The Hadcrut is LAND-BASED not SATELLITE-BASED, completely different datasets.
Where is your SATELLITE-BASED data showing otherwise?
You are comparing apples and oranges.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
The Hadcrut is LAND-BASED not SATELLITE-BASED, completely different datasets.
Where is your SATELLITE-BASED data showing otherwise?
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Quote from drjekyllus:
Where is the previous warming trend? I don't know you tell me. I used 10,000 years as the baseline and you put up a chart that goes back 130 years. Are you actually serious? Why can't you find the trend that has been going on for 10,000 years on a 130 year chart?
Here's a thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"></img>
Does your "warming trend" require cherry picking a specific timeframe, by any chance? Like, you wouldn't dishonestly try to pick the start from the middle of an ice age or something, would you?
There has been a long term warming trend for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years. The polar ice caps extended all the way down to NY state before the current trend started. There is no dispute.
Gah! You would!
Here's a graph of the last two thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend to which you're referring:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"> </img>
There doesn't seem to be one.
Well, maybe it's just an artifact specific to your graph, here's another graph:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png"> </img>
Nope, not there either.
This happened Dave. Whats wrong, did your left-wing greenie website accidently leave out this crucial piece of evidence?
Realclimate is not a left-wing website, nor is it "greenie." In fact, it has some of the top climatologists posting there.
Not only that, you have still failed to link any climate change to human behavior. Once again, simply stating the temperature changed does not mean humans caused the change.
Humans caused the CO2. CO2 is proven to disproportionately absorb IR. QED, humans caused the increase in IR absorption.
Quote from MRBRETTONWOODS:
The Hadcrut is LAND-BASED not SATELLITE-BASED, completely different datasets.
Where is your SATELLITE-BASED data showing otherwise?
You are comparing apples and oranges.
No, I'm comparing HadCRUT to HadCRUT as supplied by the HadCRUT people.
Select "HadCRUT" from the drop down on your website.
Your website doesn't match the correct data. Simple as that.
Let's just do the same shit we've been doing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and hope for the best.
Maybe the hole in the ozone will fix itself, and the artic and antartic ice cover will reconstitute itself.
Let's go back to the coal soot covered everything days of Charles Dickens.
Maybe the hole in the ozone will fix itself, and the artic and antartic ice cover will reconstitute itself.
Let's go back to the coal soot covered everything days of Charles Dickens.
Quote from bigdavediode:
No, I'm comparing HadCRUT to HadCRUT as supplied by the HadCRUT people.
Select "HadCRUT" from the drop down on your website.
Your website doesn't match the correct data. Simple as that.
Now you have changed the argument to land-based surveys [Hadcrut]. I was referring to satellite data.
Completely different issue.
Quote from MRBRETTONWOODS:
Now you have changed the argument to land-based surveys [Hadcrut]. I was referring to satellite data.
Your HadCRUT data is wrong. Your satellite data is wrong (as I've already posted in detail). Your conclusions, therefore, are suspect.
If you were in a murder lineup of business attired English gentlemen, you'd be the shirtless guy with the patch over one eye reloading a weapon.
Completely different issue.
If the issue isn't "How many times can you get away with posting wrong data from non-primary sources while denying it" then you're right.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Your HadCRUT data is wrong. Your satellite data is wrong (as I've already posted in detail). Your conclusions, therefore, are suspect.
If you were in a murder lineup of business attired English gentlemen, you'd be the shirtless guy with the patch over one eye reloading a weapon.
If the issue isn't "How many times can you get away with posting wrong data from non-primary sources while denying it" then you're right.
You brought up the hadcrut data, not me. You changed the argument.
You did not show satellite data. The climate has been changing for billions of years. The burden of proof is on you.
All you do is change the topic. Your issue is "how many times can you get away with posting out of context data and then changing the argument".
All the governments that endorse MMGW also support Cap and Trade. So in the end it does not matter, as the same output of CO2 into the air by humans will continue.
Quote from drjekyllus:
LOL. RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental groups, they just happen to have web hosting done by one, but those matters are completely unrelated. I wonder what happens if RealClimate.org starts posting data that EMS does not like. I see how this game is played.
The whois data for Realclimate.org shows that the REGISTRANT, administrative and technical organization is Environmental Media Services.
It is in plain sight.
If anyone used a webhost, they would list the registrant/admin/tech organization or person in the whois data.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Here's a thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"></img>
Does your "warming trend" require cherry picking a specific timeframe, by any chance? Like, you wouldn't dishonestly try to pick the start from the middle of an ice age or something, would you?
Gah! You would!
Here's a graph of the last two thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend to which you're referring:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"> </img>
There doesn't seem to be one.
Well, maybe it's just an artifact specific to your graph, here's another graph:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png"> </img>
Nope, not there either.
Realclimate is not a left-wing website, nor is it "greenie." In fact, it has some of the top climatologists posting there.
Humans caused the CO2. CO2 is proven to disproportionately absorb IR. QED, humans caused the increase in IR absorption.
I didn't a cherrypick anything. How exactly do you cherrypick a trend? Please explain. I notice you did not post a graph with temp from the last 15,000 years. I wonder why that is? It is you who is cherry picking data and graphs. The overall cycle runs approx. 100,000 years. So your cherrypicked data of 130 years does not show a true picture of the cycle. No wonder you are so confused.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Here's a thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"></img>
Does your "warming trend" require cherry picking a specific timeframe, by any chance? Like, you wouldn't dishonestly try to pick the start from the middle of an ice age or something, would you?
Gah! You would!
Here's a graph of the last two thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend to which you're referring:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"> </img>
There doesn't seem to be one.
Well, maybe it's just an artifact specific to your graph, here's another graph:
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png"> </img>
Nope, not there either.
Realclimate is not a left-wing website, nor is it "greenie." In fact, it has some of the top climatologists posting there.
Humans caused the CO2. CO2 is proven to disproportionately absorb IR. QED, humans caused the increase in IR absorption.
Your graphs include data from the discredited fraud Michael Mann. Well done. Trying to actually pass the 'hockey stick' off as real science.