Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Spendulus]

Looks like I already covered the subject of you being completely ignorant on the subjects you talk about.  Has nothing to do with whatever subject in whatever school, however if you want to I'll be happy to restrict the subject with to to a specific grade level.  6th?

Odd, though as 1st semester physics at the high school level covers gas and temperature relations and partial pressure relations.  As well as phase relationships, temperature changes, heat of fusion, and equilibrium.  Have you successfully unlearned these things?

This is what I mean. You're completely wrong about so much, but you still try to make yourself come across as smart.  You do this via insulting intelligence of those who argue with you.  I have not shown an inability to not understand anything. I've used terms like radiosity which are not particulary accurate for things that apparently do not even have a single word to define it.

For a guy who is wrong in a huge way and would be considered a lunatic in many educated circles, you try your best to paint yourself as super smart and above everyone else who disagrees. (aka the vast majority)  Then you fail basic shit like formatting of your messages.

The interesting part to me is the absolute desperation in your replies trying to convince someone (yourself?) that you are far beyond everyone's understanding.  I started pointing out things changing in major ways, but you'll find some little bit of evidence countering some scientist's claims at some point. Then you and the few other guys who need the psychological boost all rally around it. Oh that guy was wrong !!  That sorta shit.

That counter evidence will still be completely dwarfed by all the evidence in the other direction which OF COURSE you will not bring up and seem to ignore when brought up before you. I think it is hard to argue with certain types of evidence. You're limited in what types of evidence you can refute with your toolbox. The temperatures you have the fall back of bias. When you see the artic ice disappeaaring to the degree it is, you can't really argue that away unless you say that all the data is completely falsified including maps etc.

Anyway, I hope you guys are right. This has been interesting to me. I wish I could give you guys interesting data, but the world is full of why to believe in global warming.

Really, I know what you are talking about about the ra ra let's all pile it on this guy on the internet who just got proven wrong. 

I also fully comprehend your prescient statement "the world is full of reasons to believe..."  And that's the key phrase, "believe."  That's a very different thing than a scientific understanding, or a scientific approach to a problem.  Oh, by the way, I get along just fine with scientists and professors, researcher type guys and women.  Some people really understand this stuff to great depth and are a pleasure to discuss this things with.

LOL, please remember that it was not me that started the subject of satellite temps vs the ground  network.  I just answered a simple question as to why prefer one or the other.  You didn't like my answer.  Makes no difference to me.  I just went back to the original statement, reviewed it again, saw no reason to modify it or add to it.

[dwma]

I also fully comprehend your prescient statement "the world is full of reasons to believe..."  And that's the key phrase, "believe."  That's a very different thing than a scientific understanding, or a scientific approach to a problem.  Oh, by the way, I get along just fine with scientists and professors, researcher type guys and women.  Some people really understand this stuff to great depth and are a pleasure to discuss this things with.

LOL, please remember that it was not me that started the subject of satellite temps vs the ground  network.  I just answered a simple question as to why prefer one or the other.  You didn't like my answer.  Makes no difference to me.  I just went back to the original statement, reviewed it again, saw no reason to modify it or add to it.

Uhhhh, scientific understanding has people believe in what they understand. While you know a lot, you obviously don't have a particularly high IQ because your reasoning blows. (to put it politely) The main difference between me and you is that I'm smart enough to understand what I don't know. You just use selective evidence to make your point and try your best to convince everyone your approach is based on your vast understanding and not your vast biases. Most people do not study this subject well enough to refute you, because frankly it is very complex and incredibly time consuming. I have to worry about things like making money unfortunately. Although this thread is great for hearing the best points of skeptics.

And again you start in with the "Why I am smart" type reasoning. You know a lot about this subject. People are almost always happy to talk about their area of specialty in the world if they find someone who has a keen interest in said subject. I wouldn't think otherwise. Do you start in telling them they "believe in the creed" and randomly start chastising them about recycling and other idiocy I've read from you ? Probably not as people would just stop talking to you because they'd deem you a freak.

Of course you're not going to modify or add your statements.  They're based on some ideology of skepticism. Ideology is not something people change based on reason or logic.

Luckily the world is moving past you and you guys are put in your own little corner to exercise your right to free speech.

[Spendulus]

I also fully comprehend your prescient statement "the world is full of reasons to believe..."  And that's the key phrase, "believe."  That's a very different thing than a scientific understanding, or a scientific approach to a problem.  Oh, by the way, I get along just fine with scientists and professors, researcher type guys and women.  Some people really understand this stuff to great depth and are a pleasure to discuss this things with.

LOL, please remember that it was not me that started the subject of satellite temps vs the ground  network.  I just answered a simple question as to why prefer one or the other.  You didn't like my answer.  Makes no difference to me.  I just went back to the original statement, reviewed it again, saw no reason to modify it or add to it.

Uhhhh, scientific understanding has people believe in what they understand. While you know a lot, you obviously don't have a particularly high IQ because your reasoning blows. (to put it politely) The main difference between me and you is that I'm smart enough to understand what I don't know. You just use selective evidence to make your point and try your best to convince everyone your approach is based on your vast understanding and not your vast biases. Most people do not study this subject well enough to refute you, because frankly it is very complex and incredibly time consuming. I have to worry about things like making money unfortunately. Although this thread is great for hearing the best points of skeptics.

Frankly that's bat shit crazy talk. 

I produced an argument based on first semester college physics as to why satellite temperature measurements are superior to ground temperature averages, it's up to you to refute it, or argue against it, or fall back on the "belief". 

I don't care what you do, think or believe.  If you're through trying to argue that ground based temperatures are superior, then you're through.

[Spendulus]

Both sides of this debate are too fear driven. Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.
The non-partisan facts appear to be:
Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO2 emissions.
Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.
As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).
So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.

It's been argued, I think quite convincingly, that Warmers who want to control other peoples' behavior to "save the planet" are not going to stop regardless of what technology comes to exist.  This is because we are seeing control freaks in action.  They want control, period.  Overall, though, your post makes a lot of sense.

[protokol]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

I see your point, but as a couple of others have said, I'm not sure why ground temperature data is as dismissable as you say - it seems a reasonable measure of aggregate global warming to me. However, I've been reading some information from here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm and I have to say, the satellite data seems to corroborate the surface temp data.

Thanks for your reply, I have been on the fence re: warming for a number of years, all I want is some well thought-out conclusions in relation to the actual data. I'm no expert, but I am studying a science degree and appreciate every line of questioning regarding this subject.

[protokol]

Both sides of this debate are too fear driven. Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.
The non-partisan facts appear to be:
Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO2 emissions.
Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.
As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).
So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.

Agree with pretty much everything you've said here. You might enjoy the latest episode of "FutureProofing" on BBC radio 4, where they attempted to quantify the benefits of solar vs nuclear fusion power, and which might be better to pursue in the future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b079r5lv

Good series, they even did an episode on blockchain technology last season.

[Spendulus]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

I see your point, but as a couple of others have said, I'm not sure why ground temperature data is as dismissable as you say - it seems a reasonable measure of aggregate global warming to me. However, I've been reading some information from here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm and I have to say, the satellite data seems to corroborate the surface temp data.

Thanks for your reply, I have been on the fence re: warming for a number of years, all I want is some well thought-out conclusions in relation to the actual data. I'm no expert, but I am studying a science degree and appreciate every line of questioning regarding this subject.

One interesting way to answer this is to apply the question to other fields.  For example, just for discussion, I make the following assertion.

Ground temperature and other ground sensor data are as good as satellite data.  We can use our ground weather station networks to predict weather.

Reality.  No, you can't, unless you want to go backwards to 1950s level weather forecasting accuracy.  We're now up to ten days with fairly accurate weather forecasting.  You'd be going back to three day accuracy.

Note regarding bolded above, this is not relevant when we look at the accuracy and precision of a measurement.  Further, of course two differing styles of measurements of temperature should "correlate."  We could say "satellite and ground temperatures do seem similar between night and day."

The variance would simply reflect the differences and those would be the sum of - from real world differences - measurement style differences - precision differences.

The original question was a valid question.  "Which is better for measuring global temperature, satellite or the ground temperature network?"

My answer was that due to non equilibrium thermodynamics, the ground temperature network would have to be discarded as a possible answer.  Reject that, and you might as well follow it up with this style of answer regarding finding water in the ground.  "Water witching has worked out well in the past, I think it's perfectly fine.  Go get a coat hanger and let's do it."

[dwma]

I also fully comprehend your prescient statement "the world is full of reasons to believe..."  And that's the key phrase, "believe."  That's a very different thing than a scientific understanding, or a scientific approach to a problem.  Oh, by the way, I get along just fine with scientists and professors, researcher type guys and women.  Some people really understand this stuff to great depth and are a pleasure to discuss this things with.

LOL, please remember that it was not me that started the subject of satellite temps vs the ground  network.  I just answered a simple question as to why prefer one or the other.  You didn't like my answer.  Makes no difference to me.  I just went back to the original statement, reviewed it again, saw no reason to modify it or add to it.

Uhhhh, scientific understanding has people believe in what they understand. While you know a lot, you obviously don't have a particularly high IQ because your reasoning blows. (to put it politely) The main difference between me and you is that I'm smart enough to understand what I don't know. You just use selective evidence to make your point and try your best to convince everyone your approach is based on your vast understanding and not your vast biases. Most people do not study this subject well enough to refute you, because frankly it is very complex and incredibly time consuming. I have to worry about things like making money unfortunately. Although this thread is great for hearing the best points of skeptics.

Frankly that's bat shit crazy talk.  

I produced an argument based on first semester college physics as to why satellite temperature measurements are superior to ground temperature averages, it's up to you to refute it, or argue against it, or fall back on the "belief".  

I don't care what you do, think or believe.  If you're through trying to argue that ground based temperatures are superior, then you're through.

I don't know if i said they are superior. They are preferred. The only reason they are not preferred is if you want to cherry pick the data and measure something slightly different than the aspect of global warming that will directly impact us.

[dwma]

Both sides of this debate are too fear driven. Anthropogenists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Denialists say: "and if we don't do something, we're gonna be living in an awful world!!!!1" Not very tempted by either of those arguments to be honest. I've looked at the scientific evidence from both camps, and tried to trace the source of the funding. It's not a very clear picture, on balance.
The non-partisan facts appear to be:
Carbon based energy definitely does pollute the atmosphere. But not necessarily with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Non-carbon based energy is more sustainable, and we will eventually have to make an economic decision to stop using carbon fairly soon anyway. Non-carbon based energy sources carry either less or no pollutants. Once well/fully developed, there is no way to carbon tax non-sources of CO2 emissions.
Short term nuclear is the best option, but heavy isotopic nuclear fuel is not so great. There are alternative nuclear fuels though, such as thorium, which is being developed heavily by India (who have very large natural deposits). A prototype for an early design of commercial thorium power plant is said to be coming online in India next year.
As far as vehicles go, it looks like the pipe dream has actually arrived. Toyota, along with BMW, Honda and Hyundai, have commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ready for 2015-2016. Looks like the issue with using expensive platinum hydrolysis catalysts has been solved (although the reports I've read make no mention of how). The all electric vehicle is still a little range bound and battery hampered, but some kind of supercapacitor style battery technology, be it graphene or otherwise based, should be available within a decade or two. I think the hydrogen models will be just fine before that problem is dealt with, we will proabably see both technologies featuring in vehicles of the 2020's (depending on the space/weight/energy density merits as per the type of vehicle).
So it's all too much FUD and not enough realism. I think this decade is set to be an all-time FUD fest. If you choose neo-luddism, you will probably die of stress related illnesses before either tax tyranny on imperceptible swings in climatic conditions, or any actual freak hurricane/typhoon/tsunami/desertification/ice age do. The politics driving both FUD camps is likely pretty complex in reality, transcending both is the only worthwhile route.

It's been argued, I think quite convincingly, that Warmers who want to control other peoples' behavior to "save the planet" are not going to stop regardless of what technology comes to exist.  This is because we are seeing control freaks in action.  They want control, period.  Overall, though, your post makes a lot of sense.

Yes the 95%+ of scientists who agree on manmade global warming are "control freaks". 

On this post in particular I keep hearing a coo coo clock after reading it.

[Spendulus]

....
I produced an argument based on first semester college physics as to why satellite temperature measurements are superior to ground temperature averages, it's up to you to refute it, or argue against it, or fall back on the "belief".  

I don't care what you do, think or believe.  If you're through trying to argue that ground based temperatures are superior, then you're through.

I don't know if i said they are superior. They are preferred. The only reason they are not preferred is if you want to cherry pick the data and measure something slightly different than the aspect of global warming that will directly impact us.

Repeating to cut through your misrepresentations appears necessary.

The original question was a valid question.  "Which is better for measuring global temperature, satellite or the ground temperature network?"

My answer was that due to non equilibrium thermodynamics, the ground temperature network would have to be discarded as a possible answer.  

Asserting "something is preferred" is not even answering the question.  Neither is it even true that they are preferred, but that's another issue.  

Neither is it true about cherry picking vis a vis use of satellite temperature measurements, as there is no other option for measuring temperatures at various strata in the atmosphere, and there is no option other than thermometers and ship engine monitors for measuring temperatures near the ground.

Neither is your use of the phrase "cherry picking" accurate or appropriate.

Cherry picking:   When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.  The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

But what is the position?  You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming."  You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion.  That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use.  This is all in your head.  There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded.  None.

Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal.  Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things.  Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.

[dwma]

But what is the position?  You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming."  You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion.  That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use.  This is all in your head.  There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded.  None.

Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal.  Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things.  Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/16/april-third-month-in-row-to-break-global-temperature-records

Nutball, I never said they should be discarded. Ever. I said both datasets have issues. You are selective in the issues you have with one dataset and not the other. I'm not going to repeat myself, nutball. The rest of the world has figured it out. I can point to issues with both datasets and it is not clear which issues are more significant to me but all things equal, we'd want the temperatures that we actually exist in. Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming.

THere is a certain mindset that is what i might call the sickly skeptical. I love skeptics. However at some point your bias blows away your ability to reason logically.

So I guess you understand everything involved?  Wow, you must be God himself.  lol. And here you are with nothing better to do but argue with randoms on the Internet.

[Spendulus]

But what is the position?  You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming."  You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion.  That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use.  This is all in your head.  There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded.  None.

Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal.  Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things.  Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.

.....Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming......

Oh, so are you still attempting to present a scientific argument on this point, or have you simply admitted it is for you a matter of faith?

Let me know which it is as in the latter case I have nothing to say.

[Spendulus]

It's interesting that this recent paper cites a climate sensitivity of about 1degree C per doubling of CO2, which has seemed about right to me.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015EA000154/epdf

GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C.


    Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models
    Estimates of 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (EqCS) derive from running global climate models (GCMs) to equilibrium. Estimates of effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) are the corresponding quantities obtained using transient GCM output or observations. The EfCS approach uses an accompanying energy balance model (EBM), the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) being standard. GCM values of EqCS and EfCS vary widely [IPCC range: (1.5, 4.5)°C] and have failed to converge over the past 35 years. Recently, attempts have been made to refine the EfCS approach by using two-zone (tropical/extratropical) EBMs. When applied using satellite radiation data, these give low and tightly-constrained EfCS values, in the neighbourhood of 1°C. These low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values have been questioned because (a) they disagree with higher observational EfCS/ZDM values, and (b) the EfCS/two-zone EBM values given by GCMs are poorly correlated with the standard GCM sensitivity estimates. The validity of the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values is here explored, with focus on the limitations of the observational EfCS/ZDM approach, the disagreement between the GCM and observational radiative responses to surface temperature perturbations in the tropics, and on the modified EfCS values provided by an extended twozone EBM that includes an explicit parameterization of dynamical heat transport. The results support the low observational EfCS/two-zone EBM values, indicating that objections (a) and (b) to these values both need to be reconsidered. It is shown that in the EBM with explicit dynamical heat transport the traditional formulism of climate feedbacks can break down because of lack of additivity.

[notbatman]

Here's a time-lapse video showing what a temperature map would look like if the world is flat:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fQ3m0dBO0M

[Wilikon]

Sons of Climategate: Dodgy Scientists Caught Red-Handed by FOIA Lawsuit



The dodgy scientists who wrote to President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch demanding that RICO laws be used to prosecute climate skeptics just got even more badly screwed.

Already one of them — George Mason University professor Jagadish Shukla — is under Congressional investigation for what has been described as the “largest science scandal in US history.”

Now the background to their footling conspiracy has been exposed thanks to a FOIA request by the Competitive Enterprise Institute which has forced them to release their private letters and emails.

Like Climategate, it makes for some fascinating reading, mainly because — yet again — it shows the climate alarmist establishment in such a terrible light.

Remember, these guys are supposed to be the experts on whose judgment our political leaders base their policies; every year they snaffle millions and millions of dollars worth of grant funding courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer — some of them may even be teaching your kids.

It is therefore a matter of considerable public concern to see them revealed by their correspondence to be such a bunch of bumbling shysters, apparently more interested in political activism than engaging in rigorous science, and even prepared to flirt with breaking the law in order to conceal their dubious antics.

Here are some of the things we learn from their correspondence.

It all began when Shukla made the mistake of taking seriously an op-ed by Sen Sheldon Whitehouse in the Washington Post. He approached Ed Maibach, his university’s director of Climate Change Communication with a cunning plan. (Maibach, we later learn, doesn’t have a science degree.)

A lawyer — very sensibly, as it turned out — advised them that their chances of winning such a suit were slim to none.

[...]

“Don’t turn climate into God.” Wiser counsels continue to warn the crusading climate scientists that if they carry on like this, they’re going to sound like the bunch of lefty fruit loops they indeed are.


http://www.breitbart.com/environment/2016/05/15/sons-climategate-dodgy-scientists-caught-red-handed-foia-lawsuit/

[dwma]

But what is the position?  You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming."  You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion.  That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use.  This is all in your head.  There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded.  None.

Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal.  Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things.  Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.

.....Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming......

Oh, so are you still attempting to present a scientific argument on this point, or have you simply admitted it is for you a matter of faith?

Let me know which it is as in the latter case I have nothing to say.

You have no faith in your scientific beliefs ? Seriously?  It is just complete random mental illness?  Interesting... Very very interesting.  Ok, not really. Mental illness isn't funny.

Keep misquoting and ignoring any and all hard questions will cherry picking your evidence.

One can tell you evidence is flimsy because you can't even acknowledge your bullshit.  Quote me where I said satellite measurements should be discarded. Start with that one. Unfortunately you're in for it when you find out your mind has been playing tricks on you. 

[Spendulus]

But what is the position?  You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming."  You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion.  That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use.  This is all in your head.  There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded.  None.

Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal.  Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things.  Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.

.....Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming......

Oh, so are you still attempting to present a scientific argument on this point, or have you simply admitted it is for you a matter of faith?

Let me know which it is as in the latter case I have nothing to say.

You have no faith in your scientific beliefs ? Seriously?  It is just complete random mental illness?  Interesting... Very very interesting.  Ok, not really. Mental illness isn't funny.

Keep misquoting and ignoring any and all hard questions will cherry picking your evidence.

One can tell you evidence is flimsy because you can't even acknowledge your bullshit.  Quote me where I said satellite measurements should be discarded. Start with that one. Unfortunately you're in for it when you find out your mind has been playing tricks on you. 

Are you fucking kidding me?

Science is not based on faith, but the testing and further testing of hypothesis..

[dwma]

But what is the position?  You are the one attempting to argue a "big conclusion," eg, "Global Warming."  You are the one who has problems with data sets that do not support your already decided conclusion.  That is not the problem of many scientists and others who accept the current "global warming pause" or "no warming in 19 years" or whatever term they may use.  This is all in your head.  There are no scientists who would agree with you that satellite weather measurements should be discarded.  None.

Frankly you are attempting to ignore a more precise and accurate means of measuring phenomena in order to advocate a goal.  Then you admit you don't understand the science but you believe in certain things.  Then you impute political motives as causes for behavior.

.....Things do not live way up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are also important but would not be as effective in measuring Global Warming......

Oh, so are you still attempting to present a scientific argument on this point, or have you simply admitted it is for you a matter of faith?

Let me know which it is as in the latter case I have nothing to say.

You have no faith in your scientific beliefs ? Seriously?  It is just complete random mental illness?  Interesting... Very very interesting.  Ok, not really. Mental illness isn't funny.

Keep misquoting and ignoring any and all hard questions will cherry picking your evidence.

One can tell you evidence is flimsy because you can't even acknowledge your bullshit.  Quote me where I said satellite measurements should be discarded. Start with that one. Unfortunately you're in for it when you find out your mind has been playing tricks on you. 

Are you fucking kidding me?

Science is not based on faith, but the testing and further testing of hypothesis..

You don't have faith in your testing? 

I do.  You don't?

[Spendulus]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Science is not based on faith, but the testing and further testing of hypothesis..

You don't have faith in your testing?  

I do.  You don't?

Nope, that is in fact opposed to the scientific method.  From Wikipedia -

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief

You may not LIKE that satellite measurements show certain values, and they may not be in accordance with your BELIEFS, but that's all not relevant to the scientific method.

Additional tests may be devised, and exhaustively, they are put against the hypotheses, in efforts to beat the null hypotheses.   Singular or plural.  

It may be of interest to you that it's a very strong argument that "global warming" is not even a scientific hypothesis.  Also, "warmers" have a number of curious arguments that are blatantly unscientific and which should always be objected to.

"the science is settled."

"The consensus is..."

Then there's the "Precautionary principle."

[Wilikon]