John_Taverner wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 3:47pm:



Ah yes tell us about the precipitation, thta's always a good one. or the models.

I see Carl Mears new adjustment for RSS uses TMT and RH 0.8. Is that right?

Keep digging.

Ajax wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


You think whatsupwiththat is a credible source?   

Graph (1) - The temperature has been taken from a single source in Greenland. Additionally Greenland is affected by the gulf stream so is clearly not representative of global climate.
discredited

Graph (2) - shows a good correlation between temperature and CO2 but bizarrely is rejected by the good people at whatsupwiththat for no good reason.

Graph (3) - As I have mentioned previously this graph has been doctored to remove the large uncertainties prior to 400 million years ago. It is also over such a large time scale that continental drift and changes in the sun and earths orbit affect the climate.
discredited

Graph (4a) - the time scale is just 10 years. This does not represent climate.
discredited

Graph (4b) - this is the most dishonest graph. This one claims there has been no warming since 1980.
discredited


So Ajax as you can see the only graph of yours which is any good is (3) and that one happens to show a rather nice correlation between temperature and CO2.

But I can expect you'll still spam us with these same discredited graphs in the future

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 11:20am:


Actually the graph comes from climate4you.


And yet you agree with taking CO2 levels from a single source - Mauna Loa. It that because it is supposed to be a well-mixed gas? Yes I do know there are other sites - how often are they quoted?

I take it you don't accept Antarctic Ice Core data either.

How can Greenland not be representative of global climate? Is it from another world? There are ocean currents all over the world; some warm, some cool. Therefore by your logic we can not use any dataset.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 11:20am:


WUWT is nothing more than a presenter of facts, unlike that algorian web site your feeble mind is fixated on "Skeptical Science" (SS)which is biased and dishonest, snake oil that's what you get on SS.

Quote:


You're pissing against the wind again, are you suggesting U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C dispense nonsense, well don't ever quote them again, or we'll have words.

Quote:


Ah yes BINGO the algorian scale, ever wondered why that dear boy Al only shows you this scale around the 500,000 year mark, its because its the only scale that suggests temperature and CO2 move hand in hand like a jock strap on a bum.

Well don't get a mungrul its only the scale that we are zoomed out at here that makes it appear that temperature and CO2 might have any correlation.

Ask yourself this question why does dear old Al only show this scale??

Quote:


Its still widely accepted by the scientific community, ok ok I'll be fair lets drop that fact that we once had 7000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Many alarmists have confirmed that we have had at least 3000 - 4000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and there was still no runaway greenhouse effect.

Let me refresh your mind, today we have some of the lowest temperatures and atmospheric CO2 in our history.

Since our temperature is always cyclic that means that once we have reached rock bottom it will climb again and then drop again and then climb again.

It is time for it to climb again.

Show me a period in our history when the temperature and CO2 have flat lined.

Quote:


Well you can still see that despite the natural CO2 levels going up and man pumping out more manmade CO2 than ever before temperatures have stabilized.

Were is the correlation.......??????

You're theory is CO2 goes up temperature goes up...!!!

Quote:


You want to buy snake oil, go right ahead.

Quote:


Until you can produce a credible source that has conducted a study that shows they are redundant and can be refuted, you're damn well right I'll shove them under your nose.

Now what about the fact that the IPCC computer models have got it all wrong, what have you to say about that.

IPCC computer models say
+2.78°C at the end of this century

Last 25+ years of observations say
+1.01°C at the end of this century.

It will happen naturally.

Do you still want to provide the oligarchy with a $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market so they can play their games on the stock exchange at your expense.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 10:37am:



So you are saying that we can make assumptions for the world based on 30% land measurements and the 70% ocean measurements hat are taken by those unreliable satellites?

Crutem4 ~5,500 earth stations, land area 148,429,000 sq km, about one every 27,000 sq km on average. Accurate to 0.18ºC.

'Greenland Ice Sheet'

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

Uh Oh, NOAA are now denialists.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 11:57am:



But NOAA one of the greatest AGW vehicles out uses it. So I guess it must be ok.

Why don't you go on a rant against them?

NASA too-

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-peers-into-greenlands-ice-sheet/

'World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep'

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-i...

Makes you wonder how they got there, with all that global warming.

Actually if you look at the graphs they are accurate. It just depends on the CO2 scale used to show the "warming".

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:



Except 1988, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012. Even the trend line would show an uptick

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 24^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:



Which record.

1880 that BoM says is no good?

1910 record that BoM says is top notch?

Or some other. Satellite, surface, SST?