Skeptics doing what skeptics do best . . . attack skeptics.
…..
Backyard flying feline fur
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by vukcevic
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by nobodyknows
I have a question: Do individual stations with dayly reliable data follow the adjusted trends for thousand of stations. It should be easy to check, taking the mean dayly raw temperatures. Has anyone done that?
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by nobodyknows
Sorry. I meant dayly median temp.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by lolwot
“Only problem is, as Goddard and others point out, where are you going to get the UNALTERED data? Or data that is not simply estimated? Or krigged? Or filled using some other technique?”
No the problem is climate deniers.
Explain to me how you and Goddard aren’t aware of the fact the raw data is available?
How come I know, and Mosher knows, but neither of you know. Explain that.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by lolwot
Your recent paper is junk.
You never bring yourself to properly analyze the temperature records like Zeke or BEST have done. Cherrypicking a single station that shows a result that fits your conspiracy theory.
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by tallbloke
Either way, not much global warming to be seen since 1880 there…
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by lolwot
Yep storm in a teacup, as usual. This is obvious actually.
“I think there was an element of ‘boy who cried wolf’ – Goddard has been wrong before, and the comments at Goddard’s blog can be pretty crackpotty”
You aren’t going to ponder why the boy keeps crying wolf?
Why is it that Watts and Goddard keep screwing up on temperature records and you keep falling for it?
When supposedly they are spending all their waking lives looking at temperature records they still can’t understand the most basic things about them. Like “what is a baseline” and “why we shouldn’t average absolute temperatures” or “time of observation bias”.
“In responding to Goddard’s post, Zeke, Nick Stokes (Moyhu) and Watts may have missed the real story. They focused on their previous criticism of Goddard and missed his main point.”
Of course this is how it works. The “real story” changes as they get found out. The “point” is never pinned down and will keep changing, because the “point” they want to make is that the US wide or global records are all wrong, but that cannot be substantiated other than by cherrypicking individual stations and arguing from ignorance that maybe, if we just wish hard enough, this means the whole record is substantially affected.
Why don’t we check the NOAA adjustments get the nation and global wide records correct by starting over? Take the raw data ourselves and do the adjustments from scratch? Lets call the effort “BEST”. Oh look nothing changes. But sorry such a logical approach that yields the wrong answer isn’t good enough for climate deniers.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by nottawa rafter
Surely devoting resources to finding the most pristine non-corrupted sites over the last150 years would generate a more valid record of our climate than the mish-mash, adjusted crazed, assumption laden, highly debated system we depend on now. Even if the network had only 1% of the current sites, what is gained in validity should compensate for what is lost in spatial representation. What a goofy way to gain knowledge.
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by lolwot
You can bet that if someone did this it wouldn’t show a substantially different result than the current records.
And so the deniers would find some excuse to ignore it.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Alistair Riddoch
I rechecked my sources, and am reconvinced it is rebound.
The first paragraph of WikiPedia says the Niagara Escarpment is not a fault line, but they may mean as in between tectonic plates?
It might be wrong, but a series called how the earth was made, goes through the whole process quite thoroughly. 45 minutes worth. plausible and compelling.
and have found an estimate for the time they think, till the Niagara hits Lake Erie and a bit of hell breaks loose, somewhere around 23,000 years.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Alistair Riddoch
if interested, they figure erie will mostly dissappear, and superior, and huron will drop 180 feet. the little oscillations people are worrying about now, are pretty insignificant in comparison.
exciting!!
↧
Comment on Open thread by Vaughan Pratt
@Sir Hoskins: It [global temperature] hasn’t risen very much over the last 10-15 years. If you measure the climate from the globally averaged surface temperature, during that time the excess energy has still been absorbed by the climate system and is being absorbed by the oceans.
The good knight speaketh through his helmet.
If the cause of the pause is the oceans, why didn’t the oceans also absorb the rapid rise from 1970-2000?
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by RACookPE1978
<blockquote.maksimovich | June 24, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
the Antarctic sea ice record all-time satellite-era anomaly was 1.84 Mkm^2.on 20 dec 2007,
This will be broken this week,at solar max.
I am very surprised, but you called it accurately. Congratulations (sort of) on anticipating that new (very ominous!) record Antarctic sea ice anomaly high at 2.074+ million square kilometers near the summer solstice on 29 June 2014. And every square meter of these 2.0+ million “excess” sea ice square kilometers is reflecting energy into space……
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Nickels
Liberal as the day is long.
↧
Comment on What can we expect for this year’s Arctic sea ice? by RACookPE1978
Odd, the actual measured Antarctic regional air temperatures have showed a general and many-year long decreasing trend.
Doesn’t look like the data match that excuse (er, theory) for the 29 June record-setting Antarctic sea ice anomaly of 2.07 million “excess” square kilometers …
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by ghl
Fanny
You take your granny’s advice on car maintenance, too?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Vaughan Pratt
@jim2: The global sea ice area hasn’t been this high at this time of year since 1996. What say you, you cagey CAGWers?
It’s all done with intelligent design. Just as natural selection is the most intelligent way to design and introduce new species, so is floating Antarctic ice towards the equator the most intelligent way to melt it.
The side effect is to increase the area of sea ice. If this is a problem for you, bring it up with your assigned intelligent designer.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by phatboy
Wow, how much more does the planet therefore have to warm before it’s frozen solid?
↧
Comment on Open thread by climatereason
Vaughan
That is a good question. How has warming suddenly switched to oceans over the last decade or so, whereas before it was land and oceans. When did this change occur and what is the mechanism?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? by Nick Stokes
<i>jim2 | June 29, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
"If dropping it and replacing it with the average gets the same result, and I believe that’s true, then there is no reason to replace it."</i>
I've expanded on the annual average simplified version <a href="http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/infilling-climatology-and-anomalies.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I think it shows that dropping is far from cost free.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
