Global warming discussion III

Reality Check · Sep 7, 2014

r-j: theory + global + warming in a search does not = "Theory of Global Warming"

r-j said:
It's really easy to find the theory mentioned, ...

No, r-j:
It is very easy for some people to be fooled into thinking that the word theory, global and warming in Google search results are about a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming". Any one who can read the actual results (such as the ones you are citing) sees that the theory that are talking about is not called "Theory of Global Warming".

Reality Check · Sep 7, 2014

r-j: Standard climate sceince practice is not a "global warming alarmists" plot

r-j said:
What I showed you is based on fact. NCDC/NOAA says they changed the past, and their data shows it all creates more warming.
...snipped irrelevant link...

Wrong, r-j.
NCDC/NOAA did what anyone with two brain cells would do - did not change the raw data ("changed the past") but applied adjustments to cater for the real world, e.g.
* changes in weather station locations,
* changes in weather station environments,
* changes on times of taking measurements
* etc.
This standard practice in climate science is often desperately cited by the more deluded climate change deniers as evidence that the data was changed to show more warming. They also have the delusion that this is part of the "global warming alarmists" plot (like you imply , r-j

) to make the measured global warming warmer.

Your link does not show that the adjustment created more warming.

r-j · Sep 7, 2014

DC said:
several people including me have explain to you in great detail how AGW works. it has been explained to you how the CO2 is getting into the air and how the Co2 molecules react when IR radiation hits them. and this several times over the past year.

Everybody knows that. In fact, that information is actually in many of the links and even screen grabs of scientific documents I've used. Your confusion that the questions are about the greenhouse effect, rather than the greenhouse theory, is baffling.

DC said:
yet somehow you were not able to understand any of it, and you still dont get it. its pretty sad to see.

That's just an insult, and yet another evasion of what I did ask about.

For example, when I use a part of the scientific document Trace Gas Effects on Climate Chapter 15 NOAA (source)

it seems rather than discuss that, you (and others) pretend that somehow I am questioning the basis of the greenhouse effect, rather than the rational questions about the theory.

The theory mentioned in the text, right there in front of you. I used it as an example of both how models are connected to the theory, as well as evidence of the term being used by scientists, something you and others claim never happens.

In fact, it is used all the time, even when it is shortened to AGW or just global warming.

Here is another example, from the book The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Weart

I find such woo woo claims that it is a "made up term" to be absurd-isms, and evasion of the issues.

CapelDodger said:
It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

Reality Check said:
There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

Pixel42 said:
There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.

The logical person might understand why I find such claims to be out there, that I don't take them seriously, in any way.

When we see it in 1981 Hansen et al page 8

it is clear he need not explain what it is, as it is common knowledge what he means.

The CO2 theory of global warming is quite simple, even if the physics and predictions from the theory are not.

Reality Check said:
Any one who can read the actual results (such as the ones you are citing) sees that the theory that are talking about is not called "Theory of Global Warming".

Except when it is, as I showed with multiple examples.

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

Global Warming Theory Affirmed

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

Global Warming – Theory which states that an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere results in an additive effect on average global temperatures.

This evasion of trying to act as if you don't understand what theory they mean in those examples is absurd. Everybody knows what the theory is. It's what the theory predicts that is on the table.

Reality Check · Sep 7, 2014

r-j: Please cite your source for the temperature records of the weather station

r-j said:
Simply check the actual records, and you will find no record of any day that had a high of 113 in Chicago, from any weather station of any kind.

Let use see what we have here, r-j.
RealClimate by actual climate scientists who have access to the actual records of this specific weather station and state:
New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley

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). 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.

r-j: A CBS report reporting temperatures from an unknown source (Here is a list of 100-degree days in Chicago). This is highly unlikely to be the temperatures from a single weather station. My suspicion is an average over all of the weather stations.

The indications are that r-j is lying about checking the actual records. But let us confirm this one way or another:
r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of the 1930's and 1940's for the weather station mentioned in the RealClimate article.

r-j · Sep 7, 2014

Reality Check said:
r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of the 1930's and 1940's for the weather station mentioned in the RealClimate article.

I used the official records from the NWS Chicago. The skeptic would ask those who made the woo woo claim what their source was. Since they made a claim that is so far outside anything close to reality, a skeptic would question the people making the claim.

Not the NWS or anyone who checks their official records.

I think your problem is not understanding how far out the claim actually is. It's not even possible to get that kind of reading from a weather station in Chicago. The first time it happened the scientists who ran the station would know this.

Which is why it's also insulting to the NWS, as well as any rational thinker.

As I also pointed out, the one heat wave that set the all time high record for Chicago came from the roof top station, the airfield recorded 4 degrees higher. 109 degrees F

That is the location the official records "moved" to later. But even so, there were never any 113 readings in the fifties from the airfield.

Reality Check · Sep 7, 2014

r-j said:
The official NWS show no days over 105 from O'hare, and only two from Midway, neither from before 1948 of course.

r-j, read the RealClimate article again:

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.

As you state, there is no data from the O'Hare weather station prior to the airports upgrade and renaming to O'Hare in 1949 because there was no weather station at a non-existent airport! The records were for the weather station where it was in the city before it was moved to O'Hare.

Reality Check · Sep 7, 2014

r-j said:
I used the official records from the NWS Chicago.

Wow , r-j, try reading what you wrote before - you stated there are no NWS Chicago records from O'Hare before 1948 which is obvious because the airport was named O'Hare in 1949 :jaw-dropp

!

Since you did not understand the question I will emphasize the date range:
r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]

P.S. you seem not to understand what a citation to a source is either. The citation would be a link to the actual dataset that you used to check the RealClimate assertion.

r-j · Sep 7, 2014

For some reason the edit function is not working.

r-j · Sep 8, 2014

My long reply was vanished upon trying to edit. Attempting to fix the problem before posting again.

r-j · Sep 8, 2014

Oh boy, a real Gish Gallop again.

Reality Check said:
A CBS report reporting temperatures from an unknown source (Here is a list of 100-degree days in Chicago). This is highly unlikely to be the temperatures from a single weather station. My suspicion is an average over all of the weather stations.

The source is in the story, you should read it.

Now quit evading my previous posts, instead of trying to go off on a tangent. And if you don't know how to find and read the NWS official data, then you are over your head in this discussion.

r-j · Sep 8, 2014

I guess when you actually use evidence, science and sources, it takes all the fun out of things.

Mikemcc said:
There is no all en-compassing 'Theory of Global Warming', no matter how many references you find to it.

Obvious straw man. The questions and commentary are specific and impossible to confuse.

The issue of the theory arose when I pointed out research that shows a basic consensus idea, predicted by both theory and models, was not happening. In fact, the reverse seems to be happening. After failed attempts to claim there is no theory I provided multiple lines of evidence, eve.n using the exact phrase as it appears on NOAA and NASA pages. I pointed out it has many names, which is evident from a book review
Ngram Viewer, from Real Climate, from Plass, from Hansen and of course from the Discovery of Global Warming.

If changes in CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] began after changes in temperature, didn’t that contradict the greenhouse theory of global warming?

The CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] theory, he pointed out, failed to account for the numerous large shifts that he had uncovered in records of climate from medieval times to the present.

But it remained the standard view that, as an official U.S. Weather Bureau publication put it, the masking of CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] absorption by water vapor was a "fatal blow" to the CO[SIZE=-1]2[/SIZE] theory.

Of course all of that is about the theory of global warming, or just global warming.

Why is such a simple thing so hard fought?

Reality Check · Sep 8, 2014

r-j said:
Oh boy, a real Gish Gallop again.

Oh boy - the real ignorance of what a Gish Gallop is, r-j

!

This is what you wrote about the weather station in the RealClimate article, r-j:
Simply check the actual records, and you will find no record of any day that had a high of 113 in Chicago, from any weather station of any kind.
Your "citations" were to two CBS Chicago articles that did not mention the weather station concerned:
The Hottest Day Ever In Chicago? July 23, 1934 with figures from National Weather Service, i.e. not a specific weather station :eye-poppi

!
ETA except from one weather station that is not that weather station : "It was 109 degrees at the airport. There was no O’Hare back then."
At the time the weather station that was to be relocated to O'Hare was "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".
Hottest Days Ever In Chicago with figures from National Weather Service, i.e. not a specific weather station :eye-poppi

!
Any one who knows anything about weather reporting will know that a temperature for a city like Chicago is not quoted from a single weather station - it is an average over many stations.

Thus my still unanswered question:
r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
This is a question for the data behind this one assertion, not every assertion in your mini-Gish Gallop

.

r-j · Sep 8, 2014

Reality Check said:
Oh boy - the real ignorance of what a Gish Gallop is, r-j

In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop#examples

Reality Check said:
By this I mean the English meaning of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I will not cater to an insane demand to look up every discussion of AGW by scientists!

The delusion that the imaginary "Theory of Global Warming" exist as a scientific theory continues , r-j .
"Theory of Global Warming" is not spelt

"greenhouse theory of climate change" as in your highlighting in that image

"CO2 theory"

"the greenhouse theory of climate change"

"AGW"

"global warming"

"basic global warming theory"

"theory of climate change involving CO2 variations"

This looks like the idiocy of looking up "theory", "global" and "warming" and imagining that every result is a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" !

Reality Check said:
More insults followed by an rrelevant rant, r-j !

If you do not know the English meaning of AGW or global warming then ask.

If you do not know the climate science behind the accepted phenomena of AGW or global warming then learn it.
But do not demand that we spoon feed you a class on climate science!

If you have the fantasy that there is an actual scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" then back it up with evidence.

If you still cannot understand that news articles and press releases are not scientific literature then there is no hope for you .

If you still cannot understand that the words "theory", "global" and "warming" appear in the scientific literature then there is definitely no hope for you!

The ignorant theme of "did not predict warming for the boreal winters" raises its ugly head again from 23 May 2014:
Oh dear, r-j, the idiocy of saying that there are no true claims about winters and then quoting true claims about winter!

You actually are using lists. Meanwhile, you ignore every scientific bit of evidence, and refuse to respond to anything.

It's a Gish Gallop

r-j · Sep 8, 2014

You are also asking the same question, and making the same accusations over and over, after I answered you.

If you don't know how to look up temperature records for Chicago, just say so. There is only one source for the official records.

Reality Check · Sep 8, 2014

r-j said:
It's a Gish Gallop

It is a question: r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]

Reality Check · Sep 8, 2014

r-j said:
You actually are using lists.

I am actually used this list, r-j, to reply to your list. So who is using a Gish Gallop :jaw-dropp

?

Reality Check said:
By this I mean the English meaning of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I will not cater to an insane demand to look up every discussion of AGW by scientists!

The delusion that the imaginary "Theory of Global Warming" exist as a scientific theory continues , r-j .
"Theory of Global Warming" is not spelt

"greenhouse theory of climate change" as in your highlighting in that image

"CO2 theory"

"the greenhouse theory of climate change"

"AGW"

"global warming"

"basic global warming theory"

"theory of climate change involving CO2 variations"

This looks like the idiocy of looking up "theory", "global" and "warming" and imagining that every result is a scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" !

I am actually used a list, r-j, to list questions which you are free to ignore as usual :jaw-dropp

!

Reality Check said:
More insults followed by an rrelevant rant, r-j !

If you do not know the English meaning of AGW or global warming then ask.

If you do not know the climate science behind the accepted phenomena of AGW or global warming then learn it.
But do not demand that we spoon feed you a class on climate science!

If you have the fantasy that there is an actual scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" then back it up with evidence.

If you still cannot understand that news articles and press releases are not scientific literature then there is no hope for you .

If you still cannot understand that the words "theory", "global" and "warming" appear in the scientific literature then there is definitely no hope for you!

The ignorant theme of "did not predict warming for the boreal winters" raises its ugly head again from 23 May 2014:
Oh dear, r-j, the idiocy of saying that there are no true claims about winters and then quoting true claims about winter!

ETA: I will emphasize this: The paper you cited states that there are global climate models that predicted warming during boreal winters. This is a consensus (i.e. majority) result.

Reality Check · Sep 8, 2014

r-j said:
You are also asking the same question, and making the same accusations over and over, after I answered you.

No you still have not answered my question, r-j.
If you were wrong about checking the records for that weather station then just say so. Otherwise answer:
r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]

DC · Sep 8, 2014

r-j said:
Everybody knows that. In fact, that information is actually in many of the links and even screen grabs of scientific documents I've used. Your confusion that the questions are about the greenhouse effect, rather than the greenhouse theory, is baffling.
That's just an insult, and yet another evasion of what I did ask about.

For example, when I use a part of the scientific document Trace Gas Effects on Climate Chapter 15 NOAA (source)
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9069[/qimg] it seems rather than discuss that, you (and others) pretend that somehow I am questioning the basis of the greenhouse effect, rather than the rational questions about the theory.

The theory mentioned in the text, right there in front of you. I used it as an example of both how models are connected to the theory, as well as evidence of the term being used by scientists, something you and others claim never happens.

In fact, it is used all the time, even when it is shortened to AGW or just global warming.

Here is another example, from the book The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Weart
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9067[/qimg]

I find such woo woo claims that it is a "made up term" to be absurd-isms, and evasion of the issues.

The logical person might understand why I find such claims to be out there, that I don't take them seriously, in any way.

When we see it in 1981 Hansen et al page 8

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1212&pictureid=9059[/qimg]
it is clear he need not explain what it is, as it is common knowledge what he means.

The CO2 theory of global warming is quite simple, even if the physics and predictions from the theory are not.

Except when it is, as I showed with multiple examples.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

This evasion of trying to act as if you don't understand what theory they mean in those examples is absurd. Everybody knows what the theory is. It's what the theory predicts that is on the table.

who are you trying to fool? yourself?

r-j · Sep 8, 2014

Oh dear, I think the problem is on your end.

Reality Check said:
No you still have not answered my question, r-j.

me:The NWS official records
you: Answer the question.
me: I did
you: No, I demand you link me directly to all the data you looked at.
me: If you don't know how to check the NWS official data, just say so.
you: What is the source you looked at.
me: I already told you
you: no you didn't.
(repeat forever)

Since there is only one place to get the official data in question, the real issue would be what data are the Yahoos using when they make that woo woo claim? And how could they be so completely wrong?

It's even more obvious when you know a little Chicago history. The Yahoos claim the data from the University in the 30's and early 40's was artificially hotter, and that the move to O'Hare caused a cooling bias.

The factual story is the reverse, something they would have known if they actually researched Chicago weather history. It's part of what makes it seem so fraudulent.

greybeard · Sep 8, 2014

r-j said:
Oh dear, I think the problem is on your end.

me:The NWS official records
you: Answer the question.
me: I did
you: No, I demand you link me directly to all the data you looked at.
me: If you don't know how to check the NWS official data, just say so.
you: What is the source you looked at.
me: I already told you
you: no you didn't.
(repeat forever)

Since there is only one place to get the official data in question, the real issue would be what data are the Yahoos using when they make that woo woo claim? And how could they be so completely wrong?

It's even more obvious when you know a little Chicago history. The Yahoos claim the data from the University in the 30's and early 40's was artificially hotter, and that the move to O'Hare caused a cooling bias.

The factual story is the reverse, something they would have known if they actually researched Chicago weather history. It's part of what makes it seem so fraudulent.

So let's cut to the chase r_j. Who is suspected of fraud? How much of the data is being improperly tampered with. Just how many people are involved in this conspiracy you have discovered , and please don't play with words by saying it can't be a conspiracy because it's not hidden. You are the one who keeps using the word fraud. You should either back that up, apologise or be seen as just another conspiracy theorist.

Global warming discussion III

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Critical Thinker

Share this page

ISF - Join now!