Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming

Actually record highs outnumber record lows by a 1.8 - 1 ratio.

 

I don't disagree. If only they were honest about their goals, and didn't try so stubbornly to maintain the fiction that they were in it to help. They aren't. There is no expectation that any of the current policy choices are going to effect of change or modify the natural trends. This is purely about wealth transfer, codified by government to ensure power is effectively granted to those who the left believe to hold it. It really is simple stuff.

 

I would point out that the record high max to record high min is the number that should more interest you as the number of record high minimums outpaced record high maximums (meaning that there were more days that saw the coldest high temperature for a day than those who saw the warmest high temperature for a day by an almost 2:1 ratio. Which frankly doesn't do much for your credibility given your trending assertion...

 

Well that's nonsense at it's best Since August of 2017 I have watched it get cooler every day and presently! And barring any unforeseen life event I'm willing to bet starting next month I will experience a warming tread until August 2018 of which this event will be reverse and a cooling tread will happen again

Gotta love urban dweller that complain about heat while living on a shithole concrete pad surrounded by solar absorbing concrete blocks, try living on dirt and grass and a place where wind is cooled by snow caps and glacier and not 140 degree building and roads

 

We both know that fear and dishonest is far more profitable in this industry then honesty Dr. And why not bro? When you have an audience of hyper-reactive sheep this large, then why not fleece them

 

Evidence?

 

Actually scientists factor for the heat island effect, day of year, time of day, and other things when collecting temperature data. And just because its colder in your place for the past few years doesn't disprove a global 150 year trend.

 

NOAA. Look it up yourself...

 

Sure they do. The question is, do they factor in enough? Here in my town, the official high temp is established using a thermometer in the middle of one of the largest heat islands in the city, the airport. The temp recorded is never "factored", it becomes the new record high when there is one. Seems difficult to reconcile your method process and the facts...

 

Your rhetoric is as lifeless as your avatar....

 

And what was their conclusion, people living in shithole cities complain about heat and global warming more than folks living rural area's breathing cool fresh air

 

Or there is hardly a dispute of falsifies equations in many of the computer climate models. There is big money to be made with fear and deceit and the greedy will always take advantage of the gullible DR. ALWAYS!

 

AND....people living in Australia right now think it is hot while people in Michigan think it is cold. I don't suppose you can figure out why?

 

I know exactly why

BTW I also know what water rotates differently than drain in Michigan too

 

Making adjustments like these is considered manipulation and fraud by deniers. Maybe we should not factor it in at all. Maybe we should just use the raw data.

And yes, I'm being obtuse intentionally to prove a point.

 

Sure. And then throw it out because it doesn't conform to the collection of temp data sets. So, why should I accept that unnaturally high temps be included at all? Or, I could create an entirely new data set that only includes the heat islands in them, and quantify them based on the severity of the heat promotion each site produces. Then, those temps never interact with the data set that doesn't include them, or in any way effect them in the first place...

 

That's "hiding" data and it's fraudulent per deniers. Wasn't it you that told me that throwing raw data out was manipulation and fraud when we discussed why the 134F Death Valley record is being challenged.

Also, remember "hide the decline" in which erroneous tree ring data was omitted? Yep, deniers called that fraud.

 

Do at least try to keep up. The conversation was about differentiating between real vs smoothed data. And the practice of removing the empiric data in favor of the smoothed which frankly is the process that is fraudulent. I recall having pointed out that the relook was purely sophistry because it could never invalidate the actual temperature recorded. You can choose to believe that the temp recorded isn't valid, but you can't demonstrate it, as in time travel back to the point in time to recreate the collection, can you?

What "hiding the data" refers to is the removal of actual empirically collected data because it's too variable in an attempt to justify the use of smoothed output data which isn't. You yourself have advocated this. You claim that the manipulated data removes the possibility that reality can interfere with your model results. Seems to be something about reality that is inherently problematic with the models.

So thanks for taking the bait. Useful you are sometimes... LOL

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I actually have no problem with quality control, bias correction, signal processing, and other forms of post processing that are ubiquitous in all disciplines of science. I just ask that the techniques be correct. Deniers, on the other hand, say omitting raw data is fraud...period. You want to omit data that erroneously shows warming, but include data when it erroneously shows cooling. So you tell me...who's perpetrating fraud here?

 

Why do you keep repeating such nonsense? Like this claim, or your bizarre fictional claim that every single model predicted a total meltout of Arctic Ice. Who keeps feeding you such faked propaganda, and why, after seeing it debunked so often, do you still trust such sources?

So you and your side are making it a point of pride to refuse to do any actual science. No matter what happens, you'll wave your hands around and auto-declare how it's part of a natural cycle.

Given that your claims are not disprovable, they fall under the category of pseudoscience or a religious belief. In contrast, many of the predictions of reputable climate science are disprovable, because it's real science. Naturally, none have been disproved, because it's very good science that makes very good predictions.

No, nobody expects that. What we expected was a very slow cooling, because that's the natural cycle. Instead, we're seeing fast warming.

Being that killing millions of human beings, devastating the environment and causing global economic hardship would be a bad thing, any moral person would want to stop humans from changing climate so quickly. Moral people don't sit back and let bad things happen when they have the power to prevent them.

 

When my point was that you're hallucinating about the phantom socialists that haunt your every waking moment, providing such absolute and irrefutable confirmation of my point was probably not your best choice of responses.

 

And there's some more hallucinating about phantom socialists. If right wing political crankery didn't exist, denialism wouldn't exist.

 

So you admit they weren't climate scientists, yet you're still declaring climate science is wrong because of it.

The conclusion? People who understand simple logic don't get sucked into the denier cult.

I just did, in the post you responded to. You deleted it and pretended you never saw it. That's remarkably cowardly. Why did you think people wouldn't notice such sleaze?

 

1. The global mean temperature would increase.
2. The vertical temperature gradient would steepen.
3. The lower troposphere would warm while the stratosphere cools.
4. Arctic sea ice extents would decline.

How well are denier predictions working out? Where's that global cooling we've been promised for decades?

 

Better question, where is that excessive global warming that we've been promised or in this case threatened with? Less than 1F. Where is this warming of which you speak? You mean the 70% chance that there was a less than 1/10th of a degree difference?