Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Puts your 2014 hottest year absolute claim to the sword mate and any claims of 2015 too and 2016.

 

Yet another deflection away from actually answering the actual post in question.

The irony of you talking about pseudo science after your ridiculous apples and pears comparison earlier and your complete self contradiction regarding the solar 'lag' last week is ****ing laughable.

 

Really, avoiding almost every post I have ever made.. followed by "I am bored" and scuttling off rather than be tied down on something you harped on about for hours.
Still failed to say how global glaciers relates to my specific posts about the Arctic Antarctic and Greenland, oh I did mention a glacier in Washington, that is twice as thick as 20 years ago and the fact the himilayas are not melting.

You addressed none of those and refused to be tied down all day, after claiming I was ignoring the global glaciers claim.
Guess you didn't know all those glaciers dont add to sea level in any measurable way, which is what the glacier question is mostly about, 90%+ of ice being in Antarctica, and that's been taking on ice for 10.000 years.

Who'd have thought global warming doesn't effect the entire antarctic ice sheet, except to add more ice.

You've been posting various charts and stuff, that you hardly grasp, posting text from alarmist sites and editing it as your own and admitted you formed a conclusion before looking at the evidence, a conclusion you continue to try to support, and failing embarrassingly badly to boot.

Now you refuse to accept that the global records in temp are not actually scientifically records at all, you did make absolute statements regarding temp records.

 

Tobes you are not even reading my posts and keep banging on about something you think is an angle.

This has been your form since the beginning, and as usual when the chips dont stack up, you will squirm and slither and eventually **** off

 

Comes to conclusion, looks for evidence of conclusion

It should be looks at evidence comes to conclusion, you repeatedly in every subject, do the same thing, make up your mind then look for stuff that might support it, and ignore everything that doesn't.

Case in point. Actual measurement of ocean temps, no good, but a paper on ocean temps, good.

Self delusion at its finest

 

Searchable Archive of CRU emails, the source of massive skepticism on this subject.
http://www.yourvoicematters.org/cru/mailsearch.php

 

So, if I go now and play my X3 game, will I be "broken" and "smashed" and you'll all have a church gathering to laugh about it and talk pseudo science?

So what
#later

 

Still no answer......just waffle, swerving and utter nonsense plus repeating yet another inaccuracy I.e that I cut and pasted the text that was a specific answer to your nonsense comparison this morning.

The irony of you stating that I don't understand the text that I've actually written is hilarious.

You've got zero credibility, as you swerve countering anything that requires some actual self concluded logic to respond with. If there's no available cut and paste on your encylocpdia of climate change denier stock retorts, you're ****ed.

Hence the reason you bailed after your solar lag contradiction and you've been squirming like a fish on a hook avoiding admitting that your post this morning was absolute jarg.

You're nothing but a charlatan

 

Oh, Matron:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ed-earth-into-the-anthropocene-scientists-say

Well, we know where the Guardian stands on things. Doubtless the Telegraph will now respond with reports that CO2 is better than vitamin C and is good for house prices in the south east too.

 

The UK Met office begs to differ.

The UK's mean temperature for the year is 9.9 °C, which is 1.1 °C above the long-term (1981-2010) average and beats the previous record of 9.7 °C set in 2006.

This year's record means that eight of the UK's top ten warmest years have happened since 2002.

Looking in more detail across the UK, it was the warmest year on record for all countries and regions apart from Northern Ireland - which had its joint third warmest year behind 2007 and 2006.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/Record-UK-temps-2014

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2015/global-temperature

 

It was a general, not specific, comment

 

You posted about GISS, NASA's hottest year records not the CRU UK, I also posted a while back CRU data that the met get their data from, and it says .7c degrees not 1.1c

Half of that 1.1c comes from cooling 1880 - 1950 ffs. Changing data does not actually make things warmer, by that logic, you can cook a turkey by cooling 1880 by 200 degrees

Only when they adjust the **** out of it does it change to 1.1c, repeating the same bloody argument from months ago. I actually posted the data FROM their site.. but nope, data measurement from the source of met claims, over met office links any day, that dog just aint gonna hunt monsignor

Switchfail

 

Global average mean temp is a residue of climate, not a driver. A residue cannot control a phenomenon.

 

Former IPCC lead author Richard Tol.


"“There is no reason to believe that climate change is so terrible at the moment. Unless you raise funds for Greenpeace or are a politician who presents themself as the savior of mankind: then you gain by exaggerating things. The reality is that the climate hardly affects our wellbeing and our prosperity. There are happy and rich people living in boiling hot Singapore, but also in freezing cold Canada. There are unhappy and poor people in boiling hot Kenya but also stone cold *****lia. Climate change is not the main environmental problem. Dirty air causes currently roughly four million deaths each year.”"

Tol demonstrated the UK is a model for how not to implement climate policy

"It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness. The best estimate is that sea level will rise half a meter this century. That is from the ground to our knees. The Netherlands has the money and the knowledge to do something about it. It is the poorest who are affected by climate change. It is the grandchildren of the people in a country like Bangladesh who are at risk from rising sea levels. But why are we suddenly concerned about the grandchildren of people that we care little about? Poverty is a bigger problem than climate change. Do you help the poor by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by fighting poverty? An important question for which no one has a clear answer yet.”"

http://cliscep.com/2016/01/06/interviews-with-richard-tol/

I'd say it's clear why he is not working for the IPCC any more Way too much common sense and honesty

Bbbutt I thought they all agreed

 

The UK Met office figures are detailed in the piece I posted, if you think they're inaccurate then I suggest you challenge them directly.

As for the NASA figures, you posted the percentage likelihood of them being the warmest years of record, which is obviously based on factoring in the maximum error percentage of the measurements.

All of which is playing with semantics if the overall trend is on the rise, all you're arguing about is whether that specific year was the hottest on record. Note the likelihoods posted increase as the years have advanced.......whether 1934 was a hotter year than 1998 is merely cherry picking of a high anomaly year in order to try and ignore the upward overall trend. It's why most of the denier sites use 1998 as the bench mark year to current day fro trying to claim that there's been no increase since, as '98 was a spike.

 

Tol is an economist not a scientist.

Nice try though.

 

Before I answer those, not willing to really get into it now, I've been at the cat nip

This was released by the met over 3 years ago, it's from the fail though, I am just using the chart, as I cant be arsed looking for the Met one atm.

please log in to view this image

Yup, absolutely no warming between 97 and 2012, none.

But they seemed to have erased history again, as now they are claiming this ^^ never happened, as are you.
Coincidentally of course it matches this.

please log in to view this image

Note same data but met one is .3 degrees warmer

I will explain why this is and why the story has been "adjusted" like their data.

NASA did a new paper Tom karl et al, and in that paper they threw out the above data, cos both are the same, and went with readings from ship intakes and buckets over the side and a thermometer stick in it, both unreliable for scientific purposes, only fit for general record keeping. So if NASA got rid, so did the Met. There is an investigation about that paper going on right now

Satellite data on the other hand, is the best method for measuring SST (sea surface temperature) so NASA have "denied" this "pause" ever happened after the Met IPCC and NASA previously admitted it did, they did say "it's a real pity we can't explain the pause".

SO that ^^^^^^^^

Became this

please log in to view this image

By deleting satellite data they were able to show the pause never happened... again.. by removing reliable data and using unreliable data.

This paper is an epic fraud. As such nothing from NOAA can be trusted, there is political interference

 

Just out of interest, anyone know when the coldest years on record occurred? everyone keeps producing graphs for the warmest I thought it might be interesting to compare.

 

So you experts ,
can I use deodorant? Air Freshner when the mother in law visits?

Surely after 197 pagesyou have all reached a conclusion?