Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

All it said was that it temporarily increased CO2 from 412 ppm to 414 ppm in the local area. How does that support your "volcanoes create more CO2 than humans" lunatic claim?

Unlike you, I'll give you a source that addresses the issue as a whole, instead of cherrypicking.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
---
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions.
---

Well, no. Global warming does not cause more volcanoes, except maybe in very selective cases, like when a glacier smothers a small eruption, as happened in Iceland a few years back. If there's no glacier due to global warming, then it can't smother a small eruption. But such cases are rare, and generally the volcano just keeps cracking crust until the volcano erupts somewhere without a glacier on top.

Can you tell us more about this "known fact"? As in, how is it known?

Contrary to what you believe, scientists are well aware of that, and they separate natural and manmade sources. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to you, and you should call them out for lying like that.

 

Well, that's what deniers said _after_ Muller embarrassed them. Before he did that, they were all saying how totally awesome Muller was, and how they'd accept anything he said (see especially: Anthony Watts).

And yes, we know you've worked hard to revise and censor history, hoping people would forget about that. It didn't work.

It's your side constantly doing that, so we thus draw the correct conclusion that you're corrupt, and trying to hide your corruption through Stalinist censorship tactics.

 

Like counting all "cow farts" as "man made"?

 

Because ncep.noaa.gov is the source of what you described as a "really bad model". That was unusually foolish of you.
UAH does not do models.

 

Who is doing that?

Where is that mentioned in the IPCC reports?

 

https://gizmodo.com/we-ve-grossly-underestimated-how-much-cow-farts-are-con-1818993089

You're welcome.

 

A timely find:
Munich Professor: Role Of Methane From Cows On Climate Exaggerated By A Factor Of 3 To 4!
By P Gosselin on 15. June 2022

Share this...
The impact of ruminants on climate has been overestimated by a factor of 3 to 4, according to Prof. Dr. Dr. habil Wilhelm Windisch of the Technical University of Munich.



Methane from cows doesn’t effect climate anywhere near as much as alarmists claim, Munich professor says. Photo: Copyright P. Gosselin . . .

 

No, you made that up. And it is a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" It is not the skeptical side that has sought to erase the MWP and LIA. It has been the hysterical anti-fossil fuel side.

No, everyone knows that is false. The deplatforming is all on the side of the AGW hysteria campaign, and you know it.

Name one instance when the skeptical side tried to censor or deplatform the hysterical side. Just one.

Thought not.

 

UAH data is not a model.

That is a flat falsehood, as Jack has proved hundreds of times in these threads.

There are reams of good data that flatly contradict anti-fossil-fuel hysteria claims.

 

No, we don't. There is no valid temperature data with regard to the Earth. All that exists is pure guesswork. I have already explained why this is.

I have already explained why no valid data exists.

The cult is YOUR'S, dude. It is called the Church of Global Warming. It is a wacky religion that denies mathematics, logic, and science in order to push a laughably false narrative that everyone should be afraid of a non-existent "problem" of "too much CO2".

I've already explained the statistics-based issues with the Church of Global Warming. You need to remember that temperature can easily vary by 20degF per mile.

You cannot speak for others, dude... You can only speak for yourself.

Correct. This is a conversation. This is a dialogue. This is a discussion.

Projection.

 

Sure it is.

Go on, tell us how microwave data from a thick layer of the mid-troposphere can be turned into surface temperature data ... without using a model. With all kinds of fudge factors.

And that bad model is all your side uses here, since the good data always contradicts you.

As I keep telling you, you can only gaslight other cultists here. It just doesn't work on normal people.

 

What else did the voices tell you? And was it equally delusional?

I know that your complaints are standard complaints we hear from every pseudoscience cult. Flat-earthers also talk a lot about being censored. It's normal for cranks to claim oppression because no one is paying any attention to their crankery.

That's the point. Climate scientists, the skeptical side, they don't censor. They just ignore the hysterical denier cranks, which is a totally different thing.

The right censors science across the board. More recently the right has concentrated on censoring COVID science, but they haven't forgotten about censoring environmental science.

https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker

That's just the last 5 years. It really started in the Bush admin, which went all-in on censorting climate science.

 

No, it's not.

The fact that NASA gives some funding to UAH, a very large organization which does all kinds of things, does not mean that NASA makes the UAH temperature model.

Is that really something you can't grasp?

 

And you've gotten it hilariously wrong every time. The funny part is how proudly belligerent you get with your ignorance.

But then, maybe statistics really is all wrong, and all of the smartest people in the world are all wrong, and only you know TheRealTruth, because you saw something on a conspiracy blog. Yeah, that must be it.

So, has your Dunning-Kruger crusade impressed anyone but yourself?

Anomalies. This has been explained to you over and over. You probably could grasp it, if you weren't so emotionally committed to staying ignorant.

 

I showed a chart from 2022 showing warming up to the present time. That's kind of the point. The upward trend isn't changing.

We know how things go from here. Eventually the strong La Nina ends, a decent El Nino arrives, and the high temperature record is shattered.

Since this graphic illustrates your fallacy clearly, I'll post it again.

 

Perfect @mamooth

Thanks for taking the baton for a while. Most of us have given up with that bunch.

 

You would do well to read before you post. The NCEP graph linked in my #66 has nothing to do with UAH. That graph derives from the model you called "really bad".

 

The funny part is how you can never seem to identify and describe precisely what I am "getting wrong" and why that is...

Statistics is just fine, if you knew anything about its requirements...

You don't speak for an unspecified group of people, dude... You can only speak for yourself.

"Conspiracy!!!! Conspiracy!!!! Conspiracy!!!!"

Like I said, you cannot have an anomaly without first having valid temperature measurements. I don't give a flying flip about "anomalies" until you can first provide me with valid temperature data. Some requirements for valid temperature data are as follows:

A target margin of error value must be declared at the outset (which determines the data collection method)
A variance value must be declared and justified
A margin of error value must be calculated from the variance value
The data must be available for my perusal (not behind a paywall)
The data must be RAW data (iow, it cannot be cooked in any way)
The collection method for the data must be known
Thermometers must be properly calibrated
Thermometer tolerance must be declared and justified
Thermometers must be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (in order to eliminate location and time biases)


If you have any data that meets at least these requirements, then feel free to provide me with it. Otherwise I'm not interested in pure guesswork and fear mongering.

 

Deleted this software based mess.

 

And we do. They come from these things called thermometers. You make up insane reasons why the valid measurements are invalide, because you're clueless about statistics.

Nope, that's backwards. Since we know the error of the individual measurements, we use that to calculate the error of the resulting average.

Now, you could set a target MoE and use that to determine how many measurements you need to hit that target.

All that is satsified. I've shown you where to get the data before. I could do it again, but since you'd again refuse to look at it, what's the point?

No. That's just you babbling your weirdass delusions.

Back in reality, biases are known and corrected for. Measurements are weighted for how much territory they cover. Distributuions don't need to be perfect. They don't need to be anywhere near perfect. The current network has vastly more sensors than needed.

How do we know that? Because if we randomly remove 90% of the readings, we still get the same average. That fact destroys your very peculiar theory.

 

No it isn't.

Go on, tell us where UAH does that.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you can't, because you simply made it up, like most of your claims.

If there's one thing AGW hysteria mongers cannot accuse the scientific side of, it is using fudge factors.

You are merely repeating your baldly false claim.

You are the one telling people the evidence of their own eyes is false. That's gaslighting.

 

You just can't help but disgrace yourself, can you?

No, you simply made that up, and you know it.

You mean like this?
https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

And it's normal for censors to dismiss their victims as cranks.

Right. But that side is not your side, which shrieks hysterical imprecations about "CO2 extinction," and bruits the absurd notion that we need to eliminate all use of fossil fuels based on zero (0) empirical evidence. Your ostentatiously nonscientific and unskeptical side does.

No climate realist says anything remotely resembling the hysterical crank scaremongering of La Carbonostra, and you know it.

I'm not talking about the right. You are just trying to deflect to politics, and you know it.

 

Provide them then.

I've already told you some of the requirements in order for me to accept any temperature measurement data as 'valid'. Any data that doesn't meet those requirements will be summarily dismissed. (Hint: data that meets all of my listed requirements, let alone any that I have yet to list, DOES NOT EXIST)

Indeed. But like I said, the rules of statistics need to be followed. You need to first declare a 'target margin of error' in order to know what sort of instrumentation set up is necessary in order to achieve that margin of error. Do you wish to be accurate within 1degF? 10degF? 50degF? 100degF?

Then there's the issue of location and time bias that needs to be addressed, and it cannot be "addressed" by "cooking the data" (only RAW data is allowed). This means that thermometers MUST be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer. This is important (and here comes this little thing called 'variance') because temperature can easily vary by as much as 20degF PER MILE and can vary by 10+degF in a matter of minutes.

What is insane about my reasons? You have yet to substantiate ANY of your claims... I've been substantiating mine this whole time. It is YOU who is clueless about statistics, as clearly shown in our exchanges.

No, it was correct.

Here, you are talking about TOLERANCE (of the measuring equipment), not margin of error.

Tolerance and margin of error are two completely different things, dude. Here, you are conflating them.

Tolerance is based on the instrument's accuracy of the lines on the scale (and how fine the scale is). A thermometer, for example, could have a tolerance of +- 1degF, so if you took a reading and it was 45degF, then that particular reading would be expressed as 45degF +- 1degF. IOW, the actual temperature at the time of reading is somewhere between 44degF and 46degF due to the tolerance of the thermometer used. This is NOT 'margin of error'.

Margin of error (calculated) is a value that is calculated from the declared & justified variance value (and the range of that variance and the number of samples made across that variance).

One of the data requirements that I listed is for a target margin of error to be declared at the outset (say, +- 1degF). It is this declaration that determines the required data collection method, as the data collection method needs to be able to yield a calculated margin of error value that is within +- 1degF.

Yes, data that you have provided me in the past has indeed met SOME of the requirements of statistical mathematics... However, some is not all. (see below)

No, that's me telling you some more requirements of statistical mathematics which you wish to ignore because they stand in the way of your Church of Global Warming dogma that you wish to preach.

"Correcting for" biases after the fact means that you are cooking the data, which is NOT ALLOWED. IOW, you are just making up numbers. Biases need to be addressed BEFORE measurements are taken, NOT after...

IOW, you are cooking the data. NOT ALLOWED. --- Also, a measurement doesn't cover "a territory"... It only covers the precise location of the thermometer itself. This is why variance is important. If temperature can vary by 20degF per mile, that means that you can uniformly place thermometers to where each one is a square mile apart and the temperature within any of those square mile areas could be quite a bit off from what the thermometer within it is reading.

No... In order to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy, many hundreds of millions of thermometers would be required (would ultimately need over a billion of them)

Irrelevant. Crap input ----> Crap output. A crap average is a crap average, regardless. Made up numbers based on guesswork is not data. Attempting to make claims about "a fraction of a degree" when the margin of error is much larger than that is complete silliness.

 

I've done so before, and you've ignored it, so I won't waste my time doing it again. Sucks to be you, in that no one will take you seriously now.

So according to you, since the people setting up a station in 1896 weren't doing that, the data is invalid. That's nuts, and it's one of many reasons why you're ignored.

So you demand known errors _not_ be corrected for. You're demanding that known bad data be used instead of good data. That's fraud on your part, and it's one big reason not to take you seriously.

Oh, using the raw data would make the warming look _bigger_. That fact destroys your conspiracy theory, and it's another reason not to take you seriously.

You seem to be the only person on the planet claiming such an absurd thing. The reasons for ignoring you just keep piling up.

No. That's not what 'variance' means when the topic is statistics. If there's one measurement, variance is the square of the standard deviation. If you are averaging multiple measurements, variance is the average of the squared deviations.

Anomalies completely correct for that.

And time-averaging handles that.

No, I did not bring up tolerance in any way. You're just babbling.

Such a fine display of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. You fail so completely at statistics, you're unable to grasp how badly you fail. You're wandering around in your own little fantasy world.

 

So you're saying flat-earthers _are_ oppressed.

This is why it's so good to be on the rational side. We just follow the data wherever it goes, with no political agenda. If the data contradicts the theory, we change the theory.

You? Your political cult ordered you to embrace a certain predetermined ideology-based conclusion. The data says that conclusion is laughable. Since going against orders is not an option for you, it forces you to create an insane conspiracy theory about how all the data is faked.

On the bright side, you've earned major brownie points with your cult for debasing and humiliating yourself in that manner.