98% of the earth's surface is hotter now than at any time in the past 2000 years

Great...and if you want to be convincing you should present evidence backing this statement up. Shows us how every dataset that computes a global mean temperature has math errors, lacks quality control processes, and does not consider bias correction. I'll make it simple...just name one dataset in which the maintainers failed to do what you say.

Great...show us what they did wrong. And show us how they should change their methods to get the right answer.

All you need to do to falsify this hypothesis is show that the Earth is either cooling or staying within the margin of error of the measurements. If this hypothesis really is false then it should be really easy to falsify it. You'll get bonus points if you identify how that dozens of datasets that do show warming got it all wrong.

You certainly don't have to do this, but you're not going to convince anyone that is wrong if you don't even try especially considering the preponderance of evidence that exists which shows that it is right.

 

I already told you how.

I already showed you.

I already told you how.

Not a hypothesis; a theory.

We have no idea whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same. There is no way to accurately measure global temperature. We don't have near enough thermometers. See Statistical Mathematics for reference.

Not a hypothesis; a theory.

It can't be falsified. It is not a theory of science. It is a religious theory.

They aren't following the axioms of Statistical Mathematics.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence; ONLY conflicting evidence. The theory of Global Warming is not a scientific theory. It is a religious theory based on an undefined buzzword. Any argument based upon it is thus rendered void by logic.

 

No. You presented a few technical concepts. You did not explain how these datasets violate the concepts you mentioned. That's your challenge.

The statement "the global mean temperature at the surface of Earth has increased since WWII" is a hypothesis. It can be falsified.

Ah...the good old "we don't know the global mean temperature of Earth" argument. Statistical mathematics says it can be done accurately. And it has been done by dozens, and perhaps hundreds or even thousands, of groups and individuals since the 1800's. And they all agree within a reasonable margin of error. We even know the mean temperature of all the planets (and some dwarf planets) and we have WAY less information about them than we do Earth.

It can be falsified quite easily. Just convincingly show that either the Earth is cooling or that the trend is statistically insignificant. That's all you have to do.

Hogwash. Berkeley Earth was founded and funded by AGW skeptics with statistical experts on staff specifically to provide an "independent" look at all of the other datasets that exist. BE found no math errors, no serious quality control issues, or other concerning methods. And this was from skeptics who didn't think the Earth had been warming as much had been published.

I have no argument here.

If by Global Warming you actually Anthroprogenic Global Warming then it most certainly is testable. The two hypothesis are "the global mean surface temperature is increasing" and "the increase is primarily due to climate forcing agents that are being modulated by humans". Both of these are falsifiable.

What I think is going on here is that you (or anybody) cannot convincingly falsify them so instead of forming a theory around observations like what most scientists do you form observations around a theory you want to be true. And by "form observations" I mean that you actually reject any observation which is inconsistent with your worldview which is the vast majority of the observations.

 

I must make a correction here. According to the judge the delay DID have something to do with Mann...a lot actually. Specifically the judge felt that there were two extended periods of delay in which Mann had the opportunity to set the matter for trial and declined to do so. Earlier this year Mann filed a motion to proceed and a new trial date was set for 2021. The judge felt the delay prejudiced Ball which I happen to agree with. I think Mann's appeal, should he file, will fall short considering a large part of the delay was on him. At least Ball's delays were due to defensible reasons...his personal health and because 4 out of 4 witnesses he was to present either died or are now incapable of traveling to court.

 

Ain't just me, it's every dispassionate observer of this tempest in a teapot you've conjured up outa thin air.

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

Because they have the wherewithal to resolve the question in a heartbeat, obviously.

Yeah, ain't like you've got anything better to do, right?

Oh wait.

I'll take it as seriously as I damn well please. Enjoy.

 

I'll slowly back away, easy boy, easy, good dog, settle down. LOL

 

I already did. Those datasets are making use of stations which are NOT uniformly spaced across the Earth. THAT is a math error. THAT means that there is location bias in the results. The stations are also not being simultaneously read by the same observer. THAT is a math error. THAT means that there is time bias in the results. Failure to eliminate biasing factors is a math error.

The report, in the 3rd paragraph of page 3, to give you a specific example, says that they applied an "iterative weighting procedure" to each individual station data. That means that RAW data is NOT being used. THAT is a math error. RAW data MUST be used in a statistical analysis. Cooked data is NOT allowed. The report never declared a variance. THAT is a math error. No margin of error was calculated within the report. THAT is a math error. How many more examples do you need?

Not a hypothesis; a theory. It is not a falsifiable theory, as we have no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.

We don't know, though...

No, statistical mathematics says that it CAN'T be done with current weather station infrastructure. The stations are not uniformly spaced, not simultaneously read by the same observer, and there aren't NEARLY enough of them.

It has been done by no one. It cannot be done, even today. We don't have enough thermometers. People claiming that they have done so are committing numerous math errors, as explained at the beginning of this response.

No they don't, and they are committing numerous math errors.

We don't know the temperature of any other planets either.

Not possible to do. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. YOU are the one claiming that it is possible. YOU are the one who needs to show that it is indeed possible to do, without committing math errors.

Berkeley Earth is wrong. They have committed numerous math errors, as I have explained above, as have NASA, NOAA, etc where BE gets their individual temperature data from...

So why were you appealing to supporting evidence? Science doesn't make use of it. It is irrelevant. Science only cares about conflicting evidence.

Not hypotheses; theories. And no, they are not falsifiable. It is not possible to measure global temperature.

The Church of Global Warming is based on undefined buzzwords such as "global warming", "climate change", etc... One can't form arguments around that which is undefined. That yields void arguments, a logical fallacy. It is not possible to falsify that which is void to begin with...

 

Then let them know. And then let us know how that works out for you. And while you're at it let all of these groups know what they did wrong as well...

NASA GISS - surface station
NOAA GlobalTemp - surface station
HadCRUT - surface station
Cowtan&Way - surface station
Berkeley Earth - surface station
UAH - satellite
RSS - satellite
AIRES - satellite
STAR - satellite
RATPAC - balloon
IGRA - balloon
ECMWF/ERA - reanalysis
ECMWF/20th Century - reanalysis
MERRA - reanalysis
CERRA - reanalysis
NCEP/NCAR - reanalysis
NCEP/DOE - reanalysis
NOAA 20th Century - reanalysis
CFSR - reanalysis
JRA - reanalysis
ASR - reanalysis
ARGO - ocean
ICOADS - ocean
AMSR - ocean
COBE - ocean
HadSST - ocean
ERSST - ocean

...all of which definitively agree that the Earth is warming. And they use wildly different techniques and subsets of data and are performed by independent groups who consistently want to one-up each other to produce the best and most accurate datasets. None of them have ever been discovered to have fraudulently manipulated their datasets.

Here's what I think is happening. You are hamstrung by the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias. You simply cannot accept that there are thousands of experts that are far smarter than you so you use "nuh-uh" arguments to rationalize away the conclusions of the worlds leading experts because you think you're smarter than every expert on the planet. If you disagree then publish your grievances and the methods you feel are correct so that they can be reviewed by everyone.

 

Let's clarify something...are you saying we have no idea what the global mean temperature is or are you saying the best estimate of the value has a large error?

 

They've been informed already, but logic science and mathematics all stand in the way of their religious dogma, so they simply dismiss those things on sight.

I'll tell you what's wrong with all of these as well...

These are the ones that we have gone through already. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth because there are not enough thermometers, and the few thermometers that we DO have are NOT uniformly spaced, nor simultaneously read by the same observer. Failure to remove biasing factors is a math error. The Berkeley Earth report that you linked me said that they cooked the numbers. That is a math error as well, as statistical mathematics REQUIRES the use of RAW data.

Earth has some 197 MILLION sq miles of surface area. NASA's 7,500 thermometers, IF spread out uniformly, would equate to one thermometer for every 26,266 sq miles of surface area, or an area about the size of West Virginia. Given a variance of 20degF per MILE (I have personally observed such variances), there is no way in hell that a single thermometer can accurately measure 26,266 sq miles of surface area. YOU. NEED. MORE. THERMOMETERS.

Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. The light measurements cannot be converted into temperatures via Stefan Boltzmann since we have no clue what Earth's emissivity is. In order to figure out Earth's emissivity, we must first know its temperature, which is what we are attempting to figure out in the first place. Chicken and egg issue. Whoops. Satellites do not work either... They are not magickal.

These all have the same issues that the surface stations have, which I have already went through with you.

All of which ignore serious math and science errors.

They all deny logic, science, and mathematics.

No. They just want to promote the State religion that they want to compel everyone to believe in.

They deny logic, science, and mathematics. The temperature of the Earth cannot be measured. Not enough thermometers.

Psychoquackery.

 

Historical temperatures recorded at various locations across Earth are all within a certain range of temperatures, so we know that Earth's temperature falls somewhere within that range, but we have no way of performing an accurate statistical analysis of a global temperature for Earth as a whole. In other words, it is not possible to get the margin of error down to +-10degF, let alone to a fraction of a degree... This is because temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF per mile (I have personally observed this).

 

Almost the whole planet disagrees with you

Is it your contention that the whole planet is wrong, and that only you are brilliant enough to understand that?

When the whole planet says I'm wrong, I assume I'm wrong, and I go educate myself. But then, I'm not consumed with paranoia and narcissism.

So, first you yanked your "West Virginia standard" out of your butt, and the rest of your argument followed.

For calculating a global average, hell yes. Duh.

Here's what you're missing. Temperature anomalies, over ranges of hundreds of miles, are very continuous and predictable.

If you don't understand what that means and why it matters, you don't belong in the discussion.

And again, the fact that you can toss out 90% of the measurements at random and get the same results shows that your crazy claims are wrong. This isn't debatable. The temperature network is plenty redundant. The hard data says you're wrong, end of story.

But anomalies don't, hence your line of reasoning faceplants.

Seriously, go educate yourself. Learn what anomalies are, and why they are used. Until you grasp the basics, you're going to keep embarrassing yourself like this.

 

The rule for socks and farts is the same. "He who smelt it, dealt it".

Thus, we know Joseph here runs at least a dozen socks.

Joseph, can you list all of your sock accounts for us? Don't try to deny it. You've claimed to have expertise on socks, and you could only get such knowledge by long experience in being a sockmaster.