🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 29, 1:08 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:27:25 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> Climate Data
> >>  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
>
> > You're not grasping the concept.

> > The e-mails show that the data's been doctored to show warming where
> > there is cooling.
>
>    For some reason, you seem to believe that all climate data has
>    been doctored. In reality very little, if any has been "doctored".
>    You have yet to show a before and after "doctored" data set.

•• Worms you need a brain check All of the data in
    IPCC #4 was doctored in some way to get the
    results that they wanted. Some was subtle and
    much was overt. They have stonewalled the data and
    where they had to present data for peer review they
    made sure the reviewers were part of the cabal and
    when outsiders like Lindzen presented opposing
    papers the journal editors sent the articles to AGW
    reviewers who shredded it. It is an huge scam and
    you are very stupid not not be aware of it.

    Certainly, when I got IPCC #4 on look at the hockey
    stick and I said this sucks wind badly

> The global data CLEARLY shows:
>    Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2

•• 1- Less than 3% of anthropogenic CO2 gets up in
        the clouds and does not stay there long.

>      http://edu-observatory.org/olli/800000yrs_CO2.png
>      http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106

    2- Mauna loa is ridiculous measuringCO2 in the
        cone of a volcano the principal source of CO2

>      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm

   3- ScienceDaily is not a source

•• CO2 emissions began in I believe 1830 and were
    calibrated than we have received since 1950 when
    the data was extrapolated into a mainframe and
    whoever did it cherry-picked the prior 60 years or
    so to  give the lowest possible trend.

    Before that there were a number of years when CO2
    levels exceeded anything in the 20th century or the
    21st.

>    Global surface (land and sea) temperature collections increase
>      http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend...

•• as far as land temps go the data collection methods
    vary from bad to. worse. Dr Vincent Gray fought
    with the IPCC about their collection methods so
    they made some adjustments which Dr Gray said
    the final result was "surprisingly close to what they
    should be. At this point the 0.75°C since 1850 has
    been wiped out since '98

•• As for the sea temps they, although contiguous they must be treated
separately. The polar waters remain quite cold and the equatorial
waters remain warm, sometimes warmer than others. The warmer the the
tropical
waters the colder th e winter will be.

>    And accompanying Sea Level Rise

•• None that can be noticed. It is difficult if not impossible to
measure sea level rises of 0.1 mm. In 100 years that would equal 10 cm
or 4" also a negligible amount

wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/0...
>
>    There are many sources of good data, Marvin
>      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
>      http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/index.php

•• Both are AGW sites

>    Marvin, you REALLY need to start taking this global climate
>    change seriously. Seriously!

•• Oh we take climate change seriously, after all
    "Climate Change" is functioning as it has for 5
    million years or more

    — —
 | In real science the burden of proof is always
 | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
 | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
 | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
 | they provided data that climate change is being
 | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
 | natural phenomena