World leaders duped manipulates global warming data

[Frankfooter]

LMFAO!

If you want to revisit history, let's look at your record on this exact issue. In July 2015, you defended NOAA's actions.

Here's your history:

If there is any doubt, let me restate my position: The NOAA cooked the books to create its false claim that there was no slowdown.

You accused NOAA of fraud when you found you lost the bet over 2015's temperature.
Now we find you backing lying about the words of someone who worked at NOAA, calling them a 'whistleblower' when they confirmed in print that there was no fraud or data manipulation.
Still up to the same weasel tricks.

 

[Frankfooter]

A quick reminder -- the peer reviewers at Nature published a paper a year ago that showed Karl's 2015 paper for the NOAA was total horseshit.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

Just a less on your 'quick reminder'.
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

Our study does NOT support the notion of a "pause" in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.
Our recent work (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19831), which you fail to cite, indicates that the record warmth we are now experiencing can only be explained by human-caused global warming.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791

Your claims are disputed by the author of the paper you quoted.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You accused NOAA of fraud when you found you lost the bet over 2015's temperature.

I normally don't indulge Frankfooter's insane claims about who won the bet. But I'll make an exception in this case, as it proves my point.

The bet was whether the Earth's temperature would increase by a minimum of 0.15 C in 2015.

NASA reported that the increase in 2015 was 0.13 C.

Yet, Frankfooter says that when you apply the Karl paper's adjustments to the graphs, it somehow shows 0.13 C being more than 0.15 C.

That meets my definition of "Enron-style accounting."

--

As for my statement that NOAA "cooked the books," I stand by that statement.

I didn't say NOAA "manipulated" data. What NOAA did was argue for a flawed methodology that replaced good data with bad data (as was confirmed in the paper published in Nature).

Franky's "manipulated" data accusation is a typical straw man that he loves to use -- I never made such a claim. In fairness to Franky, though, he doesn't understand any of this stuff.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just a less on your 'quick reminder'.
Michael Mann, one of the authors of the Fyfe paper:

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1040204106035791

Your claims are disputed by the author of the paper you quoted.

Pause ... slowdown ... whatever.

Your tired game of semantics misses the point. The Nature paper showed the Karl adjustments were total horseshit. Try to stay on point.

 

[Frankfooter]

I normally don't indulge Frankfooter's insane claims about who won the bet. But I'll make an exception in this case, as it proves my point.

The bet was whether the Earth's temperature would increase by a minimum of 0.15 C in 2015.

Still lying about the bet, are you?
What fun, time to embarrass you some more.

Here, in your words, are the exact terms of the bet, in response to my terms:

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

Claiming that it was a bet on year over year changes is just more lying from you.

 

[Frankfooter]

Pause ... slowdown ... whatever.

Your tired game of semantics misses the point. The Nature paper showed the Karl adjustments were total horseshit. Try to stay on point.

You miss the point.
Your claims about the paper are shown to be bullshit when compared to the words of the author of the study.

Its also been shown now that there never was a 'pause' or 'slowdown'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...tic-denial-real-sea-temperature-a7510691.html

 

[K Douglas]

Sure I have an intelligent comment, here it is: you don't know what you are talking about. I trust the peer reviewers at Nature, not you. You are not a good judge OS what is or isn't good science. They are.

The peer review process is just as corrupt as the manipulated and adjusted data on surface temperatures. Or the bogus hockey stick study.

 

[K Douglas]

You can yap all you like about agendas, that is a link to hard empirical proof of global warming.

No one here is disputing that the earth hasn't warmed since 1880. By approximately 1 degree centigrade. What the proof does not show is that this warming is a) unusual in climate history b) caused primarily by humans and c) poses a danger to humanity's existence.

 

[fuji]

No one here is disputing that the earth hasn't warmed since 1880. By approximately 1 degree centigrade. What the proof does not show is that this warming is a) unusual in climate history b) caused primarily by humans and c) poses a danger to humanity's existence.

The Nature article I cited did prove that it's the result of human activity.

Prove.

As in actually measured the warming that resulted from human emitted CO2 over a ten year period and observed that it exactly matched the amount predicted.

 

[K Douglas]

The Nature article I cited did prove that it's the result of human activity.

Prove.

As in actually measured the warming that resulted from human emitted CO2 over a ten year period and observed that it exactly matched the amount predicted.

One study with observations over a decade in a small geographic area, that's what you're pinning man made global climate change on? You're smarter than that fuji, c'mon.

 

[basketcase]

One study with observations over a decade in a small geographic area, that's what you're pinning man made global climate change on? You're smarter than that fuji, c'mon.

As opposed you your unsubstantiated belief that there is no warming but there is some massive scientific conspiracy?

 

[fuji]

One study with observations over a decade in a small geographic area, that's what you're pinning man made global climate change on? You're smarter than that fuji, c'mon.

The study measured exactly the amount of man made carbon in the atmosphere at points in time and measured exactly how much warming that CO2 actually produced per square foot. It found exactly the predicted amount of warming to a high degree of precision thereby confirming the theory that made the prediction.

Yes I call that proof.

 

[K Douglas]

As opposed you your unsubstantiated belief that there is no warming but there is some massive scientific conspiracy?

Unsubstantiated? I'm sure you're not deaf, dumb and blind. Testimonials from former IPCC scientists? Klaus Eckart-Puls. Richard Lindzen. John Cristy. Kiminori Itoh. Steven Japar. Vincent Gray. A co-founder of Greenpeace - Patrick Moore. Climategate leak? Woefully inaccurate climate prediction models? Whistleblower at NOAA? The statement made by UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres? Or how about the statement made by the chief architect and founder of the UN Climate Change agency Maurice Strong at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

If that isn't convincing enough for you follow the blog of Judith Curry from Georgia Tech.

 

[K Douglas]

The study measured exactly the amount of man made carbon in the atmosphere at points in time and measured exactly how much warming that CO2 actually produced per square foot. It found exactly the predicted amount of warming to a high degree of precision thereby confirming the theory that made the prediction.

Yes I call that proof.

If that was a proof how do they explain the pause in global warming for the 1st 15 years of the 21st century while co2 continued to rise?

 

[basketcase]

Unsubstantiated?...

Yes. As with most conspiracy theorists you spend lots time looking for any flaw in the accepted that could justify your faith but you are incapable of coming up with any better explanation for the observed reality.

 

[fuji]

If that was a proof how do they explain the pause in global warming for the 1st 15 years of the 21st century while co2 continued to rise?

Climate is literally defined as the average temperature ovary thirty years. That's the definition. Temperature has risen over EVERY thirty year period. Over shorter periods effects like El Niño can hide the trend.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Its also been shown now that there never was a 'pause' or 'slowdown'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...tic-denial-real-sea-temperature-a7510691.html

So, now you're saying the peer-reviewed paper in Nature got it wrong. I wish you guys would make up your mind.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Still lying about the bet, are you?
What fun, time to embarrass you some more.

Here, in your words, are the exact terms of the bet, in response to my terms:




Claiming that it was a bet on year over year changes is just more lying from you.

It's funny how every time you quote me you only include the prediction for 2015 and always delete the temperature anomaly in 2014.

Let me help you out:

- NASA's temperature anomaly for 2014 (at the time of the bet): 0.68C
- NASA's reported temperature increase in 2015: 0.13C

Frankfooter's Karl-infected claim: That those two numbers add up to more than 0.83C.

That sure looks like "Enron-style accounting" to me.

 

[Frankfooter]

Unsubstantiated? I'm sure you're not deaf, dumb and blind. Testimonials from former IPCC scientists? Klaus Eckart-Puls. Richard Lindzen. John Cristy. Kiminori Itoh. Steven Japar. Vincent Gray. A co-founder of Greenpeace - Patrick Moore. Climategate leak? Woefully inaccurate climate prediction models? Whistleblower at NOAA? The statement made by UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres? Or how about the statement made by the chief architect and founder of the UN Climate Change agency Maurice Strong at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

If that isn't convincing enough for you follow the blog of Judith Curry from Georgia Tech.

Or you could look at the evidence.

14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, UN says

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...5-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming

Your 'experts' are not well respected, their work shoddy and repeatedly shown to have no merit.
And none of them have a theory that explains the headline above.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's funny how every time you quote me you only include the prediction for 2015 and always delete the temperature anomaly in 2014.

Let me help you out:

- NASA's temperature anomaly for 2014 (at the time of the bet): 0.68C
- NASA's reported temperature increase in 2015: 0.13C

Frankfooter's Karl-infected claim: That those two numbers add up to more than 0.83C.

That sure looks like "Enron-style accounting" to me.

Nice numbers, only problem is that we didn't bet on those numbers, and the numbers you quote when added up still show you lost so even if we used your 'alternate facts' math you would still lose.

We bet on what temperature 2015 would hit.
As you clearly stated:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

We only bet on the final temperature for 2015, as reported by NASA.
Click on the link and read the number, the link is live and the numbers shows you lost.