Global Warming

[One Brow]

Where does your data come from for the warmest year ever claim? Can you provide a link?

Earlier you said the ocean had risen 13 inches in ten years. Now you're saying 30 cm (agreeing with the claim on the video) in 100 years. Which is it, because those two pieces of info don't match at all. Your facts are seeming very suspect.

As for your comment about being unbiased, I made no claim about arctic sea ice. My point was 100% about antarctic ice. Nice try, though.

I am looking for the truth and it is revealing itself not to match what the global warming crowd is claiming.

Google search for 2014
Google search for 2015

I don't recall saying anything about 13 inches in 10 years. It's been close to 13 in the last 100 years. Perhaps another poster had a typo on that, or a bad memory.

I agree you said nothing about Arctic ice; that was my point. Saying that if Antarctic ice is growing, than it does not matter that Arctic ice has shrunk by three times the volume, is a proto-typical example of cherry-picking from bias.

You are obviously looking to confirm what you clearly want to be the truth. You will find all the confirmation you need to comfort yourself.

 

[One Brow]

No worries. Tinkering with data seems to be a specialty of the global warming scientists so it looks like you'll fit right in.

Ignorance on display. I never made a claim to be presenting data to begin, but perhaps you are not smart enough to understand the difference between an example and data.

 

[One Brow]

I'm pretty sure that OneBrow literally made the data up, ...

Again, I clearly labeled it an example, not data. I suppose truth is foreign to you.

 

[One Brow]

Even if Global Warming is a lie, isn't it a good lie? We should kind of be concerned about environmental health now and not have the attitude of "we will fix it later when it's beyond ****ed".

No, a lie of that nature would be a bad lie.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

A link that references US temperatures (not global temperatures) over and over again, saying both that they are not rising as measured and that the people who measure the US temperatures as not rising say that US temperatures as rising. This is just sad, really.

My explanation is that neither you nor the author of the paper care to discuss the actual science of global warming, and have to resort to a denialist side-show.

I've read your post several times and cannot figure out what you're saying. The article showed that data was altered. Are you saying that's not what happened? You seem to be suggesting that since the data was only US data (I'm not sure if this is completely true or not) it doesn't matter that it was changed. Makes no sense.

You're the guy who keeps making up data and injecting it into this conversation, though, so I'm not sure what I should make of your contributions. You live in a world where the sea rose 13 inches in the last decade, right? What planet was that?

 

[One Brow]

If the world was consistently warming it seems like I would look back to my childhood and recall rinks that were significantly better than what we've had recently.

There is huge difference between a global effect and a local effect. Not every part of the earth has been warming, but some have been warming rapidly.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ignorance on display. I never made a claim to be presenting data to begin, but perhaps you are not smart enough to understand the difference between an example and data.

Didn't realize that you meant it was an example of fake data. I'm not the only reader who did not understand that, though. I'm not sure why you believed that posting fake data would help advance the conversation.

On another point, I looked back and it was Kicky who said the seas had risen 13 inches in the last decade, so my apologies for twice attributing that misinformation to you.

 

[Siro]

No, a lie of that nature would be a bad lie.

There is huge difference between a global effect and a local effect. Not every part of the earth has been warming, but some have been warming rapidly.

Argh. I don't like these one-liners when I've already addressed this **** with much more detail.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There is huge difference between a global effect and a local effect. Not every part of the earth has been warming, but some have been warming rapidly.

That was not the point at all. The point was that the data was altered in order to make the warming trend appear greater. I don't know how you missed that.

 

[One Brow]

I've read your post several times and cannot figure out what you're saying. The article showed that data was altered.

No, it doesn't. The article misrepresents what GISS says. Your article claims that the data is being altered to say that US tempertures are rising. It links to another article, that links to a GISS website. Here is a direct quote from the GISS web site:

Yet in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country (Figure 2). We caution that linear trends, as in Figure 2, can mask temporal detail. Indeed, Figure 1(b) indicates that the last 20 years have seen a slight warming in the U.S. Nevertheless, our analysis (Hansen et al., 1999a), summarized in Figures 1 and 2, makes clear that climate trends have been fundamentally different in the U.S. than in the world as a whole.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

Are you saying that's not what happened?

Yes. The sources you rely on are lying to you, or at the very least, misleading you deliberately. The data was not altered, and there was no claim that US temperatures have been increasing. Does that change your view in any way?

You live in a world where the sea rose 13 inches in the last decade, right?

Again, not I. Does truth matter to you at all?

 

[One Brow]

Didn't realize that you meant it was an example of fake data. I'm not the only reader who did not understand that, though. I'm not sure why you believed that posting fake data would help advance the conversation.

The actual data is hugely complex, coming from multiple sources and capable of being averaged in multiple ways. I was merely trying to point out how we can see a change in relative size even when we can't find a unique number that represents a real size.

On another point, I looked back and it was Kicky who said the seas had risen 13 inches in the last decade, so my apologies for twice attributing that misinformation to you.

Accepted. I apologize for suggesting your error was from dishonesty.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No, it doesn't. The article misrepresents what GISS says. Your article claims that the data is being altered to say that US tempertures are rising. It links to another article, that links to a GISS website.

The article also links to this: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...rature-data-showed-cooling-from-1930-to-1999/

(and others like it like this: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/why-hansen-had-to-corrupt-the-temperature-record/) which claim that Hansen altered the data. There are flash comparisons between the original data set and the altered data sets. Since I was never trying to make whatever point you're hammering on I would like to again ask, why was the data was altered. Don't you find this strange?