understand the language of science except their priests should give you a prize.

 

PeakProphet wrote: “I have said nothing about a conspiracy of the whole world. I have said that if you read the words of the early climate "scientists", they were pretty enthusiastic about using the ignorance of the normal citizen (...) against them by choosing to tell scary scenarios, as opposed to being honest. ... I simply reference it as part of the ideas being discussed, in public, during the early days of "the world is warming!!" game…”

So, not a conspiracy, but a climatologist-wide, world is warming “game”…? Obviously you’re not aware that the concept & proven ramifications of warming transcends that of climatology, spanning across an undeniable number of scientific disciplines. Even the hoaxers know to use the broad term “scientists” rather than “climatologists” now.

 

Well, at least you admit you do not know the explanation even though you do not have the mechanism correct.

And this is the problem when people base objections on half remembered information from unreliable sources

In other words if someone wants to be a denialist they should at least get the denialist "facts" straight

CO2 does not rise before an ice age - it rises after the temperature rise signalling the end of the ice age - and that is because of feed back mechanisms

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

But it is the contention that data manipulation (which you have not proven) is taking place in multiple centres world wide that makes this a conspiracy theory

 

I do not have to prove data manipulation...it is stated within the peer reviewed science articles provided. The use of a mean is itself a data manipulation and is used on the graph you provided. A choice has already been made, for you, to use the mean instead of a median or mode. You don't even know the DIFFERENCE between the three of these because those providing the material you copy and paste have already manipulated the data and stopped you from examining that difference. It isn't as though you have attempted in the least to find out for yourself...and for good reason...you are the perfect target of what those anti-population and future climate scientists were looking for back in the 70's and 80's....someone who would swallow whatever bait was dangled in front of you and swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

 

Actually I do and you are welcome because it is statistics 101

What you have failed to do is show the variance and impact of same if the data were treated in this manner

Oh! And do you NOT think that bureaus of meteorology around the world would NOT employ statisticians/mathematicians? You know people who understand that there is more to statistics than mean, median and mode

Btw - you might be able to fool people but can you explain how flowers have been fooled

 

More appeal to authority instead of discussing the data itself?

 

Got the basis for the logical fallacy wrong too

 

LOL, right, not that you always question any credentials and bring up what you think are authority figures as your sole argument.

 

You dont understand how they measure the temperature of the Earth using ground based measurements. Of course the Data is manipulated. It shouldnt be surprising that when they use Satellite data that doesnt go through such process of manipulation, there is no warming to be found in 18 years.

 

Satellite data is twiddled and adjusted to a much greater extent than surface data.

While nothing measures temperature directly, a column of mercury or thermocouple reading can be converted to temperature through a much more direct process than a satellite microwave measurement. Dr. Roy Spencer here talks about what's involved.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01...-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/
---
Instead, what we have is multiple satellites (we use 14 of them for the UAH processing) with relatively short lifetimes (2 to 16+ years), most of which have decaying orbits which causes the local time of measurement to slowly change over the years, slightly different layers sampled by the earlier (pre-199 MSU instruments compared to the later (post-199 AMSU instruments, and some evidence of small calibration drifts in a few of the instruments.

An additional complication is that subsequent satellites are launched into alternating sun-synchronous orbit times, nominally 1:30 a.m. and p.m., then 7:30 a.m. and p.m., then back to 1:30 a.m. and p.m., etc. Furthermore, as the instruments scan across the Earth, the altitude in the atmosphere that is sampled changes as the Earth incidence angle of view changes.

All of these effects must be accounted for, and there is no demonstrably “best” method to handle any of them.
---

 

Surface temperature readings present their own problems from stations being added to stations being decommissioned. Many of the readings are not direct readings but taken by amateurs in the field. Some stations have to be adjusted for various reasons, then all of that data, by date, has to be combined and manipulated to come up with 'one' temperature. That is why there are uncertainties in the data but the uncertainties are ignored by the media leading people to believe what is presented is fact and not an approximation.

This is an ocean planet so the oceans have the most affect on land temperatures and weather like we have seen in California with the drought.

 

And your proof is.............