Global Warming? are humans to blame?

What remedies other than political ones , do warmists demand?

 

Ohh what a viscous unwarranted un provoked attack oh dear, First I would not drink in a bar with a bartender, you might but I don't. I drink in bars with girls in them. ( you say you've been here? you sure)

---what was the other stuff--oh yeah generally does not mean to the best of my recollection.

Generally mean normally --under normal circumstances --its has nothing to do in particular with speech.

But you go ahead with what you want --I will generally be able to understand you..

 

Unless you're at a self-serve bar, you have a bartender -- either male or female. Someone's mixing the drinks, and I'll bet it isn't you.

Why are you meandering on about 'generally' now? Because you can no longer defend what you said about 'I think'?

 

Ha ha --you've not been here have you --go on admit it.

There is no such bar , your thinking what you think you should think and what you think I would think.

You sit down( in an arm chair sometimes) and a girl will ask you if you want to drink, you say---' Ow beer chang crap' and she will wriggle back with a beer chang.

Oh and they are GENERALLY outside,--in the sun or shade,-- takes your pick.

Then she will sit down next to you and make idle chat or rub your balls what ever. Now if you want Bob your bartender to do that for you well -- there is other bars for that.

So as things heat up and you stretch your collar and feel hot,-- it has nothing to do with global waming but erogenous excitement as your molecules rub together.

 

while I have no doubt the comedy show will be back soon, I'm somewhat disappointed in today's antics, will you two ladies just kiss and make up already. I was hoping for a few laughs before I head on out this morning.

Cheers
B

 

You better hurry. Morning is over there.

 

yah sometimes morning for me is pretty late in the day but no worries I still check the latest follies when I can.

talk about some good laughs lately, yikes

 

Bos's entertainment

Looks like your wind up spring has snapped Bos,nobody is taking the bait.
Have to find another contraversial subject

 

Hansen ethics. That's like saying no-class is classy!

Earlier Hansen modified charts here: http://www.real-science.com/poor-science-at-nasa

Dr Hansen doctors the data AGAIN.

http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-rise-retroactively-triples-at-envisat-overnight

Sea Level Rise Retroactively Triples At Envisat – Overnight

Envisat was the bad girl of satellites, because she refused produce the results Hansen et al were looking for. After ten years of showing very little sea level rise (red), the experts went back in time and tortured the whole data set (blue) to produce almost 3X the rise rate.

Boston likes holding Hansen up as an expert on climate science, but I certainly hope NOT as a role model!

Hansen has zero credibility.

 

When you say "tortured the whole data set" what exactly do you mean Yobarnacle? Can you give the mathematics that you call "tortured"?

 

CO2 causes severe weather? Warm-mongers will grasp at anything since global temperatures are much lower than earlier predicted.

Don't think the severe weather will be very long in their claims.

What will they claim next. CO2 causes hallucinations?

 

Look at the chart I posted.

The red line is the original satelite data.

The blue line is the "satelite" data after Hansen and cohorts doctored it.

Hansens doctored chart doesn't show the red line. The original real satelite chart doesn't show Hansens enhanced blue line.

Tortured only means he warped the data to suit global warmings agenda.

It's a fraud and a lie. Caught red handed, and not the first time. Hansen has fabricated false data before. Check out the link I posted to see the charts. before and after Hansen "improved" them!

Yuck. Ethics like that make me mistrust all climate scientists. Global warming scientists have adopted the ethics of politicians.

Maybe Hansen will be most remembered for a new english word. Enhansen, meaning to fraudulently exaggerate!

 

BPL,

Since I have often had to reduce raw data into charts as an engineer, I can tell you what "tortured" means. Typically the means by which raw data is measured has certain assumptions as how it is collected and often has to be adjusted to get more accurate measurements, depending on your underlying assumptions about the data. Sometimes instrument readings give a predictably high or low reading depending on humidity, altitudes of the measurement, local "on the ground conditions" (such as measurements over pavement, roof tops, or over forest or pasture). Also if old style recording devices were replaced with new ones at some of the temp reading locations, you have to make corrections to compensate for any difference in measurement accuracy between the two devices. Typically not all of the data was measured with the same type of instrument, or same calibration, but if the differences are known, or can be reasonably estimated, the raw data is adjusted to make the comparison valid. Another problem occurs over long periods if local conditions change, for example when farmland is converted into subdivisions, or a old highway was rerouted away or closer to your measuring site. These will affect local temps, but do not have much affect on overall average temps.

without examining what the adjustments were, or the underlying assumptions, you can not gauge if the adjustments were made correctly or not. There have been some notorious abuses of the "correcting", including the widely discredited "hockey stick" temp chart, even global warming activists were quite upset at the dishonest used in that now infamous abuse of so-called "corrections", because it reflects badly on the genuine concern of the intellectually honest scientists.

No matter the corrections used on the above charts, it only measures it over a seven year period, and presumes to show either a raw data rise of only 5 mm, or "corrected" of 12 mm. This is statistically insignificant and shows nothing. Unless they show the change in a long term context, nothing valid can be concluded even if you accept the corrections as valid.

I have read many scientific papers on climate science, all is interesting, but none are really conclusive. The scientists that actually do the actual studies will admit this, even when they are fearful of human contributions. Most of what has been referanced on this long thread is published opinions about the data, but there has been nothing really conclusive. Both climate and sea level has been changing as far back as we can measure, the forces that drive it are mostly a mystery to us. I have read 17 different studies on the long term (over 100,000 year plus range) link between CO2 levels and average global temperatures, and everyone of the authors concluded they could not find any. So it is laughable when some shows a 20 or 30 or even 80 year chart of temp vs. CO2, it is just not statistically significant.

All we know for sure is the earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now, human activity has had nothing to do with it, and the forces that drive the change are a mystery. There has been very rapid changes over short periods of time in the past, no one knows why, it is all speculation.

No doubt there has been some contribution to climate change by human activity, likely it is very small as compared to natural process. But without knowing the processes involved, the amount humans contribute to it is total speculation.

That is a fact of all of the actual studies I have read. I do not work for any oil companies, or any companies at all (I am self employed). And frankly it is intellectually dishonest to claim that all "deniers" work for big industry. Did it ever occur to all of you that all of the "true believers" are government employees who depend on government grants to stay employed?

I also notice that most on this thread that hold the strongest opinions about human caused global warming are generally not trained in science, and appear to have no motivation to read the actual studies and examine the raw data. They would rather trust the opinion of strangers that they think are reliable.

I find it all interesting reading, and the politics of it often entertaining. I have looked for hard data, a cause and effect link, and it is just not there. I am not a "denier", we many have a problem or we many not. I have not seen an convincing long term evidence. I want to see data, give me data!

 

Petros
I tried to give you rep, but have to spread it around first.
Thankyou for your well considered and thoughtfull post.

 

Nicely written. I agree completely.

FWIW I'm currently working on data from the Southern Ocean and we are going to pretty extreme lengths to nail down the whole calibration issue and data reliability so people in the future can know just *how* we got those engineering numbers that get published. It isn't simple and the devil is definitely in the details, as you'd well know.

PDW