Edit: Sagebrush - perhaps you could post the full quote.
"In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue."
Note: They do not say the models are no good and so on as you are claiming. They are saying that if the slowdown in warming is attributable to increased aerosols that there needs to be more study done to show this. Otherwise the skeptics will be "The world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc..." And I'm pretty sure you are rather aware of your cherry picked quotes this time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/cr...
Even WUWT doesn't make the claim you are because they know it's foolish.
It's a good idea - but like most things, including a warm climate, it has been done before.
Look at this for example: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com...
Note how the high temperatures in the middle seem to reduce and the more recent highs seem to increase. I am sure there are perfectly genuine reasons for the adjustments but I would like to know what they are.
I heard that the 1930's in the USA got cooler only last year.
EDIT "Why does graphicconception rely so heavily on two of the most prolific purveyors of the psuedo-science known to the science community?"
Ad hominen attacks do not rebut facts. The questions should be:
Is the data I have cited correct?
Where can I find the "official" details of the corrections?
Or is it a case of "projection" and, in fact, it is you who only sees what you want to?
It is very noticeable, as raw data is available. It is easier to make the past cooler when noone will notice. They can still claim a warming trend. It used to be the case that the 1930s were the warmest on record for the US. Now after an update, suddenly the more recent temperatures are warmer, because they have made the 1930s temperatures colder.
well that is what they did to come to the conclusion to back global worming in the first place .but even by tampering with the pick and choose results , it failed . when you try to make a lye the truth , it is still a lye .
Well if this field of work was so onus , why have so many of the top people been going through such nasty bankrupts , bankruptcy does not take everything , but a government seizure does. Just because you bought into a lye , you don't have to try to show your azz , this field is gone .the little life it has is just an illusion . Ask your congressman whats going on with the green field .He may give you an answer you don't like. and show me what the temps from 1835 , say in central North Carolina , with no change to the surrounding environment ..it cant be done. the records cant even be given for the dust bole , so stop preaching on something that science has no answer for . a theory is just that no fact. just a bad guess in this field that made a couple people very rich .Go back and kiss their azz
I have a better idea. Why not have those that deny the temperature data just gather up all of the world's suspect thermometers and place them inside a freezer. We can then recheck all of the world's ice and see if this fixes it. .... I will bet that it doesn't.
Those that deny the evidence will always try to find new ways to discredit the evidence. Even if this involves using short term, cyclic events that do nothing more than effect the weather patterns of a few regions of the world and most of this limited to the northern hemisphere. That eliminates it from being a global climate changer. Too short in duration and does not effect much more than regional weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. Yet, they still grasp at this straw and cling to it like a life preserver on a sinking ship.
Why does graphicconception rely so heavily on two of the most prolific purveyors of the psuedo-science known to the science community? Simple. They will tell him what he wants to hear.
Why don't they just take data and go from there? Why do you have to fudge the figures?
And really, your concept is that CO2 and temperature is in someway proportional, with CO2 being the driver. Science has proven that it isn't. "Presto!" Your theory has been proven wrong no matter how much fudging you do.
But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
Read more: http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
The really sad part about it is that your side even knows it but won't admit it in open public. So you attempt to fudge the figures as you are trying right now.
Gary F: I is rather obvious that you don't know diddly squat about the term proportional. They should have taught that in at least one of those colleges. There are many types of proportionals. What you are referring to (I think) is directly proportional. If you were truly a scientist you would know that.
Gary F: I suggest you take a course in machine controls. Go into PID and study that. If all the further you have gotten is a DIRECT and INVERSLY, you are still in 101.
The AGW signal is the noise not natural variations.
They probably would have assumed that no one was stupid enough to fall for a model based on simplistic linear forcing…but, Goddamn if Deniers haven’t proved that there are people that stupid.
=====
happy –
Show us one temperature measurement - from any original temperature record – ever recorded by any human who has ever lived - from anywhere in the world – that has been changed by any climate scientist.
I guess the old saying is true about stupid people being happy.
>>when you try to make a lye the truth , it is still a lye .<<
What does sodium hydroxide have to do anything? Maybe if your mother had washed your mouth out with it, you would not be trying to make a lie the truth now.
=====
Sagebrush --
>>And really, your concept is that CO2 and temperature is in someway proportional,<<
No one - other than Deniers lacking mathematical/scientific skills and making false assumptions - has ever said that.
A proportional relationship is just a special case of a linear relationship.
The general linear equation is: y = ax + c
In a proportional relationship, the constant c = 0 and the value of variable (a) is constant. The graphical result is a straight line through the origin.
===
Sagebrush --
>>There are many types of proportionals.<<
Care to name and define them? This is typical Denier-speak where concepts and words have no meaning because they have an infinite number of meaningless meanings.
In mathematics, a proportion is statement of equality between two ratios.
Directly proportional functions are of the form:
y = ax; a is constant; a= y/x
Inversely proportional (aka ‘directly proportional with the multiplicative inverse’;) is defined as:
y=a/x; a is constant and not equal to 0; a = yx
A graph of the variables is a hyperbola.
There are variations of the above, but the bottom line remains the same: proportional relationships are all linear transforms.
Climate Realist is probably correct. But if he is wrong, and Billy http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... is right, that just shows how fiendishly clever the Illumanti Reptilians are in organizing a conspiracy so grand and complex that it fools everyone except great geniuses like Kano and Sagebrush who can -through arduous and creative efforts involving dangerous and difficult use of CTR+C followed by CTR+V- "discover" over a hundred different and internally contradictory examples http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument... "proving" that more than a century of solid science http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel... is just a Rothschilds hoax.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
Perhaps because most scientists are more interested in the truth than in scaring people.
Jeff M
Sagebrush and his quotes.
Now people on my side; the AGW proponents, tend to have no problem with the temperature record as it is. It is entirely consistent with the theory and shows a long term warming trend, together with some variation; the "noise" in the system.
So, given a non-scientific majority and the "skeptics" obsession with insignificant short term trends; why don't they just reduce the El Nino years and increase the La Nina's? It wouldn't take much; perhaps 0.1C, maybe a little more from 1998, and "presto"; a much smother and more alarming warming curve!
Why don't they just do that?
