16 years

Global warming stopped [insert random number of years] ago is probably the most common and mainstream of all the climate denier arguments out there.  It is shallow and wrong and there are many refutations of it out there.  I think this video from Skeptical Science is about as clear and straightforward as it gets.

If someone watches that and still thinks the argument holds water, then they can not be reached with reason.

If attribution arguments are too complicated, there is always this excellent graphic:

(click to enlarge)

207 thoughts on “16 years

  1. Wow, as always, pure junk!

    Are you the clown here or what is your role? Please address to somebody else your bollocks, it’s only annoying and zero inspiring.

    Like

  2. franco freddy, as always, screaming offence because you’re not given worship.

    diddums.

    Please, stop with the explosions every time your asinine posts are ridiculed.

    Like

  3. Freddy, your “secret changes” are at least in part discussed here:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf

    Oh, and note the not-GISS website this comes from (that’s a hint to you and your “research” group and its attack on GISS).

    Oh, and also note the frequent updates on the GISTEMP websites about what they did and what they changed. Not for individual stations, because they *do not adjust individual stations*.

    Oh, and here’s how GISTEMP works:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html

    and the updates:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

    I would not even be surprised if you lot compared apples with bananas (homogenized vs non-homogenized, for example).

    Like

  4. Well done, Marco.

    It won’t help freddy here, since he’s already an attributed scientist working in science for sciency stuff and things, which we know is true because he swore on his mothers life it was so.

    ‘course lots of teens want their parents dead.

    Like

  5. Well, that surely answered my question! Freddy has no intention to show he knows how science is supposed to be done. He just wants to show off how little he knows by showing his ignorance of what a null hypothesis is. Hint: it is NOT by default “there is no effect”.

    Like

  6. Though his null hypothesis (really a hypothesis, nothing null about it: it makes a definite positive and testable claim: GHGs don’t warm the planet) can be refuted.

    Indeed he can refute it himself.

    If GHGs don’t cause warming when increased, then there will be no statistically significant trend in the data.

    This is proven not to be the case.

    You can do the test yourself.

    Like

  7. Marco, as was to be expected, your information basis is very low: The document you have linked (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf), the same as ignorant Wow has linked, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECRET Palma de Mallorca DATA MANIPULATION BY GISS, DATA WHICH WERE FAKED 2degC upwards. Your comment shows that you have zero knowledge on how GHCN temperature data are handled by NOAA or GISS. You should invest some effort to find out why Hansen’s GISS manipulated in an alarmistic manner and secretly, without informing the public, temperature data of many temperature stations. I consider this to be severe scientific fraud by cheating scientists.

    Like

  8. Wow “You can do the test yourself”

    yes poor ignorant Wow, that’s how you simple layman think science works, your science is science by dreaming. You don’t even closely understand how silly your statements are

    Like

  9. Coby, I am still waiting for a scientific article reference which substantitates your claim that springs begin earlier (please don’t cite web pages but normal scientific references). Thank you.

    Like

  10. Wow, you have to deliver scientific references which support your claim that GHGs warm the lower atmosphere. Don’t cite web pages as they are no valid scientific references. I would prefer references of two papers from Nature or Science. Please abstain from referring me to a unspecific list of references on this or that. Do invest some effort to support your claim, since I have invested a few hours to show you the data fraud by GISS.

    Like

  11. Freddy,

    Thank you for that list of numbers. You will recall that I asked you several questions with regard to your initial post of Palma de Mallorca.

    1 – How do you know that GISS secretly adjusted data?

    2 – What makes you think that any adjustment was not warranted?

    3 – What effect has any adjustment had on the overall global climate record?

    Let’s take each of those questions in turn and see how your response measures up shall we?

    1 – How do you know that GISS secretly adjusted data?

    “….below you can see the listing of the downloaded data of temperature station Palma de Mallorca (64308306000 PALMA DE MALL 39.55 2.73) from the GISS web page…”

    So, since you are saying that you downloaded the data from a publicly available website, where all the data was available to anyone who wished to download it, I think we can conclude that your assertion that they ‘secretly adjusted data’ is false. There was nothing secret about it at all. They made all their data public – no secret at all.

    2 – What makes you think that any adjustment was not warranted?

    You made no attempt to answer that one, so it would be wrong of me to draw a conclusion without any evidence, wouldn’t it? An unethical person might conclude that there was some sinister motive behind either the adjustment, or the fact that you failed to answer the question. But since I am not unethical, I will leave that sort of things to others.

    3 – What effect has any adjustment had on the overall global climate record?

    “….you can see in a plot you can easily do that now the graph shows a cooling trend of approx. 1degC, so the net difference between the two series is a change of approx 2degC. So GISS changed the station data in a way which makes look the past of Palma cooler than it was in the 2010 dataset, hence a contribution to a greater warming trend for the annual temperature calculation….”

    So you have not answered this question either. Yes, it may well be that there was a change in the trend for this – and perhaps even other stations – but that was not my question. I asked how it affected global trends. Oh, and I can actually not ‘see’ any change in the trend. Anyone who draws conclusions on trends by eyeballing graphs obviously knows nothing about statistics, so it would be wrong of me to do that without doing proper analysis.

    You then asked Marco:

    “….Marco, you should strive to show to me what was wrong with my conclusion of GISS data fraud, given the example I have presented….”

    I have answered that one for both you and Marco. You have not presented any evidence of data fraud, so it is completely unscientific and unethical to draw that conclusion.

    So come on Freddy. You keep saying you want a discussion using science and evidence, yet you have failed so far to present any, despite you drawing conclusions as if you had. Please try not to by hypocritical, and start acting in the same manner that you demand of everyone else.

    Oh, and I would be interested to know who is “…our research group…” that you mention in past #96 with all the data. Are you part of a university or similar legitimate organization, are you part of a ‘think tank’ or lobby group, or are you just a group of interested individuals working from someone’s basement?

    Lastly, please stop talking about the ‘null hypothesis’. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. This is not the place to give you a lesson in basic statistics, so I suggest you go away and do some reading.

    Like

  12. Freddy

    “…Coby, I am still waiting for a scientific article reference which substantitates your claim that springs begin earlier (please don’t cite web pages but normal scientific references). Thank you….

    Seriously Freddy? You say that you are part of a research group and you also claim to have scientific training. How come you are unable to do simple research?

    Obviously, no-one is claiming that spring is coming earlier, since ‘spring’ is a siderial event related to the axial tilt of the earth. But many natural events which rely on temperature as cues are occuring earlier because of climate change, and it would take you 5 seconds to find them using Web of Science or Google Scholar. Here is just one:

    Click to access Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%202002.pdf

    If you want more, look at the references cited and read them. You know – just like a real scientist.

    Like

  13. mandas, do you need help for simple statistics to analyse the fraud data given? You talked about your eye-balling which you cannot trust as a layman. I can aid all of you in statistics basics since you lack obviously any knowledge.

    Furthermore, you appear to suffer from severe language comprehension impairmnt as you are not able to understand the difference between “public” and “published”.

    You should try to answer the following questions:

    1. Why did GISS secretly and intentionally committ data fraud in manipulating data towards warming by incredible 2degC in various temperature station cases?

    2. Why do you support scientifc data manipulation towards faked global warming

    3. Why do have such a low knowledge about the GHCN and GISTemp databases.

    4. Why are you so unfamiliar with science theory and have no knowledge about the setup of a normal scientific publication

    Your reference an behalf of coby who is silent again is a webpage. mandas, come on, you should that is the most primitive way to reference something, the same way as if you would say, read it in USA Today. Just ridiculous

    I miss a really scientific spirit here. you mandas are no scientist, be honest.

    Like

  14. mandas, unjustified hidden temperature data manipulation is a severe case. a case of compiling all wrongdoings of GISS data manipulations is under way and will be forwarded to relevant insitutions for further investigation. global warming must not result from faked temperature data, which nobody should want, not even you, if you are a decent guy.

    btw, I told you that I am scientist. Now, please tell me, what your professional background is. How many scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have you published? I guess none, like all the others here?

    Like

  15. Marco, as was to be expected, your information basis is very low:

    It happened to be vastly higher than yours.

    So what does that make your information basis (whatever the hell THAT means)?

    Wow “You can do the test yourself”

    yes poor ignorant Wow, that’s how you simple layman think science works, your science is science by dreaming

    Yes. expecting YOU to be able to do the test yourself IS dreaming.

    But I can dream that someday some idiot will claim “I am a scientist” and will actually be telling the truth.

    You can test it yourself.

    Is there a trend to the temperature over the last 30 years?

    Yes.

    Is it statistically significant?

    Yes.

    That means the null hypothesis has been rejected to the 95% confidence limit.

    Null hypothesis: disproved.

    Like

  16. I can aid all of you in statistics basics since you lack obviously any knowledge.

    Go on, then.

    This should be a hoot…!

    1. Why did GISS secretly and intentionally committ data fraud in manipulating data towards warming by incredible 2degC in various temperature station cases?

    The claim they did this has not been proven.

    Prove your claim.

    2. Why do you support scientifc data manipulation towards faked global warming

    Since this is dependent on #1, this has not been shown to be the case.

    Prove #1 then you need to prove #2

    3. Why do have such a low knowledge about the GHCN and GISTemp databases.

    Your claim of this is not science.

    Please prove this claim.

    4. Why are you so unfamiliar with science theory and have no knowledge about the setup of a normal scientific publication

    This is the maximum insult.

    Your statement of this is not scientifically made and therefore needs to be proven.

    Tell me, do you ALWAYS make claims without proof?

    Like

  17. mandas, unjustified hidden temperature data manipulation is a severe case

    Unjustified claims of manipulation is a severe case.

    Now, please tell me, what your professional background is.

    Please explain how you have any science or professional background?

    You’re just a paid polish (or east european anyway) troll pretending to be someone they are not.

    You do not have a research team. You merely crawl around denialist sites and pick up the latest and greatest gossip and think that you have found something.

    You are a fool.

    And an obvious one at that.

    Like

  18. Freddy

    “…mandas, do you need help for simple statistics to analyse the fraud data given? You talked about your eye-balling which you cannot trust as a layman. I can aid all of you in statistics basics since you lack obviously any knowledge….”

    First, since you have not provided any evidence of fraud, I am at a loss to understand why you think I need help analyzing it. Please provide the evidence of fraud, then we can discuss, and if I need help I will ask. But as I said, since the data was public that means it was not secret, and since you have provided no evidence that any changes were not justified, then you have not demonstrated fraud.

    Second, anyone who is trained in basic statistics – as I am – knows that you cannot ‘eyeball’ a graph and draw conclusions on trends without doing detailed analysis. If you think otherwise, then you are ignorant of statistics and can teach me nothing.

    Now on to your questions:

    “1. Why did GISS secretly and intentionally committ data fraud in manipulating data towards warming by incredible 2degC in various temperature station cases?”

    First, your own evidence shows it was not secret, so to keep claiming it was, in contradition to your own evidence, is extremely unethical and foolish. Second, since you have provided no evidence that the adjustments were not warranted, you have not demonstrated any fraud. Your conclusion is completely unsupported by – indeed it is counter to – your own evidence.

    “2. Why do you support scientifc data manipulation towards faked global warming”

    I don’t.

    “3. Why do have such a low knowledge about the GHCN and GISTemp databases….”

    Because I have no need to know more about them.

    “….Why are you so unfamiliar with science theory and have no knowledge about the setup of a normal scientific publication…”

    On what basis do you claim this?

    “….Your reference an behalf of coby who is silent again is a webpage. mandas, come on, you should that is the most primitive way to reference something, the same way as if you would say, read it in USA Today. Just ridiculous…”

    Ummmmm no. Read it again (for the first time?). It was a review article from Nature (have you heard of it?), and contained 97 cites. Did you read any of them?

    “…a case of compiling all wrongdoings of GISS data manipulations is under way and will be forwarded to relevant insitutions for further investigation….”

    No they won’t – stop making idiotic claims. This is just a ridiculous statement attempting to ‘big note’ yourself, and it is so transparently false that there isn’t a person in the world who would be taken it by it. Stop lying, it does you no credit.

    “…..btw, I told you that I am scientist. Now, please tell me, what your professional background is. How many scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have you published? I guess none, like all the others here?”

    You claim to be a scientist, but since you have offered no evidence to support that claim it remains unverified. And give the completely unscientific approach you have adopted, I have my doubts. What field of science? What degrees do you hold? From which universities? And what is that ‘research organisation’ that you referred to in post #96 that I asked you about?

    As for me, my degrees are in Wildlife Management, and I hold both undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. I work for a Commonwealth Government Department, and do part time work with conservation agencies, natural resource agencies and my local university. I am also a graduate of the US Air War College. And yes, I have published – but as I wish to remain anonymous for my own reasons (which is why I use a pseudonym and not my real name) so I will not be telling you what they are.

    Now, as I previously requested, please provide the evidence for your original claim.

    Like

  19. What field of science?

    Post Normal Science.

    What degrees do you hold?

    Parapsychology, the healing power of crystals and Tolkein languages.

    Like

  20. mandas, you have an honourable profession, chapeau, but you are no scientist, which is not a shame. a won’t of course blame you for it. but you should not behave as if you were one.

    the data manipulation of GISS is related to the fact that they completey changed without any reasoning and communicating the long time series of already homogenized data in a clandestine way to the complete opposite compared to 2 years ago.

    I will not tell you my university degrees and field of research and in which research institution I work because you or at least some others here would just not believe me and make nasty comments as wow always does. So it does not make any sense. You are all here extremely partizan and 100% deaf to objective results, you want just to hear that you are class, have the truth, and are superior to denialsts. the truth is that all your claims are wrong and you are not able to put into perspective what you belief is your truth.

    mandas, I have said it so often here and everybody is so stubbornly unwilling to learn or understand when I ask for precise article referencing. Has really nobody of you never had a look into a REAL scientific publication? To give you an example what I mean by scientific argueing please see here:

    ———–

    This paper will describe and summarise the recent status of a database developed by this group of authors with the aim to fully exploit, quality control and increase the instrumental climate data potential in the GAR. Earlier attempts started in the region during the 1990s with national level activities for some main cli- mate elements (Bo ̈hm, 1992; Auer, 1993; Aschwanden et al.,1996; Bosshard, 1996; Baudenbacher, 1997; Gisler et al., 1997; Gajic ́-Cˇ apka and Zaninovic ́, 1997; Her- zog and Mu ̈ller-Westermeier, 1997; Herzog and Mu ̈ller- Westermeier, 1998; Maugeri and Nanni, 1998; Buffoni et al., 1999; Brunetti et al., 2000; Szalai and Szentim- rey, 2001; Begert et al., 2003; Likso, 2004; Begert et al., 2005; Zaninovic ́ and Gajic ́-Cˇ apka, 2000). A comparable supranational activity was the NACD project (Frich et al., 1996) that focused on Northern Europe and was based on a well established collaboration within the Fennoscandian countries. Elsewhere, systematic homogenisation of climate series was undertaken mainly at the level of the national weather service (e.g. USA: Groisman and Legates, 1994; Karl et al., 1988; Canada: Vincent et al., 2002; Australia: Plummer et al., 1995; Spain: Brunet et al., 2006; and others).

    It was soon realised that quality and homogeneity of long-term data were major problems that required unique solutions and lots of painstaking work. Soon after, the national homogenising activities found a common focal point in the bi- to tri-ennial ‘Budapest Homogeneity Sem- inars’ (Hungarian Meteorological Service, 1997; WMO, 1999; WMO, 2004). The two logical next steps were to extend the work to more climate elements and to reduce, as much as possible, the effects of national borders and sub-national administrative structures in the region (for respective historical details see e.g. Auer et al., 2005).

    ———–

    This is standard scientific argueing, mandas, wow, coby, marco, and you should learn this. It’s a shame when you reference a popular laymen internet address as support of a scientific argument and also not the reference of a review. Listen and remember: a review does principally never contain any own original research result data and is no valid scientific reference to document a soecific scientific result. You will only extremely rarely find review article references in n original article.

    Like

  21. wow, now you: are you courageous enough to admit that you are no scientist? Do you dare to be honest? Of course you may lie and nobody can verify what you said. But are you afraid of telling the truth about your professional education? In contrast to you I will not question what you might be saying and also not offending you in case you are really no scientist.

    Like

  22. “mandas, you have an honourable profession, chapeau, but you are no scientist, which is not a shame. a won’t of course blame you for it. but you should not behave as if you were one.

    Well golly gee freddy. The word ‘Science’ on my degrees is obviously misleading, thanks for putting me straight. I will pass on your critique to the universities concerned. I am sure they will take it on board.

    “the data manipulation of GISS is related to the fact that they completey changed without any reasoning and communicating the long time series of already homogenized data in a clandestine way to the complete opposite compared to 2 years ago.

    As you know yourself, all the information was publicly available so there was nothing secret or clandestine about it. And ‘complete opposite’? As English is obviously not your first language I will forgive you this time, but you do need to learn the meaning of words like ‘secret’, ‘opposite’ and ‘fraud’ if you are going to use them.

    “I will not tell you my university degrees and field of research and in which research institution I work because you or at least some others here would just not believe me and make nasty comments as wow always does.

    Well I certainly won’t make nasty comments if you reveal your qualifications. I don’t even care if you are qualified or not. But I do care about the supposed research organisation that you claim to represent, because it’s credibility and yours are closely tied. And your evasion on this issue does lead one to suspect that you are not being truthful, especially when it is correlated with your mistatements on things like statistics, and in your repeatedly drawing conclusions which are unsupported by any evidence. You are not acting in a scientific manner at all. In fact, the way you are drawing unsupported conclusions, and refusing to look at legitimate evidence, can best be described as unethical.

    This is standard scientific argueing, mandas, wow, coby, marco, and you should learn this.

    No it isn”t. Cutting and pasting a quote from a paper is not arguing – anyone can do it. If you want to provide references for your sources on a blog like this, you need to provide a link to the paper, not just the author’s name and date of publishing. A real paper has the reference list at the end with the full name of the paper and the journal it was published in. Your list is just a bunch of meaningless names and dates that is completely unhelpful.

    “It’s a shame when you reference a popular laymen internet address as support of a scientific argument and also not the reference of a review. Listen and remember: a review does principally never contain any own original research result data and is no valid scientific reference to document a soecific scientific result. You will only extremely rarely find review article references in n original article.

    When someone gives you a list of 97 papers describing an issue, you should actually read them, rather than trying to play idiotic games by suggesting the information has not been provided. If you want an answer to your question, look at the reference list I provided to you and read the papers – all 97 of them. If you don’t, and would rather play stupid games, then all you are doing is demonstrating the behaviour of a petulant child who sticks his fingers in his ears and hands over his eyes to avoid something he doesn’t want to know.

    I have said it so often here and everybody is so stubbornly unwilling to learn or understand

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself. It’s an unfortunate characteristic of many people who blog on opinion sites. They just don’t accept evidence and are unwilling to adjust their previously established viewpoint. You are exhibiting all of those traits, but perhaps you could prove us all wrong now that you have been shown to be.

    Like

  23. freddy asked in comment 54 (and earlier) “provide me please with individual original scientific article references that support your claim of earlier spring beginnings

    I would like to note for the record that despite numerous requests from others, you have yet to provide any support for any of your assertions that is equivalent to what you constantly request of others. Nevertheless, please find below a number of scientific references to support my point about biological responses to climate change agreeing with the temperature data (which I expressed as spring is arriving earlier):

    About early onset of spring:

    Menzel, A. & Fabrian, P. Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999).

    Menzel, A., Estrella, N. & Fabian, P. Spatial and temporal variability of the phenological seasons in Germany from 1951±1996. Glob. Change Biol. 7, 657±666 (2001).

    Forchhammer, M. C., Post, E. & Stenseth, N. C. Breeding phenology and climate. Nature 391, 29±30 (1998).

    Post, E. & Stenseth, N. C. Climatic variability, plant phenology, and northern ungulates. Ecology 80, 1322±1339 (1999).

    Bradley, N. L., Leopold, A. C., Ross, J. & Huffaker, W. Phenological changes re¯ect climate change in Wisconsin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9701±9704 (1999).

    Sparks, T., Heyen, H., Braslavska, O. & Lehikoinen, E. Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News 223, 8±9 (1999).

    Huin, N. & Sparks, T. H. Spring arrival patterns of the cuckoo Cuculus canorus, nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos and spotted ¯ycatcher Musciapa striata in Britain. Bird Study 47, 22±31 (2000).

    Crick, H. Q. P. & Sparks, T. H. Climate change related to egg-laying trends. Nature 399, 423±424 (1999).

    Dunn, P. O. & Winkler, D. W. Climate change has affected the breeding date of tree swallows throughout North America. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 2487±2490 (1999).

    Brown, J. L., Li, S.-H.& Bhagabati, N. Long-term trend toward earlier breeding in an American bird: A response to global warming? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5565±5569 (1999).

    Crick, H. Q. P., Dudley, C., Glue, D. E. & Thomson, D. L. UK birds are laying eggs earlier. Nature 388, 526 (1997).

    Roy, D. B. & Sparks, T. H. Phenology of British butter¯ies and climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 407±416 (2000).

    About changes in timing of autumn, which is closely related to the timing of spring in the purpose of our discussion:

    Gatter, W. Timing and patterns of visible autumn migration: Can effects of global warming be detected? J. Ornithol. 133(4), 427±436 (1992).

    Poleward shifts and shifts in altitude are the geographical counter-part to temporal shifts wrt ecological issues:

    Convey, P. in “Fingerprints” of Climate ChangeÐAdapted Behaviour and Shifting Species Ranges (eds Walther, G.-R., Burga, C. A. & Edwards, P. J.) 17±42 (Kluwer Academic, New York, 2001).

    Thomas, C. D. & Lennon, J. J. Birds extend their ranges northwards. Nature 399, 213 (1999). Southward, A. J., Hawkins, S. J. & Burrows, M. T. Seventy years’ observations of changes in distribution and abundance of zooplankton and intertidal organisms in the western English Channel in relation to rising sea temperature. J. Therm. Biol. 20, 127±155 (1995).

    Kullman, L. 20th century climate warming and tree-limit rise in the southern Scandes of Sweden. Ambio 30(2), 72±80 (2001).

    Parmesan, C. et al. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butter¯y species associated with regional warming. Nature 399, 579±583 (1999).

    Parmesan, C. Climate and species’ range. Nature 382, 765±766 (1996).

    Walther, G.-R. Climatic forcing on the dispersal of exotic species. Phytocoenologia 30(3±4), 409±430 (2000).

    Pounds, J. A., Fogden, M. P. L. & Campbell, J. H. Biological response to climate change on a tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611±615 (1999).

    Bergstrom, D. M. & Chown, S. L. Life at the front: history, ecology and change on southern ocean islands. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 472±476 (1999).

    Please proceed to reject them out of hand with vague hand-waves about the alleged contents which you have not and will not ever read.

    Like

  24. If I understand Freddy correctly, Hansen fiddled the temperature record and this has caused the Arctic to melt, the glaciers to melt, and Spring to arrive earlier.

    I’m not surprised he’s outraged – it’s an outrage!

    Like

  25. coby, mandas

    why don’t you accept the data from GISS which I have listed in #96 as proof of data manipulation by GISS. Until 2010 all historical data have already been homogenized. The grotesque change of Palma data, look at them carefully please, after 2010 has never been announced and therefore been justified. This behavior to manipulate temperature data into a warm direction (plus 2degC) is not honourable and acceptable. Don’t you understand this?

    To express it simple: You cannot show all the time a temperature trend from 1881 to 2010 in Palma from 16 to 15degC, and then, of a sudden, just behave like “oops, the trend is the opposite, it’s from 15 to 16degC”. This is what makes people mad about the manipulations by environmentalists.

    I proved my claim by presenting you direct data from scientific databases. You can do this investigation yourself and will come to the same conclusions.

    Like

  26. mandas, you said in #126:

    “When someone gives you a list of 97 papers describing an issue, you should actually read them, rather than trying to play idiotic games by suggesting the information has not been provided. If you want an answer to your question, look at the reference list I provided to you and read the papers – all 97 of them. If you don’t, and would rather play stupid games, then all you are doing is demonstrating the behaviour of a petulant child who sticks his fingers in his ears and hands over his eyes to avoid something he doesn’t want to know”

    This is pure incivility by you. Why should I take you seriously when you start behaving in an uncivilized way like Wow?

    Like

  27. Coby, the abstract of the first article in the list of references you have provided in #127 (Menzel, A. & Fabrian, P. Growing season extended in Europe. Nature 397, 659 (1999)) says:

    “Changes in phenology (seasonal plant and animal activity driven by environmental factors) from year to year may be a sensitive and easily observable indicator of changes in the biosphere. We have analysed data from more than 30 years of observation in Europe, and found that spring events, such as leaf unfolding, have advanced by 6 days, whereas autumn events, such as leaf colouring, have been delayed by 4.8 days. This means that the average annual growing season has lengthened by 10.8 days since the early 1960s. These shifts can be attributed to changes in air temperature”.

    Sounds plausible. However the sample data are only from 30 years and geographical coverage is only Europe. A conclusion that spring begins earlier all over the globe cannot be drawn from the study results.

    Like

  28. coby, mandas, wow, marco

    my reproach to GISS is that they did not say why, how and when they changed historical temperature data in their database which they use to calculate global temperatures

    Like

  29. Wow, what do you think: wil temperature data correction for the UHI effect result in cooler or warmer corrected temperature data? Be careful with your answer in order to not compromise yourself

    Like

  30. Freddy, you have not provided proof of fraudulent data manipulation, you have only provided proof that two data sets differed. Now, I provided you links to GISTEMP and its descriptions of changes in their methodology and data entry. The “how” and “why” *is* indicated on their website. All you need to do is to read the relevant literature!

    A clear problem is that you fail to have noticed that the GHCNv2 to GHCNv3 change has significant influence on the data. On top of that is the GISTEMP homogenisation, which is *clearly described in the scientific literature*. That you do not understand it is quite different from “not say why, how and when”.

    Also, you claim to have a scientific background, but unlike mandas, you are completely unwilling to provide any evidence at all. Well, I will be slightly less vague than you: I have a PhD, work at a top European university as a Professor, have several PhD students who work for me, as well as postdocs, and am the proud main supervisor of many PhDs who have gone out and contributed further to scientific and social advancement. I also have numerous scientific publications in the top journals within my field, and a h-index that is somewhere 20+ (haven’t checked lately).

    Like

  31. That’s a little harsh, Marco.

    You can’t call something fictitious incompetent.

    They didn’t find anything because they don’t exist.

    Like

  32. coby, mandas, wow, marco

    my reproach to GISS is that they did not say why, how and when they changed historical temperature data in their database which they use to calculate global temperatures

    Except they (their parent organisation) did.

    Your complaint, like all your other complaints are SOLELY a problem with YOU.

    Like

  33. Wow, what do you think: wil temperature data correction for the UHI effect result in cooler or warmer corrected temperature data?

    As Watts found out, the corrections for the UHI effect (what YOU term “manipulations of, and falsifying, the data”) makes the temperature trend LESS than that reported by the corrected datasets.

    You would know this if you were any sort of scientist.

    Like

  34. “why don’t you accept the data from GISS which I have listed in #96 as proof of data manipulation by GISS.”

    Because it isn’t.

    Like

  35. ” Why should I take you seriously when you start behaving in an uncivilized way like Wow?”

    Why should you be the only one allowed to be incivil?

    Like

  36. Freddie, are you courageous enough to admit that you are no scientist? Do you dare to be honest? Of course you may lie and nobody can verify what you said. But are you afraid of telling the truth about your professional education?

    Are you going to tell the truth: that you’re a nobody who never lifted a science paper in their life and that you’re entirely making this up because you think it is somehow believable that you are a rational human being?

    Like

  37. the data manipulation of GISS is related to the fact that they completey changed without any reasoning and communicating the long time series of already homogenized data in a clandestine way to the complete opposite compared to 2 years ago.

    Since they both HAVE a reason AND communicated it, the data manipulation is not fraudulent.

    Since you HAVE been told of this several times, your claims of fraud are slanderous.

    Please inform me of your country of origin and real name so I can inform the proper authorities.

    Like

  38. You cannot show all the time a temperature trend from 1881 to 2010 in Palma from 16 to 15degC, and then, of a sudden, just behave like “oops, the trend is the opposite, it’s from 15 to 16degC”.

    Yes, you cannot show that and did not show that.

    The only one making that claim is you.

    Like

  39. The take home message here is that this fraudulent idiot has a problem solely because they want to have that problem.

    Therefore there’s absolutely nothing to be gained from giving this mule what they want. The more you try to help, the less they will listen.

    Like

  40. Wow the only thing you appear to be able to do is playing around with words: when I state something specific you just copy these in your post and address them towards me. Aren’t you able to use your own words. In addition, the usage of words like “idiot” and others is very uncivilized and show your poor education.

    I am trying here to proof seriourps data fraud by GISS and the only thing you are able to answer are nasty, offending and highly uncivilized text fragments,

    No word from you about your professional background? Are you ashamed of it?

    Like

  41. Freddy, all you have proven so far is incompetence. I gave you a few pointers which show:

    a) GISTEMP changed from GHCN v2 to v3. This change is documented on the GISTEMP homepage

    b) This change causes changes in many stations, because GHCN now offers quality-adjusted data, something GISTEMP had to do itself before. Also this change is reported on the GISTEMP homepage

    c) as my final tour-de-force, I went and looked how Palma de Mallorca looks in the GHCNv3 database. Unsurprisingly, it shows that the quality-adjusted data is what is also reported by GISTEMP.

    All this took me a combined 10 minutes of searching, mainly because I had some trouble finding the GHCN ID number of Palma de Mallorca. Had I had that, it would have been five minutes.

    Now, for a “research group” that has looked at so many temperature records, and thus has spent so much time, to NOT notice this…is outright incompetence.

    To call the changes “fraud” by GISS shows you should be very, very ashamed. In fact, I expect you to write a letter to GISS in which you apologize for making such widespread false claims about GISS and Jim Hansen, without ever contacting them to ask whether you perhaps had missed something.

    Like

  42. when I state something specific you just copy these in your post and address them towards me.

    In addition you merely repeat unsubstantiated claims as if that repeat substantiates them. Do you not have any substance of your own, but must rely on repeating what’s said at ClimateFraudit?

    In addition, the usage of words like “fraud” and others is very uncivilized and show your poor education.

    “I am trying here to proof seriourps data fraud by GISS ”

    And failed every time, Repeating the claim is not proving the claim. No matter HOW badly babelfish translates your sentences.

    And the only thing you are able to answer are nasty, offending and highly uncivilized text fragments,

    No word from you about your professional background? Are you ashamed of it?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s