Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Actually, it was the deniers Christy and Spencer at UAH who got caught cooking the data, so to muddy the waters the deniers lie about the honest scientists cooking the data.

 

Really? What does that have to do with the Argo probes? And for the record, Christy and Spencer have perfectly respectable scientific careers, are you implying that they have been convicted of academic fraud at some point in their career, or charged with it by a performance review board in NASA or something?

 

It's the Argo data, from a denier site, measured in temperature instead of heat since you can't see the relationship between temperature and heat.

And Spencer and Christy got caught cooking the satellite data by using the OPPOSITE sign for calculating diurnal satellite drift. That turned global warming into global cooling. Deniers are always claiming the globe is cooling when it isn't. Deniers then took their cooked UAH data and used it to accuse all the honest scientists of cooking the data. The honest scientists seeing the discrepancy between their data and UAH, checked and rechecked their data and found no errors. They then asked Christy and Spencer to check their UAH data and they refused, after all they already knew it was cooked. Finally the honest scientists invested the time and some of their limited resources into doing what Christy and Spencer refused to do if they were honest, and they found the UAH errors and corrected them and published the corrections in a peer reviewed study, embarrassing Christy and Spencer into finally admitting they made an "error."

No honest person takes seriously anything the two dishonest scientists say any more, of course deniers not being honest still say they are the only credible scientists and all the honest scientists cheat, which is why the discredited Spencer is your MessiahRushie's OFFICIAL climatologist!

 

Well, you should realize the Argos array is only a short term snapshot, and only laughable assessments can come from it in attempts to project a trend. It needs to be in place longer for it's data to be meaningful.

As for temperature and heat, you can assess the relationships if you know the materials involved.

As for the back and fourth of credible science, I would like to see the complete assessment. Not some naysayer spouting off misinformation, but the real evidence. I have read material from both sides on this, and I doubt the truth is as you claim.

What skeptical science says about this case is so laughable because they say things that the entire climate community practices regularly.

 

I gave you the facts, you can't handle the facts.

After the study that exposed their "errors" they had no choice but admit it to save face. Once their "errors" were corrected, their data matched almost exactly the ground and satellite data the deniers to this day say is cooked.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060728.../108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Christy.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/hearings/07272006Hearing2001/Christy.pdf
Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
Correcting Temperature Datasets
We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature
data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments.

 

OK, I don't see the intent as charged. I am appalled at the way you implicate the scientists. Do you never make mistakes? Did you read the 16 page article? Besides, that's a;most a decade back now.

P.S.

One of you links is a 404 error. I hate it when people have "canned links" to use later, without testing their validity.

That is some sloppy work...

 

A side note about consensus.

1946 Consensus Science:

1. Stars are filled with Hydrogen
2. Neutrons attract other neutrons

[In fact stars make and discard Hydrogen and atomic bombs explode because neutrons repel neutrons]

 

The "error" they made was using the opposite sign to calculate diurnal satellite drift, one of the most basic calculations needed for satellite data. The deniers billed the two as the foremost scientists on satellite data and between the two of them they had no idea how to calculate diurnal satellite drift, just a bit beyond belief.

And the 404 error was the direct link to the GOP controlled House Energy Commission hearing, which the GOP scrubbed so people wouldn't see Christy's admission that their data, used to discredit honest scientists for over a decade, was wrong. I then used the Wayback Machine archive to link to the scrubbed hearing. So you are wrong about it being "canned links," but rather my unscrubbing GOP scrubbed links!

 

global warming science morphed into an easter egg hunt to find the missing heat that they predicted that never happened it is comical

 

Stop making excuses. That link was posted less than two hours ago.

Again, do you never make mistakes?

Why didn't the peer review process see it?

Such mistakes happen, and I though the insight to the IPCC process was far more scandalous than the mistaken sign.

- - - Updated - - -

There never was missing heat. The oceans have a huge capacity to store, absorb, and release heat. As for the accuracy of the stated levels, that's another thing.

 

You mean like Michael Mann and his hockey stick? Getting lonely for him in his lawsuit against Mark Steyn in his attempt to shut down criticism and Steyn's lawsuit against Mann. Not one scientist or organization has filed a brief in Mann's defense. The warmist blogs portray this is Mann defending science when it is Steyn defending free speech. The ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech.

 

A desperate attempt to change the subject.
Thank you.

The court has so far upheld Mann's lawsuit and Mock Swine's lawyers have quit on him, and National Review has dumped Swine. The court concluded that a reasonable jury may find the statement that Dr. Mann 'molested and tortured data' was false, and published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not.

 

Staying on topic: if the globe is warming(which is only a scientific hypothesis at this time) does not mean we need to arbitrarily start taxing the use of fossil fuels as it has not been factually proven the mans use of fossil fuels is the reason for warming if in fact it is warming. Instead, we should be directing our scientific attention and monies toward finding ways to live with the global weather changes. What has been proven, scientifically and factually is that even if we drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels it with have little impact on the climate over the next 1000+ years. So insignificantly that taxing fossil fuels use is a waste of money. Money better spent on dealing with living with the changes we have little control over.

I neither agree or disagree with the fact the climate is changing. But I do believe if we don't begin accommodating with the changes many homes will be destroyed and many lives lost due to natural disasters. Rebuilding in hurricane, tornado prone areas and flood prone areas without changing building codes is folly AND will end in disaster. We should be preparing for sea rise and moving inland.

 

Hah, shows what you know. Mann has a penchant for suing anyone that questions his authority. Mann also has yet to publish how he tortured his data. Some scientist.

- - - Updated - - -

You cannot disagree with climate change since change is the only constant in climate. What you may disagree with is the hypothesis of CO2 centric warming.

 

Well, he never tortured anything so how could he publish anything on torture. Now he did publish how he got his hockey stick graph, and many scientists have repeated it and confirmed it. Other scientists used different methods and also came up with very similar hockey stick graphs. The hockey stick graph is one of the most studied scientific papers of all time and has been validated over and over. Deniers are reduced to pontificating it is a fraud.




A 2013 study took a comprehensive look at so-called “paleoclimate reconstructions.” The result “looks like a twin” of the original hockeystick, according to researcher Stefan Rahmstorf.

 

Wrong again. He published his algorithm and data but he did not publish how he manipulated the input data. Some found that putting noise into it produced a hockey stick. Actually he did not originally publish but Penn State ended up putting it on a server that others could access.

 

It doesn't matter. Different types of data are used for different timelines leading to different offsets and averaging.

Now if we could have an annual average proxy rate instead of 200 years or so, then we could more reliably splice annual temperatures to the proxy data. Still, the accuracy of proxy data is pretty bad...

 

Never said I disagreed with "climate change" as you said the climate has will always be changing. Just saying the global warming is only a hypothesis, not a scientific fact and that limiting out fossil fuel consumption will have little effect on changing the climate, also a scientific fact, not just a hypothesis.

 

He didn't manipulate anything, so how exactly could he publish it?

The hockey stick has been confirmed, validated and repeated over and over. Deniers have nothing so they attack Mann personally with their libel.

 

Still don't understand eh? I suggest you do some reading of some of the in depth critiques of Mann's hockey stick. You will find that the struggle is duplicating his dataset since it is manipulated but how not being published. I also suggest you read other proxy studies and about proxies in general. Mann should talk, he libels other scientists all the time, they just have more class than he does.

 

Already posted charts where his chart was duplicated using his reported method and by people who used different methods. The hockey stick is undeniable accurate, which is why deniers attack Mann personally.

 

I suppose ignorance is bliss. Keep your head in the sand, it will be less stressful for you that way.

 

Why don't I ever hear of some government grants going to projects that disprove climatechange?
are you lefty's afaid they just might disprove it all? or is this a scam and money only goes to people who will
only come to one conclution?

Your all a fraud.


....

 

That's pure baloney! Deniers Christy and Spencer at the UAH get government money and have been trying to prove global cooling, including cooking the data, but have so far failed once their data was examined. As a result, other deniers refuse to collect any data, especially since they know it will support global warming, and choose only to attack those who collect the data that contradicts them.

 

Climate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…
…
…
…
bitter”
Barman: “Why the long pause?”
Climate Scientist: <sobs>