I will add a second comment. most of these coves are like Bolt.
They a innumerate. They will put up graphs as above. Back in the good old days Possum would have a filed day with Bolt.
They could do a Lindzen. ( put that in with Quiggin in your search engine and then read.) That is you say something that seems truthful but ignore what is most important. Lindzen once said at a point in time there was no statistical significant rise in temperatures since 1995. what he neglected to say was there was not enough observations to make that statement. That is to say nothing was statistical significant as there were not enough observations. Quiggin made the point Lindzen must have known this at the time.
I used to laugh at many times Mark Hill made this elementary mistake at Catallaxy.
Dude there is a 30 year oceanic oscillation. The ocean currents act in one way for 30 years and then act differently for another 30. As a consequence there is an overlay of oceanic behaviour on whatever the sun is doing. You need sixty years data to see what is going on. You are giving us 18 years of data, and the second one is fake anyway. You cannot do much with 18 years and you can do nothing with 18 years of fake data. We aren't aloud to use fake data in science. But even if it were good only 18 years is pretty useless.
The formula associated with the Stefan Boltzmann law is to the fourth power. That means if we get a heat pocket it will quickly radiate off. It means that to spread thermal energy around is to retain it better and to allow greater absorption of more thermal energy. So the power of the ocean current is a key determinant of global average temperatures. The oscillation makes sense just via the reality that colder water is more viscous than warmer water. Whether thats the only cause of the oscillation I don't know but you can see how that viscosity difference could set up an isolation. But then we'd want to know about what is going on in the conveyor deep in the ocean. How the compression works and so forth.
I mean I can see you are at least trying but you've got nothing here to work with. Science demands that you start off as a CO2-agnostic and then try sincerely to work out what is going on. The process is sabotaged if you pretend you know the answer already and work back to the conclusion.
The "NOAA and NASA" data (Its just a bullshit subset within the bigger organisation) is complete lies and we all know they are complete lies. If you manufacture the data to suit your model you are obviously going to get a correlation. Even small children ought to be able to understand this. But the data doesn't relate to the real world and their models have never worked.
The sub-organisation cuckoo babies within these outfits are just part of an intelligence fraud operation.
So if you are going to start being fair dinkum about this you start with honest data. There is only two graphs that can apply. There used to be three but they've even gone ahead and butchered the 1979-2020 satellite data. The last bastion of honest data.
So we have the sixty year balloon data thats available up until 2015. Then we have NOAA grown data only going back to 2005. You start with that, and you MUST start as a CO2 agnostic. And from these two graphs you see what it is you can find.
Its kind of unfortunate. But these are the rules of the scientific method. Look I know its only science. But I like it.
4 comments:
Denialists will always deny. The evidence has always been there to see. Now it is simply overwhelming and yet they still deny.
Mind you I said this trend would continue many moons ago.
I will add a second comment. most of these coves are like Bolt.
They a innumerate. They will put up graphs as above. Back in the good old days Possum would have a filed day with Bolt.
They could do a Lindzen. ( put that in with Quiggin in your search engine and then read.)
That is you say something that seems truthful but ignore what is most important. Lindzen once said at a point in time there was no statistical significant rise in temperatures since 1995. what he neglected to say was there was not enough observations to make that statement. That is to say nothing was statistical significant as there were not enough observations. Quiggin made the point Lindzen must have known this at the time.
I used to laugh at many times Mark Hill made this elementary mistake at Catallaxy.
Dude there is a 30 year oceanic oscillation. The ocean currents act in one way for 30 years and then act differently for another 30. As a consequence there is an overlay of oceanic behaviour on whatever the sun is doing. You need sixty years data to see what is going on. You are giving us 18 years of data, and the second one is fake anyway. You cannot do much with 18 years and you can do nothing with 18 years of fake data. We aren't aloud to use fake data in science. But even if it were good only 18 years is pretty useless.
The formula associated with the Stefan Boltzmann law is to the fourth power. That means if we get a heat pocket it will quickly radiate off. It means that to spread thermal energy around is to retain it better and to allow greater absorption of more thermal energy. So the power of the ocean current is a key determinant of global average temperatures. The oscillation makes sense just via the reality that colder water is more viscous than warmer water. Whether thats the only cause of the oscillation I don't know but you can see how that viscosity difference could set up an isolation. But then we'd want to know about what is going on in the conveyor deep in the ocean. How the compression works and so forth.
I mean I can see you are at least trying but you've got nothing here to work with. Science demands that you start off as a CO2-agnostic and then try sincerely to work out what is going on. The process is sabotaged if you pretend you know the answer already and work back to the conclusion.
The "NOAA and NASA" data (Its just a bullshit subset within the bigger organisation) is complete lies and we all know they are complete lies. If you manufacture the data to suit your model you are obviously going to get a correlation. Even small children ought to be able to understand this. But the data doesn't relate to the real world and their models have never worked.
The sub-organisation cuckoo babies within these outfits are just part of an intelligence fraud operation.
So if you are going to start being fair dinkum about this you start with honest data. There is only two graphs that can apply. There used to be three but they've even gone ahead and butchered the 1979-2020 satellite data. The last bastion of honest data.
So we have the sixty year balloon data thats available up until 2015. Then we have NOAA grown data only going back to 2005. You start with that, and you MUST start as a CO2 agnostic. And from these two graphs you see what it is you can find.
Its kind of unfortunate. But these are the rules of the scientific method. Look I know its only science. But I like it.
Post a Comment