Is the Whole Anti-CO2 Hysteria Campaign Just a Distraction??

Sorry, I didn't have time to go back and fix it, and the forum doesn't allow editing more than half an hour after the post.

We KNOW it's been falsified, because we can compare previous versions of the falsified data.

It would be falsified by observations that aren't reliant on fake, manipulated temperature data. Such as those I identified.

Nope. Cyclical decline is not disappearance. The cyclical decline is over, bottomed out in 2012, and is not going to return.

And he is right. But according to anti-CO2 scaremongers, it will reduce food production.

If CO2 and global warming increase food production -- and they do -- what exactly are we worried about?

Nope. Only the altered data are getting warm. Human-caused global warming is real, and we actually know which humans are doing it: the ones altering the data to reduce earlier temperature observations and raise later ones.

Actually zero for three, but your false claim of two for three goes right along with all the other false claims.

They can observe what is appropriate to support the claims.

No. It's just appropriate to the type of claim being made.

What actual temperature record? Which one hasn't been tampered with to suit anti-CO2 scaremongering?

 

Again...which datasets are you using to make claims about the global mean temperature? If it's a specific version that's fine. Just tell us what it is so that we can review it.

 

How inaccurate do you think correct methods are for correcting the UHI bias?

And why does Judith Curry think the UHI bias is negative after WWII? That's right...it's not a typo...she thinks the bias is NEGATIVE.

 

Yes. And I saw no new original research that adds to the body of evidence we already have. Nor did I see a weak-GHG or no-GHG theory presented in that book that performs as well as what we already have.

 

You think fixing problems and improving methods on each version iteration is fraud?

You do realize that the net effect of all of these necessary adjustments (which you call "manipulation") actually works to reduce the warming trend right? So the only thing more ridiculous than invoking a conspiracy here is believing the conspirators were so stupid that their "manipulations" went against their agenda.

Patently false. Refer to Karl 2015 figure 2B.

As I've said multiple times on this forum. If you don't like the necessary adjustments being made for things like UHI, time-of-day, station moves, etc. and only want to consider the raw data then you are going ot have to accept the fact that warming is even MORE pronounced than what the experts are telling you. Is that what you want?

 

What are they ?? How are corrections made ?? How was the UHI effect in Barrow Alaska corrected ?? Why is their no documentation on the process of how each measurement is corrected ??

Curry adamantly believes that the satellite data is the only global temperature set that is accurate and representative.

What is you source for UHI correction being negative ??

 

What is the title of the book ?? What is the point of the book ?? What was the main point about global temperature measurements, average global temperature calculation, and the problems with those calculations.

What did the book say about the global heat balance ?? What did the book say about role of the oceans in distributing solar energy around the globe ?? What did the book say about the numerous ocean cycles ?? What did the book say about the numerous solar cycles ??

Curious that you did not mention any of these things. Maybe all you read was the table of contents ??

 

Why don't you tell us about those things? With your own links to the references, of course. You know, like we do when we present arguments. If you understood what you supposedly read, that shouldn't be a problem for you. Yet you never do it.

We are not obligated to refute your sacred scripture. Quite the contrary; you're obligated to support it. But only if you want to be taken seriously. If you won't, you look like a religious fanatic, thumping his Bible while screaming "IT'S ALL IN HERE!".

 

Tell us how you can tell the difference, at the present time, between a long term decline with noise and a cyclical decline.

Assuming cycles without even a full cycle visible usual ends badly. Even random noise will have apparent parts of cycles in it.

Your previous standard for data you'd accept was, in your words, "I'm talking about an observation that people could verify for themselves,"

So, how does one personally verify the Higgs Boson, a black hole, or the 13.8 billion year age of the universe? Be specific. Be very specific about how you can be absolutely 100.00000% sure that any data you examine isn't faked.

The point is, you accept those bits of science, even though you can't verify it. You accept almost all science without being able to verify it. Your standards is wildly hypocritical, and so you're ignored.

 

I have.

Or you could read it. What are you afraid of ??

 

There's no specific version I trust. The point is, they have been manipulated and falsified. The 1940-1970 cooling, which I am old enough to remember seeing reports of in the scientific literature, has been made to disappear, like the Medieval Warm Period.

 

By being willing to know the fact that it has been low before, such as in the 1940s -- and the 940s.

It's not assuming. It's inferring.

What's really unscientific is assuming there is no cycle just because you don't have the same kind of data covering a long enough period into the past to show such cycles.

One can't be 100% sure. Fakery is unfortunately part of the history of science. One can provisionally accept a finding based on lack of opposing evidence. But that is most certainly not the case with anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering.

I only accept them provisionally. I'm aware that new observations and analysis could overturn them.

Nope. The standard is appropriate to the claims being made.

 

Faking data to agree with proved-false theory isn't improvement.

I know it doesn't. I am old enough to remember when observations showed a dramatic cooling 1940-1970. That cooling has been made to disappear.

I am also old enough to remember when temperature observations for all the years 1999-2015 were much lower than 1998. Now they aren't, and some are even higher.

What nonsense. What I want is to use only temperature data from rural sites at least 100 years old that haven't seen local land use changes since they were established.

 

Exactly. There are hundreds of scientific papers documenting the temperatures and extent of the MWP. All of those were ignored after the Mann hockey stick was released.

 

Judith Curry.

https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

"We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average"

BTW...this is to get you think about the problem...why might the UHI be positive prior to WWII and negative afterwards?

 

Yes. There are many scientific papers documenting the MWP. It happened. The problem is that when you aggregate all of these datasets into a single global dataset what you find is that the MWP was not a global phenomenon nor was the regional warming simultaneous. The MBH98 publication was one of the first attempts at global (or at least NH) reconstruction and since then many other have done similar work and it has been overwhelmingly corroborated that the original MBH98 was largely correct.

 

How do you know there was cooling between 1940-1970 globally?

How do you know there was even a MWP?

How can you possibly make any claims about the global mean temperature if you don't accept any dataset?

First, how can you remember something you didn't belief was legit to begin with?

Second, no matter what version of whichever dataset you care to look at 2005, 2009, 2013, and 2014 were warmer than 1998.

Third, of course temperatures are higher than 1998 now. The planet has warmed. Even the recent La Nina years were warmer than 1998.

Great. I want that too. Do you know of one 'cause I sure don't.

 

So what ???

Now explain how the urban heat island effects in Barrow Alaska was corrected for.

 

And yet it was global.

 

I’ve shown you that.

 

As is always the case with your claims, that's not what the science says. Kinnard et all, 2011.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10581
---
Abstract
Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic1,2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3,4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years.
---



Let me guess. That disagrees with your religious beliefs, and for that reason alone it has to be a fraudulent, right?

 

Like I said, you first.

After all, you show no signs of having read your Bible. Despite being prompted over and over, you refuse to discuss what's inside it. Quoting the table of contents is as far as you'll go. All you can do is thump that Bible harder and tell us all to BELIEVE. That's boring. We can find religious zealots anywhere.

Every fringe religion demands that of me. What makes your religion more special than all the others? You have to demonstrate that your religion is special. Just saying it over and over doesn't convince anyone.

 

I have read and posted at least 10 detailed discussions with references from the book.

 

One clearly incorrect paper is not "the science."

What an absurd and dishonest load of garbage. "Terrestrial proxies" like the ones Lyin' Michael Mann used to disappear the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age:

See? It clearly shows the Little Ice Age having been warmer than the Medieval Warm Period! That's not science. It's fraud.

The fact that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the Little Ice Age is not religious belief. It's a plain fact. And the graph above says it was colder. That's fraud.

 

It was widely reported at the time, and older people I knew agreed it had got colder.

By being willing to know facts.

The preponderance of evidence: everything from ancient historical accounts to pioneer diaries to the Combined Gas Law to pollen from lake bottoms.

Same way I remember religion, socialism, etc. Duh.

Your claims are just false:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Nope. See UAH, above.

Nope. Wrong again. Only 2016, an El Nino year, and not by much.