Honestly its our fault for continuously engaging them. By this point we should know better.
How many times did they shuffle the temperature sites around to get those numbers, and how many of those sites had more and more land use changes, creating temperature island, over the years?Pst, Darrin.
When you claim things that are false enough times do you start to believe them? Isn't that a mental condition?
Yet valid points are never properly addressed by the AGW crowd.
B.e.s.t
You're an ignorant dumb ass. Read the findings of B.E.S.T. or just spare us all your blather that has been addressed by the very people that are cited for that graphic.
I'll bet even BEST is tainted. With all the bull , who can we trust on this?
BEST is probably doing a good job. Still, there are so few uncorrupted measurement sites to go by. I'll give them this. At least their preliminary graphs are not alarming like what the AGW crowd does.
I thought they were tainted... I'm glad they passed the Wild Cobra sniff test... I'm sure they were killing for it...
"I thought they were tainted" is not a proper reflection of my words "I'll bet."
Maybe not a big difference to you, but it is to me. I was making a statement that I do not hold as fact, but more likely than not. reflecting back your word are effectively restating that I said the are tainted.
Why are you always so unethical?
They are trying to cypher through decades of records, of which they cannot know the full history of their changing surroundings over the years. They may have activists trying to debunk Watt's claims, though I doubt that. It actually appears they are taking Watt's claims serious.
Anyway, as I said about their preliminary graph, it actually allows for what I have said all along about the solar increases from about 1900 to 1950. It raises from 1900 to about 1940 and lowers again, just to resume rising around 1970. The point it levels of is about where a trend line would stop to about 1950. I probably stated three years or so ago that the sun was responsible for most of this increase, and their graph fits my theory even better. The vast increase in industrialization just before WWII put enough smog in the skies to cool the earth. When we started cleaning the skies and placing pollution restraints starting in the 70's, warming from natural sources was allowed to resume.
Now you have done the same that Darrin does, parts changer. BEST did a study on the effects of urbanization and the like on the temperature data. This has been told to you multiple times. So once again i have something to point to about your lack of intelligence. You do not think BEST does good work or would not repeat the same tupid that contradicts their findings
Again here is the study of how you are full of :
http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf
Here is the salient conclusion of said study?:
The conclusion of the three groups is that the urban heat island contribution to the global average is much smaller than the observed global warming. Support is provided by the studies of Karl et al. (1988), Peterson et al. (1999), Peterson (2003) and Parker (2004) who also conclude that the magnitude of the effect of urban heating on global averages is small.You asked me before what i was so adversarial. This is why. You are either so stupid that you should be euthenised for the betterment of mankind. Or you are intentionally trying to be deceiving. This viewpoint has been detailed over and over again. My contempt for you is well founded.We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.19 ± 0.19 °C/100yr. This is not statistically consistent with prior estimates, but it does verify that the effect is very small, and almost insignificant on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950 in the land average from figure 5A).
How on Earth can you call someone unethical when you consistently do not stand by the that you spew. Dissemble dissemble dissemble. Accuse someone else of being dishonest is the next step of the WC 3-step program.
Who cares what you think?
You're the epitome of dishonest. You don't even know what unethical means.
Yes, yes.....your collective "knowledges" are small. Just deal with it.
Food for thought...
Non of us disagree that the norther ice is retreating. Why is there no discussion about the southern ice? Is it because it has an upward trend?
Since you AGW alarmist types like to use correlation to claim causality, I thought I would remind you that there is no large industrial buildup where the polar winds carry soot to the southern ice like the polar winds that carry soot from Asia over the norther ice. I'll bet if any of you looked at the increased levels of Asian industrialization, the retreat of the Northern ice follows that increase pretty good.
BEST who is 'an AGW type' clearly states in their cyclical variations that correlation does not imply causation only that its getting hotter. Why must you makes stuff up?
This has already been discussed and the actual paper was linked. The author stated that despite the rising ocean temperatures, increeased precipitation over the landmass combined with gradients consistently below zero there in no net decrease in ice on antarctica. The author even goes out of his way to point out that this does not deny global warming but rather there are still places that are cold and its precipitating more.
You are repeating the same tired again. How about we move the discussion forward?
Yeah the lack of soot transport must be why the Antarctic land ice is in retreat.
You just keep trying to throw against the wall hoping to see some it stick.
Did I say warming wasn't real?
I can't keep track of how quickly your arguments change. So right now you're on the warming is real one? Interesting considering your extremely recent questioning of BEST's temp records.
Manny...
You are something else.
I never indicated warming was not real. Why can't you get facts strait?
I didn't know they were BEST's records. Are they? I thought they were using other people's records, which I have some su ions about. I thought I clarified that.
I am sick and tired of people like you and ElNono making the incorrect argument out of my words. You are effectively lying by doing that.
Do you have any integrity?
Comparing sea ice against sea ice seems reasonable to me. Not land ice vs. sea ice like you are changing to.
Please...
Show an ounce of integrity.
Comparing sea to sea ice is reasonable given they are under the same conditions. They are not. Would you care to take a stab at what could possibly be different about the North and South Poles?
They are at least far closer than comparing land to sea ice.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-16-2012 at 03:43 AM.
Yes, fits you well.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
