Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Would you like to know...
#1
What old members are up to?

http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopi...&start=660

Scroll down about three quarters of the page to find out. If you're interested in a little light reading his involvement begins on page 12. And, for the record I have suggested he come back here for a chat. He refuses. :lol::001_tt2:
Reply
#2
Wayne Stollings, from HERE

Quote:Odd you STILL have not expalined how you accept SOME temperature charts while claiming others are falsified or how the trend shown by the satellite data, which is essentially the same as the surface data, is affected by the poor siting you indicate is such a problem. Can you actually address this in some logical manner or is this really the lying, cheating, and methadology anomalies of which you speak? I could understand how you could claim such things if they were your own creation.


What you need to do is show him the failing IPCC temperature projection, then show the current temperature data, for THIS century,the IPCC temperature projection is based on:

From the IPCC 2007 report,

Quote:For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.

LINK

This means it should be at least .35C warmer since 2001.

From Wood For Trees website,

[Image: trend]

LINK

HadCrut4 and RSS,does not show a clear warming trend at all.

Big Grin
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
I show a partial quote from Wayne, where he shows his lack of understanding of the Viscounts point on the chart, you posted:

Quote:But to address the information you did present ..... You claim the temperature data are wrong, so how can this chart be correct? Perhaps the cherry-picking and omission of data you usually provide is actually the bad data?

Poor sap, he doesn't know how to ask questions about the chart, that spooks him so.

Here is the chart he stumbles over:

[Image: clip_image002_zpsbbf5179f.png]

The Viscount showed that he goes back to September 1996 to September 2014,showing ZERO warming trend in that time frame. It was as far back as could go to still have a zero trend.

Meanwhile going to WUWT website is the following,to show how insignificant the warming trend is these days:

Quote:

SECTION 2

For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.

On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 14 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
Dr. Ross McKitrick has also commented on these parts and has slightly different numbers for the three data sets that he analyzed. I will also give his times.

The details for several sets are below.

For UAH: Since July 1996: CI from -0.041 to 2.218
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 16 years on UAH.)
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.013 to 1.752
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 26 years on RSS.)
For HadCRUT4.3: Since May 1997: CI from -0.011 to 1.132
(Dr. McKitrick said the warming was not significant for 19 years on HadCRUT4.2 going to April. HadCRUT4.3 would be slightly shorter however I do not know what difference it would make to the nearest year.)
For Hadsst3: Since May 1995: CI from -0.009 to 1.715
For GISS: Since June 2000: CI from -0.008 to 1.403

Note that all of the above times, regardless of the source, with the exception of GISS are larger than 15 years which NOAA deemed necessary to “create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.

LINK


It is clear the AGW conjecture is failing badly since it was supposed to warm a heck of a lot more than it has. Not only that it seems to warm mostly, when there is a EL-NINO going on, otherwise no warming to brag about.

There was an EL-NINO for the last 6 months of 2014. :lol:

Why can't CO2 fill in between EL-NINO phases and keep the warming trend going?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
Thanks Tommy. Wayne is probably one of the best advisories I've ever encountered up to a point. Lately, he has fallen back to the leftist tactic of tauntology. I created that thread there not to go toe to toe with any of them. I suspect this pisses them off even more, but I have noticed I've almost got 50,000 hits on this thread with only a handful of participants many others have to be reading this thread too. I do from time to time engage them on other threads so any information offered would be helpful. I find I just don't have the time, energy, or moral and mental strength to engage these people in debate anymore. My main mission is to present the other side. Where ever and when ever I find it. I ultimately want to demonstrate the other side is not that hard to find. Its not marginalized. Its not fringe. Its not as fanatic as members there would have you believe. I know I'm operating on a forum that I am in the almost infinitesimal minority so I have to remain respectful. What I suspect is the back door private message call has gone out to get as many members ganging up on me as possible. Hence, the appearance of Snowy 123 and a couple of others. To be honest I'm not even sure its the same one who was here. I can't imagine anyone who wrote what he did here is suddenly on the other side with all the tactics and misconceptions of the Warmunist left. I may be wrong, but I have invited him back here on occasion but he refuses.
Reply
#5
Snowy123 is not a member of this forum in anyway,shape or form. I plan to post some more soon on what they say or don't say. Most warmists know deep down, something is wrong with their religion, and are idiotically defensive over it.

I learned early on,that the warmists group, are cowards to spend time in places like mine,where they know they can't get away with the typical name calling and personal attacks.

I do most of my jousting HERE now,but most of the warmists there are so bad, I wonder if they are paid to say anything. But the many skeptics are quite informative and are actual engineers,geologists and assorted fields of research, as scientist.

I am Thomas Pearson there.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#6
I am a member of that group as well. I think I have already made my identity know there. I think Maggie is there too. I resist due to past experiences making my real identity known here. I never know who's prying eyes are monitoring. I have been burned in the past because of stalking SOB's using the search mode.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)