Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

I asked some questions....surely you can answer. Is there a valid reason to believe that the standard temperature data set is wrong if it shows the same warming trend on your continent as the rest of the globe? Is it reasonable to suppose that if your network were expanded to cover the globe that perhaps the same cooling trend might show up? And what would you do with the data from your own state of the art network if it didn't jibe with that of the standard sources?

 

[Lagboltz]

I asked some questions....surely you can answer. Is there a valid reason to believe that the standard temperature data set is wrong if it shows the same warming trend on your continent as the rest of the globe? Is it reasonable to suppose that if your network were expanded to cover the globe that perhaps the same cooling trend might show up? And what would you do with the data from your own state of the art network if it didn't jibe with that of the standard sources?

If you are saying the US, (which is less than 7% of the global area,) has a different temperature profile than the rest of the world, you are no longer talking about global warming. It is well known that the polar jet stream, is oscillating much more widely than it has done in the past. That will cause an uneven temperature distribution throughout the globe.

You have not found a credible source that denies a 3.2 mm / yr sea level rise in the last 20 years.

I see that you have no comment on the measurement of the very cold CMB using a radio telescope dish at a temperature hundreds of degrees warmer. The 2.7 degree K CMB was then focused on a detector at a liquid helium temperature of 4 degrees K. This is a definitive demonstration that radiation emanating from a source at 2.7 deg K can not only strike a much warmer focusing dish, but it can also reflect and strike a detector that is warmer.

That is a counter-example to the mistaken notion that, "energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer object." But it does allow the law that "heat", or "net energy" cannot spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer object.

 

[palerider]

If you are saying the US, (which is less than 7% of the global area,) has a different temperature profile than the rest of the world, you are no longer talking about global warming. It is well known that the polar jet stream, is oscillating much more widely than it has done in the past. That will cause an uneven temperature distribution throughout the globe.

You have not found a credible source that denies a 3.2 mm / yr sea level rise in the last 20 years.

I see that you have no comment on the measurement of the very cold CMB using a radio telescope dish at a temperature hundreds of degrees warmer. The 2.7 degree K CMB was then focused on a detector at a liquid helium temperature of 4 degrees K. This is a definitive demonstration that radiation emanating from a source at 2.7 deg K can not only strike a much warmer focusing dish, but it can also reflect and strike a detector that is warmer.

That is a counter-example to the mistaken notion that, "energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer object." But it does allow the law that "heat", or "net energy" cannot spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer object.

Try here to stop weaseling and answer a question....your state of the art network shows a cooling trend on the continent you have covered...the standard temperature data sets show no such cooling and show your continent having the same warming as the rest of the globe. Is it, or is it not reasonable to suspect that if your network extended across the entire globe, it might show the same warm bias being injected into the world wide temperatures via the constant adjustments?

As to the rest..you have lost the points...any source you show that is claiming 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year has error bars that are multiple times larger than the claimed sea level rise...you lose on that one...radio telescopes do not measure thermal radiation and you clearly don't know what a resonance frequency is..the discovery of CMB via a radio telescope is a mathematical artifact...not the result of actually measuring anything except a radio frequency...again, you lose.

The second law says what it says and has not been changed to say that either heat or energy can move spontaneously from cooler to warmer objects....again...you lose.

So again..your state of the art network shows a cooling trend on the continent you have covered...the standard temperature data sets show no such cooling and show your continent having the same warming as the rest of the globe. Is it, or is it not reasonable to suspect that if your network extended across the entire globe, it might show the same warm bias being injected into the world wide temperatures via the constant adjustments?

And again...if you had data from a far superior network and it differed so starkly from the standard temperature data sets...what would you do with that data?

 

[Lagboltz]

Try here to stop weaseling and answer a question....your state of the art network shows a cooling trend on the continent you have covered...the standard temperature data sets show no such cooling and show your continent having the same warming as the rest of the globe. Is it, or is it not reasonable to suspect that if your network extended across the entire globe, it might show the same warm bias being injected into the world wide temperatures via the constant adjustments?

You are invoking the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization”

All X's are Y's in an observed subset.
Therefore all X's are Y's in the full set.​

Considering the oscillation of the polar jet stream, an extrapolation like that about temperature systems of any kind is a hasty generalization.

As to the rest..you have lost the points...any source you show that is claiming 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year has error bars that are multiple times larger than the claimed sea level rise...you lose on that one..

Here is the graph again. Look at the inset on the lower right. It states that the error is +/- 0.4. That is much smaller than the claimed 3.2 mm/yr sea level rise. You are probably not familiar with linear regression, where errors can be diminished proportional to the square root of the number of samples. It is an elementary derivation using calculus.

.radio telescopes do not measure thermal radiation and you clearly don't know what a resonance frequency is..the discovery of CMB via a radio telescope is a mathematical artifact...not the result of actually measuring anything except a radio frequency...again, you lose.

There is no resonance involved in the measurement of the CMB until after the radiation hits the telescope dish and is reflected to the resonant amplifier. That is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer. That is very obvious. I don't think you know what a resonant frequency is.

The second law says what it says and has not been changed to say that either heat or energy can move spontaneously from cooler to warmer objects....again...you lose.

The CMB measurement is a counter-example to the mistaken notion that, "energy cannot spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer object." But it does allow the law that, "heat", or "net energy" cannot spontaneously move from a colder to a warmer object. That has been in text books for over a hundred years.

So again..your state of the art network shows a cooling trend on the continent you have covered...the standard temperature data sets show no such cooling and show your continent having the same warming as the rest of the globe. Is it, or is it not reasonable to suspect that if your network extended across the entire globe, it might show the same warm bias being injected into the world wide temperatures via the constant adjustments?

And again...if you had data from a far superior network and it differed so starkly from the standard temperature data sets...what would you do with that data?

Your question was answered above – a hasty generalization. If you want a better answer than that, you will have to be more specific on what you are talking about.

 

[palerider]

You are invoking the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization”

All X's are Y's in an observed subset.
Therefore all X's are Y's in the full set.​

Considering the oscillation of the polar jet stream, an extrapolation like that about temperature systems of any kind is a hasty generalization.

Don't have an honest bone in your body do you? Guess that's as good an answer as any. You could have just stated that you are congenitally incapable of honesty and will therefore twist and torture the questions to any degree necessary in order to avoid anything even approaching an honest answer. Not to worry....its just the way warmers are. Say anything to preserve the dogma Did I say that because your state of the art network showed a cooling trend when the standard networks didn't that there must be a cooling trend globally? No....I said nothing of the sort. I asked if it were reasonable to suspect that since the standard networks showed the same warming trend on your continent when your much more advanced system shows an entirely different picture....was it reasonable to suspect the standard networks had a warming bias...

As to what you would do with the data...congratulations...you would do exactly what any unethical acolyte of the AGW religion would do....incorrectly apply the definition of a logical fallacy to the data and never mention it because it goes against the AGW narrative even though you know that it is correct beyond question and that the standard temperature data set is profoundly wrong at least in the case of the continent you have covered....and never question whether the known error extends beyond your border. You clearly believe in some sort of magic which would somehow contain the error to the borders of your continent and tell yourself that your continent is just some small part of the landmass and continue to propagate erroneous data because hell, that's where the money is. In short...let no data, no matter how accurate ever call the dogma into question.

Tell me though....what sort of magic do you believe is capable of containing the known, and profound error to within the boundaries of your continent? How does one evoke such magic and what sort of sacrifice is necessary? How many poor and brown people must be offered up to the gods of AGW to achieve such a result?

Here is the graph again. Look at the inset on the lower right. It states that the error is +/- 0.4. That is much smaller than the claimed 3.2 mm/yr sea level rise. You are probably not familiar with linear regression, where errors can be diminished proportional to the square root of the number of samples. It is an elementary derivation using calculus.

Yeah...I saw your graph...and I saw the "claimed" margin of error...and I also saw that any seasonal signals have been removed which alters the actual rate considerably...and never mind that the claimed figure of TOPEX is an average of averages and not an actual measurement.
I will expand on what TOPEX actually measures this evening or tomorrow when I have time. ...dishonesty...cherrypicking....outright lying...all for grant money. That is the hallmark of climate science.

There is no resonance involved in the measurement of the CMB until after the radiation hits the telescope dish and is reflected to the resonant amplifier. That is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer. That is very obvious. I don't think you know what a resonant frequency is.

Sorry...you are wrong. Radio telescopes do not detect thermal radiation.

 

[Lagboltz]

Don't have an honest bone in your body do you? Guess that's as good an answer as any. You could have just stated that you are congenitally incapable of honesty and will therefore twist and torture the questions to any degree necessary in order to avoid anything even approaching an honest answer. Not to worry....its just the way warmers are. Say anything to preserve the dogma Did I say that because your state of the art network showed a cooling trend when the standard networks didn't that there must be a cooling trend globally? No....I said nothing of the sort. I asked if it were reasonable to suspect that since the standard networks showed the same warming trend on your continent when your much more advanced system shows an entirely different picture....was it reasonable to suspect the standard networks had a warming bias...

As to what you would do with the data...congratulations...you would do exactly what any unethical acolyte of the AGW religion would do....incorrectly apply the definition of a logical fallacy to the data and never mention it because it goes against the AGW narrative even though you know that it is correct beyond question and that the standard temperature data set is profoundly wrong at least in the case of the continent you have covered....and never question whether the known error extends beyond your border. You clearly believe in some sort of magic which would somehow contain the error to the borders of your continent and tell yourself that your continent is just some small part of the landmass and continue to propagate erroneous data because hell, that's where the money is. In short...let no data, no matter how accurate ever call the dogma into question.

Tell me though....what sort of magic do you believe is capable of containing the known, and profound error to within the boundaries of your continent? How does one evoke such magic and what sort of sacrifice is necessary? How many poor and brown people must be offered up to the gods of AGW to achieve such a result?

If you want a better answer than that, you will have to be more specific on what you are talking about. At least give me a reference.

Yeah...I saw your graph...and I saw the "claimed" margin of error...and I also saw that any seasonal signals have been removed which alters the actual rate considerably...and never mind that the claimed figure of TOPEX is an average of averages and not an actual measurement.

In measuring the level of a churning sea, averages is what it's all about.

Sorry...you are wrong. Radio telescopes do not detect thermal radiation.

The measurement of the very cold CMB involves using a radio telescope dish at a temperature hundreds of degrees warmer. The 2.7 degree K CMB then focuses on a detector at a liquid helium temperature of 4 degrees K. This is a definitive demonstration that radiation emanating from a source at 2.7 deg K not only can strike a much warmer focusing dish, but it can also reflect and strike a detector that is warmer.

 

[palerider]

If you want a better answer than that, you will have to be more specific on what you are talking about. At least give me a reference.

I gave you more than enough information to make an honest statement. You clearly don't have it in you. No surprise...and no disappointment. It's easy to recognize a fundamentally dishonest person even over the internet and your weaseling on this was expected.

In measuring the level of a churning sea, averages is what it's all about.

And exactly how many levels of statistical averaging do you think raw data can pass through before the output becomes so far removed from the raw data from which it was created that it becomes useless?

Suppose you measured the distance from New York to Los Angeles with a ruler. How close do you think you might get? Now suppose you got 10 other people to do the same thing. They would surely come up with different answers...How much closer do you think the average of the ten of you would get to the actual distance? Would the average of a thousand people measuring the distance from New York to Los Angeles get you any closer to a measurement accurate to mm? Doubtful. Few people would argue that point and yet, in climate science, logic is tossed out the window.

Your graph shows sea level rising at about 3mm per year and yet TOPIX only "claims" an accuracy of +/- 4.7 centimeters. That is a 9.4 centimeter margin of error from the satellite and yet, climate science is claiming a 3 mm sea level rise per year with a margin of error of .4mm....a claim of accuracy roughly 23 times greater than the machine making the measurements is capable of. Go back to your measurements of from New York to Los Angeles....do you really believe you could have any number of people measure the distance and get a statistically more accurate measurement than you would get from the first 1000?....and just for fun, lets make your ruler off by 4.7 centimeters.

To make matters even worse, TOPIX only claims an accuracy of =/- 1.2 meters per pulse...so while you are measuring the distance from New York to LA...lets give you multiple rulers which are off by an unknown amount so that the margin of error for each ruler can be about 2.4 meters.

So again...how many levels of statistical averaging do you think raw data can pass through before you start getting numbers that are pure illusion. Do you really think you can get an accuracy of .4mm from a machine that claims 4.7mm as its high end of accuracy? Do you find it interesting the tide gages don't agree with the satellite measurements? Are you really foolish enough to believe that a rate of sea level increase can be computed to a margin of error of less than half a mm from a machine that "claims" a maximum accuracy of 4.7 centimeters and that from an average of 1000 pulses with a margin of error of +/- 1.2 METERS per pulse?

That sort of mathematical chicanery is typical of the climate science establishment and anyone who trusts them to tell the truth is an abject fool. And perhaps we can go into all the factors that could and probably do increase the margin of error such as ships...the effect of uneven sea beds on the surface...the effects of clouds...etc.etc.etc.

Suffice it to say that your claim of a sea level rise of 3 mm per year with a margin of error of .4 mm is Bullshit with a capital B.

The measurement of the very cold CMB involves using a radio telescope dish at a temperature hundreds of degrees warmer. The 2.7 degree K CMB then focuses on a detector at a liquid helium temperature of 4 degrees K. This is a definitive demonstration that radiation emanating from a source at 2.7 deg K not only can strike a much warmer focusing dish, but it can also reflect and strike a detector that is warmer.

Sorry guy...radio telescopes measure radio frequencies...they do not detect thermal radiation. Wish all you like but you will continue to be wrong. The 3k measurement of CMB is a mathematical artifact. If you want to actually measure CMB you will need an instrument that has been cooled to 2.75 K.

 

[Lagboltz]

I gave you more than enough information to make an honest statement. You clearly don't have it in you. No surprise...and no disappointment. It's easy to recognize a fundamentally dishonest person even over the internet and your weaseling on this was expected.

I have no idea what stuff you make up or what blog you get your stuff from. You will have to be more specific on what you are talking about. At least give me a reference.

And exactly how many levels of statistical averaging do you think raw data can pass through before the output becomes so far removed from the raw data from which it was created that it becomes useless?

Suppose you measured the distance from New York to Los Angeles with a ruler. How close do you think you might get? Now suppose you got 10 other people to do the same thing. They would surely come up with different answers...How much closer do you think the average of the ten of you would get to the actual distance? Would the average of a thousand people measuring the distance from New York to Los Angeles get you any closer to a measurement accurate to mm? Doubtful. Few people would argue that point and yet, in climate science, logic is tossed out the window.

Your graph shows sea level rising at about 3mm per year and yet TOPIX only "claims" an accuracy of +/- 4.7 centimeters. That is a 9.4 centimeter margin of error from the satellite and yet, climate science is claiming a 3 mm sea level rise per year with a margin of error of .4mm....a claim of accuracy roughly 23 times greater than the machine making the measurements is capable of. Go back to your measurements of from New York to Los Angeles....do you really believe you could have any number of people measure the distance and get a statistically more accurate measurement than you would get from the first 1000?....and just for fun, lets make your ruler off by 4.7 centimeters.

To make matters even worse, TOPIX only claims an accuracy of =/- 1.2 meters per pulse...so while you are measuring the distance from New York to LA...lets give you multiple rulers which are off by an unknown amount so that the margin of error for each ruler can be about 2.4 meters.

So again...how many levels of statistical averaging do you think raw data can pass through before you start getting numbers that are pure illusion. Do you really think you can get an accuracy of .4mm from a machine that claims 4.7mm as its high end of accuracy? Do you find it interesting the tide gages don't agree with the satellite measurements? Are you really foolish enough to believe that a rate of sea level increase can be computed to a margin of error of less than half a mm from a machine that "claims" a maximum accuracy of 4.7 centimeters and that from an average of 1000 pulses with a margin of error of +/- 1.2 METERS per pulse?

That sort of mathematical chicanery is typical of the climate science establishment and anyone who trusts them to tell the truth is an abject fool. And perhaps we can go into all the factors that could and probably do increase the margin of error such as ships...the effect of uneven sea beds on the surface...the effects of clouds...etc.etc.etc.

Suffice it to say that your claim of a sea level rise of 3 mm per year with a margin of error of .4 mm is Bullshit with a capital B.

You are probably not familiar with linear regression and the central limit theorem, where errors can be diminished proportional to the square root of the number of samples. It is an elementary derivation using calculus. That will answer your questions. It's not all that hard to understand.

Sorry guy...radio telescopes measure radio frequencies...they do not detect thermal radiation. Wish all you like but you will continue to be wrong. The 3k measurement of CMB is a mathematical artifact. If you want to actually measure CMB you will need an instrument that has been cooled to 2.75 K.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at. Are you going as far as saying that the cosmic microwave background radiation was never discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965?

 

[PLC1]

97% of the scientific studies published support AGW theory. The 3% that don't all have one thing in common.

Find out what here

 

[palerider]

You are probably not familiar with linear regression and the central limit theorem, where errors can be diminished proportional to the square root of the number of samples. It is an elementary derivation using calculus. That will answer your questions. It's not all that hard to understand.

So you believe that you can achieve an accurate measurement of .3mm per year with a margin of error of .4mm from a device that collects raw data with a margin of error of 2.4 meters....that is a margin of error of 2400mm per measurement and you actually believe you can extract a sub mm level of accuracy?

Want to buy some prime ocean front property...view of the pacific out the back door...view of the grand canyon out the front?
Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
Want to buy the Vatican?
Want to buy the Kremlin?
How about the Eiffel Tower?

You are even less intelligent than I had given you credit for....you must have not even been in line when they were handing out critical thinking skills.

I am laughing as hard at you as I ever laughed at the 3 Stooges or Martin and Lewis. Your belief in the power of mathematics apparently extends to legerdemain. Tell me, do you also consult necromancers and mediums when you are seeking factual information.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at. Are you going as far as saying that the cosmic microwave background radiation was never discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965?

I am saying that its discovery was a mathematical artifact...if one wants to actually measure CMB then one needs an instrument cooled to 2.75K

 

[palerider]

97% of the scientific studies published support AGW theory. The 3% that don't all have one thing in common.

Find out what here

Your 95% number is a lie...your belief in it brings your gullibility into high relief.

 

[Lagboltz]

So you believe that you can achieve an accurate measurement of .3mm per year with a margin of error of .4mm from a device that collects raw data with a margin of error of 2.4 meters....that is a margin of error of 2400mm per measurement and you actually believe you can extract a sub mm level of accuracy?

Want to buy some prime ocean front property...view of the pacific out the back door...view of the grand canyon out the front?

Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
Want to buy the Vatican?
Want to buy the Kremlin?
How about the Eiffel Tower?

You are even less intelligent than I had given you credit for....you must have not even been in line when they were handing out critical thinking skills.

How many times do I have to tell you that insults are not a valid argument. You did not look up linear regression nor the central limit theorem did you. It's pointless aiming your deep-seated bitterness at me. I didn't invent those math techniques. I'm just the messenger. Now cool down and do some reading in that math and then get back to me.

I am laughing as hard at you as I ever laughed at the 3 Stooges or Martin and Lewis. Your belief in the power of mathematics apparently extends to legerdemain. Tell me, do you also consult necromancers and mediums when you are seeking factual information.

Those guys go way back. I must have seen all the 3 Stooges movies as a kid too, but Lewis became a bit hard to take in his later movies.

I am saying that its discovery was a mathematical artifact...if one wants to actually measure CMB then one needs an instrument cooled to 2.75K

So you think the the CMB is not real. Well Mr. Anti-science that certainly fits with your personality. Your rejection of the 1965 CMB discovery would cause Messrs Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson's to be very disappointed in you, not to mention every other physicist.

 

[dogtowner]

97% of the scientific studies published support AGW theory. The 3% that don't all have one thing in common.

Find out what here

At the very worst it's no different than IPCC's case. But we know they have gone through far more than cherry picking data.

 

[PLC1]

Your 95% number is a lie...your belief in it brings your gullibility into high relief.

I knew you wouldn't have an answer to that one.

And it's 97, not 95.

 

[palerider]

I knew you wouldn't have an answer to that one.

And it's 97, not 95.

So are you saying that at present climate science can provide a complete, sequential, and accurate description of the movement through earth's system or are you saying that the issue has become so biased and political that 97% of climate scientists will say whatever is necessary to support the narrative. Those are the only two choices because if climate science can't describe, completely and accurately, how energy moves through the system and what causes negative feedbacks and what causes positive feedbacks then the very idea that 97% of the scientists in the field would be sure enough of anything is ludicrous.

Consensus is a statement of politics...not science and your belief in the 97% lie, again, only highlights your gullibility. I doubt that you could find a 97% consensus on exactly what mechanism drives something as fundamental as gravity.....to believe that 97% of climate scientists think that the science is settled and there is nothing left to learn regarding energy moving through the earth system and how that movement might affect the climate is to believe in fairy tales.

You warmer wackos have faith in abundance...I will hand you that...but faith has nothing to do with science which is skeptical by nature....

I knew that you were mostly in the dark regarding science from previous discussions but to be so in the dark that you can't see through the 97% BS....or see the ramifications of having a situation where 97% of scientists agree that climate science is settled when something as basic as the albedo of the earth remains a question is just plain stupid. Congratulations....you have lowered the bar to a whole new level.

You and lagboltz are really a couple of characters....you believe that climate science can be settled when there is far more that we don't know about how energy moves through the system than what we do know, and lagboltz believes that you can achieve, through statistics, an accuracy of .4mm PER YEAR out of a sensing device that has a margin of error of 2.4 meters...that's a margin of error of just over 7 feet 10 inches per measurement. You two have faith of biblical proportions (or you are just plain stupid)...you should wear sack cloth...grow beards, and live in the desert for 40 days at a time eating locusts and honey.