Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
sounds like he is mixing up Svensmark's cosmis ray modulation theory with the milankovitch cycles. this topic is just too complicated for r-j.
 
lomiller said:
To review. Two actively publishing climate scientists who work with this very data have indicated the presence of this weather station. You called them liars. Now you want us to go though the raw data to prove to you they are not?

Sorry, no. It’s your assertion they are lying and it's up to you to prove.
Click to expand...

Oh no no no, it doesn't work like that. You just made the classic fallacy. I don't need you to check the records, I already did. There claim is flat out false.

It's insulting to the weather service as well. What you have to prove, or they do rather, is that there was ever any 113 degree readings reported as the daily high.

They claim it happened a lot.

That the thermometer was on a hot roof, and nobody was smart enough to recognize that they were getting temperature readings far higher than any other station, in the entire country.

This is the NWS forecast office they are talking about. It's insulting.
 
The sad part is that climate scientist's are caught up in this and crucified for doing their job. Just because some (expletive deleted) want to play politics and create a war where there should just be an informed debate.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
The questions have always been about what are the predictions of the AGW theory.
Click to expand...

And you have already been informed many times that AGW is the prediction, not the theory.

You have also had the theory that this prediction derives from explained to you by many people and continue to ignore all of it.
 
Let me make this perfectly clear, these yahoos here are making a multitude of claims, with no evidence.
For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F).
Click to expand...
False. The records from Chicago never show any days that hot, much less "a slew of days ". If they can't prove it, then they are indeed liars.
It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city.
Click to expand...
The continuos record is from the U.S. Court House 219 S Dearborn St., which moved to the University of Chicago, Rosenwald Hall, 58th St and University Ave, and at no time were they recording temperatures that high, much less ignoring such an event.
This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S
Click to expand...
After that whopper, I doubt any claim you make. It's like these people are repeating some nonsense, and are unaware of how the NWS operated.

Shameless.
 
r-j said:
Oh no no no, it doesn't work like that. You just made the classic fallacy. I don't need you to check the records, I already did. There claim is flat out false.
Click to expand...

IMO Dr. Hausfather and Dr Rohde to be more reliable sources for this type of information than you are, so I will continue to believe what that have indicated, especially since you have provided no evidence to support your assertion they are lying.
 
r-j said:
Let me make this perfectly clear, these yahoos here
Click to expand...

As an aside does anyone else find continue to see irony in the venom climate deniers continue to spew towards the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project and it’s participants when they were the ones who demanded in the first place, insisted on the methodology used and touted it for server years that it would be the “proof” NASA, Hadly CRU, etc were “fudging the data”?
 
You really need to start using science and evidence, you are not going to convince anyone by just making things up.
lomiller said:
And you have already been informed many times that AGW is the prediction, not the theory.
Click to expand...

AGW, or greenhouse warming, or the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, or the global warming theory, or the enhanced greenhouse effect, it's all the same thing, and it's based on the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Or the basic global warming theory.

You are not going to change that, no matter what you make up.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
To review. Two actively publishing climate scientists who work with this very data have indicated the presence of this weather station. You called them liars.
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. You can't keep making things up, you have no credibility at this point.

The history of the weather records in Chicago is no mystery, and the data isn't secret. Why would anyone make up such a thing? It's easy to check.

If the excuse is "they deleted the data", or they changed the readings, then where is this claim of a "slew" of 113 degree temperatures coming from?

And why would it just come to light in 2014? Why would the official climate record have been so wrong for 80 years or so, but now it's OK, because they adjusted all the old dates down?

If it was a station change, there would be an abrupt adjustment shown. But we don't see that for Chicago at all. It's a crazy world when you start changing all the data, based on no actual evidence.

In regards to Chicago, the rooftop station actually showed a lower temperature than at the airfield.
In official records dating to November 1870, Chicago's all-time high temperature stands at 105 degrees (July 24, 1934, recorded at the University of Chicago, the official observation site at that time).
However, the thermometer at Midway Airport registered a sky-high 109 degrees July 23, 1934. That's the city's highest recorded temperature, but it was not the officially designated observation site at the time.
Click to expand...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/weather/ct-wea-0901-asktom-20140901-story.html
Remember, the rooftop station (that supposedly had a bunch of 113 degree readings) showed lower temperatures than the Airport, that the official station later moved to. Of course neither showed anything like a 113 degree day. Ever.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
Of course, of course. Don't let a skeptic or facts get in the way. And never ever check anything out for yourself. If it sounds good, just believe it.
Click to expand...

ÿou are not a sceptic. you have demonstrated that over and over agian in this and other threads.
you have no credibility at this point.
Click to expand...
the irony......
 
It seems the Berkley "scientists" didn't know that when a station "moves" in Chicago, it means the official readings are then used from the new station, not that they actually move the equipment. The old station continues to take readings. So not only is there an abundant set of readings from multiple stations, even after the official station "moved", you can actually check each one, and compare them to each other.

Which of course they did all the time. Is there any possible evidence for this claim of a slew of 113 degree readings?

I can actually ask the NWS.
 
Let me repeat what you said r-j
Quote:
Then there is the skeptical look at the data itself. Any records that show no warming, or even worse, cooling, are "adjusted" to be in line with the story that it's all warming, all the time.
and

Quote:
It's why so many people are skeptical. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.

You have shown what was probably an error at one temperature station. I've seen far more evidence than that to suggest the moon landings were faked. It's really not much of a conspiracy theory is it? You really will have to try harder.
 
lomiller said:
IMO Dr. Hausfather and Dr Rohde to be more reliable sources for this type of information than you are, so I will continue to believe what that have indicated, especially since you have provided no evidence to support your assertion they are lying.
Click to expand...
Everybody's lying unless you can prove that they aren't. Except Roy Spencer, who isn't lying even if you can prove that he is. It's a strange and paradoxical cosmos that r-j inhabits; I doubt it can be modelled with differential equations alone.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
As an aside does anyone else find continue to see irony in the venom climate deniers continue to spew towards the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project and it’s participants when they were the ones who demanded in the first place, insisted on the methodology used and touted it for server years that it would be the “proof” NASA, Hadly CRU, etc were “fudging the data”?
Click to expand...
Nothing stings like betrayal. They really thought they had this one - Watts promised to accept the result whatever it was. With Koch money and one of theirs in full nepotistic charge how could it not come up with the result they wanted? The result Watts (or his acolyte) is still trying to wring from the Surface Stations project of yesteryear.

What this reveals to me is that AGW deniers are sincere in believing that climate scientists are creating results they want rather than accurate results. They believed that BEST could do the same thing - and with Koch money involved there's no mystery what result was desired.

The Kochs probably believed it as well; after all, they've always got the results they wanted from research they've funded before, and so have all their friends.

I said at the time this was a strategic error, one that McIntyre would never have made. As we know, one cannot manipulate the result one wants from any given set of data. (I say "we", but I don't include r-j, obviously.) The result they wanted is not in the data and cannot be tortured from it. But AGW deniers can't accept that.

So it's betrayal. The BEST team was Got At algore benghazi fnord.
 
greybeard said:
You have shown what was probably an error at one temperature station.
Click to expand...
When? Are you talking about the claim that the NWS was reporting 113 degree temps in Chicago? That they couldn't seem to understand that their rooftop thermometer had, according to realclimate, shown "a slew of times" temperatures higher than anywhere in the country, except maybe death valley?

That doesn't seem like an error of the NWS data. Or a temperature station.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Let's see. The specific heat of water is about 4 times that of air. The mass of the oceans is about 500 times the mass of the atmosphere. If I did the math correctly, that means that the heat needed to warm the oceans by 1C would warm the atmosphere by 2000C.
Click to expand...

An it'll turn a container of hydrogen into a micro-supernova :rolleyes:.

TellyKNeasuss said:
You raised the question of how warming the oceans could result in warming the atmosphere if the oceans were still cooler than the average temperature of the atmosphere. I posted 3 possible ways. You can accept or reject them, but it seems that you prefer to post word salad instead.
Click to expand...

No. You didn't get the frame of the similar question I really raised and you posted a melange containing a few calorimetric experiences with the calorimeter being an ocean and the atmosphere above it, both in the dark; you contradicted yourself by swapping which was warmer, the ocean or the atmosphere; and one of your wrong experiments forgot water evaporates.

TellyKNeasuss said:
Is this a new requirement that anyone posting here must be a professional scientist? Your posts hardly look like something written by a scientist.
Click to expand...

It's only required for the post to focus on the thread's subject and make sense. You're just wandering around.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom