More Surface Temperature Measurement Goofiness

I am still stunned that mainstream climate scientists continue to defend the suface temperature measurement record over much more sensible satellite measurement (mainly because the surface temperature readings give them the answer they want, rather than the answer that is correct).  However, since they do, we have to keep criticising until they change coarse.

Via Anthony Watt is this temperature station in Lampassas, Texas, part of the USHCN and GISS data bases (meaning it is part of the official global warming record).

Lampasas_tx_ushcn

The temerpature instrument is in the white louvred cylindar in teh center.  This installation is wrong in so many ways:  in the middle of a urban heat island, near asphalt, next to a building, near car radiators, near airconditiong unit exhausts.  Could we possibly expect this unit to read correctly?  Well, here is the temperature plot:

Lampasas_tx_ushcn_plot

The USHCN data base says that this station moved here in the year 2000.  Hmmm, do you think that the temperature spike after 2000 is due to this site, or global warming.  By the way, the GISS calls it global warming.

But James Hansen and others at the GISS defend this station and others to the death.  In fact, the GISS extrapolates temeprature trends not only for Lampassas but for hundreds of kilometers around this location from this one station.  Hansen has opposed Anthony Watt’s efforts to do a photo-survey of these stations, saying that his sophisticated statistical models can correct for such station biases without even seeing the station.  OK, let’s see how the adjust this station.  Their adjustment is in red:

Lampasas_giss_rawhomogen

According to the GISS, the temperatures since 2000 have been just fine and without any bias that needs correcting.  However, they seem to think that the temperature measurement in Lampassas in the 1920’s and1930’s (when Lampassas was a one horse town with no urbanization) was biased upwards somehow.  Why?  Well, we don’t know, but based on this adjustment, the GISS thinks this site has LESS urbanization today in this picture than in 1900.   The GISS adjustments have INCREASED the warming seen at this site.  Uh, right.

I think there is some bias that needs correcting, and the place to start may be in the GISS management.

  • RW

    You seem to think that satellite records do not show warming. That is not so. See this graph comparing satellite and surface measurements.

    Why do you believe that satellite measurements are correct when it is well known that just like surface measurements, they suffer from biases which need to be taken into account?

  • BillBodell

    RW,

    It’s good to have a non-skeptic on a skeptic’s site. However, you’d be more effective if you didn’t keep putting up straw men to argue against. The above post never says that satellite records do not show warming. They do show warming, however, not as much as the surface records (and GISS in particular). You are correct in saying that the satellite records may well have (and have had in the past) their own problems.

    Constructive comments from a non-skeptic would be defending Hansen’s adjustments or agreeing that there are problems that need to be resolved.

  • I’ve found two other instances, one with the help of Warren and his son at Miami, AZ and another at Cedarville, CA. A poster at Climate Audit found a fourth one at Marseilles France. So the problem is not confined to the USA.

    One station is a curiousity, two are an anomaly, three are a trend, and four are reason to suspect a faulty methodology or algoritm at GISS.

  • Thanks for your persistence, Anthony. I see your material at many sites and I get plenty of food for thought– and doubt — about AGW. I am amazed at how a few dogged researchers/skeptics (aka scientists) can do so much real damage to the “consensus” view. And you know you have to be doing good work when straw man arguments are so often brought up or for that matter, ad hominem attacks such as “you’re not a real climatologist” or “you’re bought up by BIG OIL”. So deep.

    By the way, I have a question. How come a Harvard Astrophysicist’s remarks about solar forcing causing most of global warming (not all)(http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360) causing will be pooh-poohed by “real” climatologists as being offered by a non-climatologist yet they get away with claiming that solar forcing cannot account for the recent warming when they themselves are not astrophysicists? I used to hear, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Why doesn’t this apply to them? If they are not experts in solar effects on our planetary system, why can they dismiss solar forcing arguments given by an expert so easily? I just don’t get this logic.

  • dreamin

    Well done Warren.

  • RW

    BillBodell – disbelievers seem very eager to see straw men where none exist. The claim here is that surface temperature readings give them the answer they want, rather than the answer that is correct. Globally, the GISS surface temperature record gives a temperature increase of +0.19°C/decade over the last thirty years, while the RSS analysis of measurements of lower troposphere temperatures gives +0.18°C/decade. The UAH analysis gives +0.14°C. Is the difference between these values significant?

    Michael Babbitt – scientists cite the work of other scientists. Climate scientists cite the work of solar physicists (such as Sami Solanki and Mike Lockwood) who have shown that solar forcing cannot explain the recent warming. By citing the work of people who know, climate scientists can happily dismiss solar forcing arguments. Where’s the lack of logic in that?

  • Adirian

    Let’s try RW’s style of argument, and attack the language rather than the point:

    Disbelievers. Heh. Right. Disbelievers also refuse to see the obvious proof of God in bombardier beetles. And in cheese sandwiches.

    But hey, you can have your cult, just keep it off the rest of us.

  • TCO

    Meyer:

    This is another choir-playing low level of critical analysis post.

  • Papertiger

    The satellite data was originally discredited because it wouldn’t gibe with the surface station data.
    The satellite was calibrated using radiosone balloon data, but still it was insisted that it should be recalibrated to align with the SS record.

    Why would they take the superior record and corrupt it with the inferior? – It’s climate science naturally.

  • Papertiger

    TCO are you now, or have you ever in the past been affiliated with the NASA Goddard?
    It’s just that you are so determined. Reminds me of Gavin.

  • RW,

    Those satellite biases are systematic ones, no? As in, they apply equally to, say San Francisco and Texas and Africa and Siberia. Or perhaps they’re related to latitude, angle of view to where they are measuring resulting in varying thicknesses of atmosphere along the line of sight, and maybe a day/night sampling that isn’t quite regular due to idiosyncrasies of the orbit. All very regular, predictable, and easily accounted for by system-level statistical corrections.

    It appears that the biases encountered by surface stations are site-specific, different for every station. I would think that a rigorous approach would require that these biases be understood and accounted for as well, wouldn’t it? Then it might be possible to correct for them at the level at which they apply, which is the level of each individual site. It’s impossible to address them by a general statistical correction applied to the dataset as a whole.

  • RW

    But the agreement between satellite and surface measurements is rather good. No-one would deny that individual sites may have issues that make their temperature record inaccurate, but the global temperature is derived from the records of about 2000 individual stations. Even if there were ten stations which erroneously recorded a temperature of 100°C, that would bias the record upwards by only 0.4°C. More plausibly, even if there were 100 stations which recorded a temperature 1°C hotter than reality, that would bias the record upwards by 0.05°C. If there were 100 stations overestimating by 1°C, and 100 more overestimating by 2°C, the effect globally would be 0.15°C. The rise in temperature over the last hundred years is 0.74±0.18°C. Note the error figure; this encompasses uncertainties like those being discussed here.

    Is there any reason to believe that all biases in the surface record are inevitably upward?

  • Keith

    RW – Please go to the RSS or IAH sites, download their data, and do your own excel chart. The global temperatures have not increased for the past seven years. What I find quite interesting is that when I do the same thing with GISS data, they also show no warming for the past seven years, and relatively closely match the satellite data. It appears to me that the GISS people are doing a decent job of correcting land data to make it match the satellite data. What concerns me is that the GISS data seem to be always corrected downward in years previous to when we started getting satellite data. Does anyone know where the GISS people document the corrected vs. uncorrected data and their method for correcting old data? I’m forming the opinion that GISS’s real sin is not in how they apply corrections to current data, but rather what they are doing to older data.

  • RW

    Keith – in 2000, GISTEMP gives the temperature anomaly as +0.42°C. Seven years later, in 2007, the anomaly was +0.73°C. RSS data gives the 2000 anomaly as 0°C, and the 2007 value as 0.2°C. UAH have the anomaly increasing from 0.04°C to 0.28°C. How does that make you think that ‘the global temperatures have not increased for the past seven years’? Did you just make that up or what?

    I can’t help thinking you’re not actually reading about the GISS methodology but just assuming that it’s all bad. Here’s a quote from Hansen et al 1999:

    The St. Helena station, based on metadata provided with MCDW records, was moved from 604 m to 436 m elevation between August 1976 and September 1976. Therefore assuming a lapse rate of about 6°C/km, we added 1°C to the St. Helena temperatures before September 1976. Lihue had an apparent discontinuity in its temperature record around 1950. On the basis of minimization of the discrepancy with its few neighboring stations, we added 0.8°C to Lihue temperatures prior to 1950.

    So you can see that your claim that old temperatures are always revised downward is not true.

  • “Is there any reason to believe that all biases in the surface record are inevitably upward?”

    Yes. The visual surveys have, as far as I know, found only upward biases, and the pattern of them is grounds for thinking that it just might apply to many, if not the majority of stations. And, it’s hard to imagine what a downward bias would look like, though that should be looked at as well. It’s not proof, of course, but it’s reason enough to conduct a thorough survey of all the stations. It wouldn’t be hard, for each station there’s someone in charge of it, just get them to send photos and a set of selected measurements, as well as to provide the historical record of location changes and changes to the sites, both past and present. There’s no other way to know what those stations are actually reporting.

    You gave a lot of hypothetical scenarios there, and their range highlights the extreme amount of uncertainty in just what the actual situation is. The actual biases could overwhelm even the range you cited – there’s no way to know without understanding the biases in all the stations, or at least a well-measured representative sample. Until this is done, I see no choice but to disregard the surface station data entirely. It may be right, it may be wrong, but until the biases are accounted for, they provide zero meaningful information content.

  • RW

    my hypothetical scenarios highlighted the rather small range of uncertainties that upward biases actually introduce into the system. If you see ‘extreme’ uncertainty, that’s probably because that’s what you’re hoping to see.

    The documentation of how the surface record is assembled is extensive. The biases are well understood and accounted for. There may be a few stations which have biases not caught by the system, but there is no reason to assume they dominate the record. But, if you wish to disregard surface data and only look at satellite data, then you’ll find that the satellite data will tell you exactly the same thing – the world is warming at 0.15-0.2°C per decade. There is no comment yet as to why the author of this blog believes that the satellite record says something different to the surface record.

  • “my hypothetical scenarios highlighted the rather small range of uncertainties […] If you see ‘extreme’ uncertainty, that’s probably because that’s what you’re hoping to see.”

    Your small range were entirely made up. That’s the point, that except for a few stations that have actually been documented, we have no information, and can only make up hypothetical examples. To say your range is somehow evidence of an error within the given margin is, well, odd.

    “The biases are well understood and accounted for.”

    That’s just plain false. These biases have been vehemently ignored. NASA went to Mars and took more photos of a rock because a few people thought they saw a face. Why are they so reluctant to even look at pictures of things right here on earth in the middle of cities?

    “There may be a few stations which have biases not caught by the system, but there is no reason to assume they dominate the record.”

    There’s no reason to assume they don’t. The pattern shown in what we have seen is nowhere near conclusive, but it’s a reason – not to assume – but to do something really radical, like go and get the facts. “A few stations” sounds an awfully lot like “an isolated incident” – it’s marketing-speak meant to spin any complaint into insignificant trivia.

    “the satellite data will tell you exactly the same thing”

    Were the satellites recalibrated to more closely match the surface data or not? Someone brought that up earlier, I have no knowledge either way, so you tell me.

    I’m starting to get enough of a sampling so that I can statistically account for your biases, RW.

  • Keith

    RW – I said 7 years, not 8. Plot the data from Jan. 2001 through Jan. 2008 and see what you get.

  • RW

    It is nonsense to suggest that ‘we have no information’. I quoted a section from a GISS paper which mentioned some specific examples of record adjustment, which showed that the claim that no old temperatures are ever revised upward false, and which shows that the claim that biases are ignored is also false. GISS clearly documents their data corrections.

    No, satellite measurements were not recalibrated ‘to more cloasely match the surface data’.

    Keith – how about 2001 to 2007 then? How about you look up the difference in anomalies and tell us what it is? Your claim that there has been no rise in temperatures is demonstrably false, as shown by the very data you quoted to support the claim. Did you even look at the data? And it looks dangerously like you might be claiming that comparing a single month in one year with a single month seven years later could tell us something about global temperature trends. I hope you are not claiming that.

  • RW,

    The St. Helena example showed the correction of a more broad-scale bias – altitude. Did they happen to mention how far away the nearest air conditioner was? It’s interesting that the Lihue adjustment – which you are correct in noting is upward – was made to put it in line with other surrounding measurements. That’s a tidy little package. No wonder the science is “settled”, when every bit of evidence is just a reference to other bits of evidence, with are themselves… Well, you can claim anything you want and it can’t be disproven by the evidence.

    This is looking more and more like the Intelligent Design debate.

  • RW

    it’s hard to imagine what a downward bias would look like – is it? What if a station was moved from a concrete area to a grassy area? Is that unlikely to happen?

    It’s pretty obvious that the people making a fuss about the surface record are only seeking upward biases. There is no reason at all to suspect that the overall record would be only contaminated by upward biases, or that there would be more upward biases than downward, or that the error on the recorded temperature rise over the last 100 years is any larger than the ±0.18°C quoted.

    I’m starting to get enough of a sampling so that I can statistically account for your biases, RW. – are you now? Do reveal what your study suggests.

  • something wonderful

    GCMs are full of bad SS data. Still they want to disrupt the world economy based on 30 years of slowly improving data from satellites. Needs a lot more good data before damning the future of your descendants.

    The more we see of this obvious surface station upward temperature bias, the more skewed the results of GCMs can be expected to be.

    Skeptics of the holy church of global warming are starting to have an impact, even though the church dominates scientific publishers and foundation grants and government grants. Funding skewed a thousand to one or better benefitting the holy church.

    Let the heretics get just a bit of funding and access to publishing. Watch something wonderful happen.

  • “What if a station was moved from a concrete area to a grassy area?”

    That sounds more like the removal of an upward bias. Or are you saying that being on concrete is the standard? Is there even a standard for placement that seeks to eliminate purely local effects? If so, what is it?

    “There is no reason at all to suspect that the overall record would be only contaminated by upward biases”

    There’s plenty of reason to suspect it. There’s no reason to conclude that there is or that there isn’t, that requires actual data. Are you against a comprehensive survey to gather that data?

    “Do reveal what your study suggests.”

    I did, it’s the line directly above your last post.

  • RW

    OK, well I’ve been posting on this blog for a couple of weeks. In return for pointing out actual data that contradicts the hypotheses made by the author, I’ve received little but vitriol and abuse in return. Should that have surprised me?

    Well, enough. As the saying goes, tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it. Way too much hatred here.

  • Adirian

    RW, you’re openly contemptuous of everyone who disagrees with you, and you argue linguistics rather than evidence – that’s the reason you’re attracting such intense dislike. Atheistic rants I made at the age of thirteen in Christian chat rooms were more polite than you. My first post on this forum was to attack you, because, bluntly, you deserved it. My continuing posts have been purely directed at you, and most always to rebuke your petty linguistic arguments, which aren’t even effective as such, because you haven’t even mastered the language.

    Indeed, you’ve behaved like a genuine troll, even getting pouty that the author of the blog didn’t respond to your comments, which were fairly obviously intended to try to get him to clarify language which was already perfectly clear. And you don’t point out actual data, whatever you think – you attack comments of his on the basis of language, and are quite free with finding ways to interpret it that give you something to attack. Did you major in debate, incidentally? You seem extraordinarily good at pissing people off without actually convincing anyone of anything. (Indeed, arguing linguistics is the general mark of a debater, who is more interested in appearing to have the superior argument than actually having it.)

    (That I haven’t responded to anyone else is not entirely true, actually. I posted a mildly sarcastic comment (sympathetic to the individual responded to, in this case, the author of the blog) in a thread you never commented on, because I found the sentiments expressed there amusing.)

    Want to attract more than vitriol and abuse? Try being polite. Try actually arguing with the points that are raised, rather than the language used to express them. Try to have a scientific mindset coming in, and don’t treat the people you’re arguing with as if they’re superstitious yahoos. The people here disagree with the theories because they haven’t seen sufficient evidence of their truth – that is science. There is no proof against the existence of unicorns, and expecting a “unicorn skeptic” to disprove their existence is both ignorant and asinine – that’s not the way science works.

    Science is NOT “X says Y, and X is a respectable figure, therefore Y.” This is why these scientific individuals keep calling on you when you attack the figure, rather than the theory – it is the theory that has to stand up for itself, not the person presenting it. An argument made from authority has no scientific value. Arguments that an a person who presents a theory is not qualified to present the theory similarly have no value in science. You’re an astronomer, or an astrophysicist – you’ve either bounced back and forth, or perhaps I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt and applied the second term from a fault in my own memory. Either way, you are no more qualified than I to be making any arguments here with anyone about climate, which is an immensely complex subject spanning a dozen spheres of knowledge – one of which is astrophysics, and another of which is computer modeling, which I can guarantee I’m better “qualified” for than you. That doesn’t mean anything to me, and the qualifications of others shouldn’t mean anything to you.

    Look around. Do you see anybody denying global warming? Or do you see people with responsible scientific minds going, hey, dataset X and model Y and extrapolation Z have serious faults, and we should look into this? The thread you’re responding to right here is in line with a very strong position that there are serious faults in the data collection – and instead of arguing with that, because it is perfectly clear, you immediately went off on some imagined comment that said the satellite records didn’t record any warming and that they were perfect. Virtually every argument that goes on here is about the unreliability of the models, the poor quality of such-and-such evidence. You’re inventing the denial here – it’s in your head. Why do you think people keep telling you to quit attacking straw men? I’m not even the only one.

    But hey, if that post means you’re leaving, I for one won’t be sorry. Whatever you think, you’ve contributed nothing except the very vitriol and abuse you accuse others of carrying for you. (Remember – when the world seems to hate you, maybe, just maybe, it isn’t the world that is at fault.)

  • Eric McFarland
  • Adirian

    Incidentally, it is sad that a skeptic is the only one presenting a good reason (or any reason) why satellite measurements might not be used, but here you guys are:

    Satellite measurements that rely on IR heat detection would be necessarily biased against detection of greenhouse warming. As the same intensity of IR light has to escape in order to maintain equilibrium, a full-spectrum reading would result in the same total energy levels. This of course must be balanced against the fact that we know the IR fingerprints of terran emissions, and so changes in the spectrum balance (caused by the fact that a particular greenhouse gas will absorb in a particular spectral fingerprint) will be discernible as changes in heat levels to satellites doing spectral analysis. Spectral analysis would also be able to detect what degree of influence any given greenhouse gas is having, simply by measuring dips within its absorption spectrum.

    So, short explanation is, a “dumb” satellite would interpret greenhouse warming as no warming at all. I don’t pretend to know how smart the climate satellites are, but that is one potential major problem in utilizing satellite data.

  • Keith

    RW — Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. If you go to http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_1.txt and plot the -70 to +82.5 latitude data from Jan. 2001 through Jan. 2008, you will see that a linear regression plot line shows no change (ok, technically a very slight decrease in temperature, but essentially zero). If you go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt and plot the data from Jan. 2001 through Jan. 2008, you will see that a linear regression plot line again shows no change (ok, technically a very slight increase in temperature, but essentially zero). Even more interesting, if you replot the GISS data to match the satellite data’s “zero” of the 1979-1998 mean, it matches the satellite data quite closely.

    Really, as Adirian said, you need to lighten up. Trying to accuse me of not even looking at the data is rather rude.

  • Paul M

    Adirian re Satellites

    I won’t take credit for this comment.

    “The satellites are “microwave sounding units” = MSU. I think that they measure oxygen emissions at 60 GHz. They do not measure IR radiation. The satellite measurements agree with the balloon borne thermometers which use an entirely different technology.”

    On the stuff about recalibration of satellites, I have not found the actual paper yet but recall that although there was a measurement error, it was tiny and has been corrected for. There is no doubt that satellite measurement is much more accurate than surface stations and they are able to cover the sea although weaker for the poles.

    Of course Mr Mann uses satelltree sensors which can give accuracy to a tenth of a degree over 1,000 years ago.

    Cheers

    Paul

  • TCO

    I’m openly contemptuous of someone (like Kyle) who doesn’t understand how moving a station from concrete to grass does not affect the trend.

  • Adirian

    TCO, to be succinct: What in the -hell- are you talking about? Since he was arguing that moving the station from grass to concrete did change the trend, surely you would concede that he understands the reverse.

  • “I’m openly contemptuous…”

    Well, I’ve got heartburn and a touch of gas today. So what? Though I suspect I’ll get over it before you do. As to the state of my understanding… is English your native language?

  • TCO

    Adrian: He plainly confused the difference between a function and it’s time derivative (or more pedantically, its difference). You can literally suck some commie dick for all I care. You are a fucking maggot who would look better with a 0.45 blowing your brains out. You moron you.

  • Adirian

    Kyle – I don’t think it is, and his grasp of mathematics isn’t great, either, given that a discontinuous function – as you would get when you move measuring points from bias to bias – has no derivative, at least as far as the points being discussed (that is, the discontinuous ones) go.

    Also, I’m not certain who he’s failing so badly at insulting, given that there is no Adrian here.

  • TCO

    Kyle, pull the dick out of your ass and realize the differnce between a function and it’s time derivative, you motherfucker.

  • TCO

    Kyle, pull the dick out of your ass and realize the differnce between a function and it’s time derivative, you motherfucker.

  • TCO

    Hey Adrian, you fucking little commie lover. I even included differnce for the excluse mongers like you. Eat your shit. Just bite down and eat it.

  • See what happens when you challenge some people’s religion?

  • Paul maynard

    Hmmm TCO

    Tourette’s Complaint Obviously

    Regards

    Paul

  • Adirian

    TCO – the difference over time still doesn’t exist at discontinuous points. (When there is a finite non-zero change in X over 0 change in Y, difference is infinite, and DNE.)

  • Doug

    This is terrific work. I wonder how the education community will receive this skeptical inquiry into Church Dogma.

    If I may pick a nit: it makes the comparisons more visually useful if all axes are scaled equally. In particular, the vertical temperature scales on each graph are different (45-54 and 45-60) while the time axes are identical. Our natural instinct is to compare the two graphs (visually) to see how the slopes compare.

    I’d like to go out on a limb and make a prediction. Our reaction is “it’s so simple that a teenager can do it,” while the AGW mobs will be “it wasn’t performed by a scientist (or more accurately, ‘one of OUR scientists’), so it means nothing.” Or, “where’s the peer review?” Which means “OUR peers did not bless it.”

    BTW: does your son accept money from the oil industry?…

  • Papertiger

    Posted by: TCO | February 21, 2008 at 08:14 PM

    Hey Adrian, you fucking little commie lover. I even included differnce for the excluse mongers like you. Eat your shit. Just bite down and eat it.

    Gavin? Is that you?

  • TCO

    Adrian: you’re confused. The difference of the function in that case is zero, not infinite. y2-y1/x2-x1 === 0 if y is constant.

    BTW, my point stands. You (attempted) pedantic fuck. A guy on our skeptic side lacks the logic to understand how a time trend of temp is biased by the correction of an earlier faulty high instrument. Don’t try to protect bad math and bad logic when it gets used by our side. It’s bad math and stupid people regardless. slap the miscreants silly and fucking taunt them until the make pop sounds and pull their heads out of their asses.

  • Papertiger

    Alarmists keep telling me that this, is equal to this, minus 0.01% TSI.
    You tell me.
    Which one of those two pictures is from Sep. 14th 1998?
    Take a guess.

  • TCO

    Oh and before you embaress us further: y is the characteristic dependant function variable. X is the input. And the derivative of a function is dy/dx, NOT dx/dy.

    Oh…and if you are for some reason reversing x and y from what everyone in the civilized world uses, please give me an example of how any physical variable (temp) can change simultaneously (have two values at one time)?

    Bottom line guys. Stop covering up for crappy science from our side. It embarreses me as a skeptic. Makes me even wonder if that is all there is…just morons on our side.

  • Papertiger

    So I’m preaching to the choir?
    Damn it. A couple really great Gavin Schmidt insults totally wasted.
    OK what’s done is done. Time to dust off and regroup.

    (TCO – give us a break. Put an “I hate Al” hat on or something.)

  • Adirian

    TCO – X is the input, very good. Except we’re graphing temperature with respect to TIME, so with delta temperature / delta time, time would be the constant. That is, it isn’t 0/some number, it is some number/0. y2-y1 is the difference in temperature, x2-x1 is the difference in time. It is time that doesn’t change, and temperature that does.

    You’ve moved on to failing even more spectacularly, by way of trying to prove yourself right.

  • Adirian

    Oh, and TCO – if you’re a skeptic, please stop “helping” us.

  • TCO

    Adrian: you can’t have two temperatures at one time. It is a physical impossibility. Look up heat capacity, thermal conductivity and for that matter relativity and causation.) And we are talking about a finite difference anyhow when we talk about the trend in temperature over time.

    Sorry, pedant…you LOSE.

    Now…let’s stop pulling our puds on dipshit crap like this and actually discuss something interesting. Some of the questions raised are fascinating…if we will just move furhter into the issue analysis. But rehashing bullshit sophist points like this is a buzzkill. I definitely expect more from a McKinsey grad. (Of course that place is way overrated anyhow.)

    Umm…and I AM a skeptic. And I am helping you. By burning the stupidity and pussy and sophistry out of you. And if at the end of the day, we prove AGW correct or (more likely) some minor skeptic snipe to be off target, well that’s all for the good. Becuase truth is what matters. That’s what Dick Feynman would want. Not morons just following their tribe.

  • TCO

    Adrian, here is what you said: “When there is a finite non-zero change in X over 0 change in Y, difference is infinite, and DNE.”

    But the difference is deltay over delta x. Only someone who is deliberatly confused would use dx/dy to be the derivative of a function vice dy/dx. You really are wrong, here old chap. We are discussing how temp has changed over the decades. that is a difference, son. It might be zero. But it’s not infinite.

    I know you’ll never admit it, because I know your kind on the internet. You’d rather get all stuffy about how someone addresses you than concentrate on thinking, on learning, on pursuing truth.

    But the end result is just disgusting. If this is the mentality of skeptics, Meyer, I’m very WORRIED. I mean maybe AGW is right, if my fellow skeptics are this rock stupid.