Hottest Year Ever : Philadelphia Update

With two weeks left to go and nothing but Arctic cold in the forecast, Philadelphia’s hottest year ever (59.3F) is destined to finish the year cooler than 1828 (59.6F)

CO2 was 280 ppm in 1828 – during the Little Ice Age.

http://www.wunderground.com/

http://books.google.com/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to Hottest Year Ever : Philadelphia Update

  1. Sense Seeker says:

    Congratulations. How long did it take you to find a place that’s colder than in a long time? Again, you’re giving us a carefully selected snapshot, not the whole picture.

    • Right. It is Philadelphia’s hottest year ever and it also isn’t Philadelphia’s hottest year ever. Whatever suits your argument.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        The world, Steve, the world. There’s more than Philly. Show us the changes in average world temperature over time. And don’t start the graph at 1998 – we know that one.

      • Sense Seeker, i.e. Propaganda Pumper

        You don’t remember the bloody murder news this past summer about how hot it was in Philadelphia? It was your crowd that took the snap shot of a small area of the globe and enlarged into “global warming”.

      • stevengoddard says:
        December 14, 2010 at 4:33 am

        but now it isn’t important any more.

        I’ve noticed that’s how propaganda works.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        MY crowd? Who do you take me for? The Supreme Commander of the AGW mafia? The head of the conspiracy to establish the UN dictatorship and tax you to death?

      • No, I take you for a global warming clone.

      • Sense Seeker says:
        December 14, 2010 at 4:57 am

        MY crowd? Who do you take me for? The Supreme Commander of the AGW mafia? The head of the conspiracy to establish the UN dictatorship and tax you to death?

        By the way, this is childish.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        “No, I take you for a global warming clone.” And this is not childish?

        And for the record, it is as silly to see one hot summer as proof of global warming, as it is to see one cold winter as proof of the contrary.

        Since it is about global temperature change, you have to look at the world average. Or at least at local averages, and how they change over time. All these selected snapshots of snow and ice (or sun and bathing suits) prove nothing.

      • Sense Seeker says:
        December 14, 2010 at 5:11 am

        “No, I take you for a global warming clone.” And this is not childish?

        You fail to see a difference. Your comment was a list of stereotypes. That is being a clone. And you have given clone comments most of the time. There is nothing original or interesting in what you say.

      • Sense Seeker says:
        December 14, 2010 at 5:11 am

        one cold winter as proof of the contrary

        I don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Dave N says:

        “And for the record, it is as silly to see one hot summer as proof of global warming, as it is to see one cold winter as proof of the contrary.”

        Wow.. work that out by yourself, or did you have help?

      • Sense Seeker says:

        Thank you, Dave, for this enlightening contribution to the discussion. I know it must have been a big effort.

        And Amino, with cloning you mean referring to the work of others? What would you prefer me to do – fabricate my own evidence? At least I refer to peer-reviewed published evidence, which cannot be said of all people on this blog.

      • You are selective in what you believe. You are a clone of global warming propaganda. You are not unbiased. You are not “seeking sense”. You are repeating global warming propaganda. What you call “sense” is the party line of global warming.

      • Sense Seeker

        I think you are failing to see how unoriginal you are. You have a blind spot about yourself.

      • Sense Seeker says:

        Well well Amino, spewing your usual acid? Just because I don’t agree with you, I am a clone, unoriginal, and blind? And referring to the scientific literature is ‘propaganda’?

        But never mind. Keep on going in your small circles. I sure hope you are getting paid for all your vitriolic posts. If you belong to the deluded victims of the denialist campaign financed by the Koch brothers and their ilk, your case would be extra sad.

      • Sense Seeker says:
        December 14, 2010 at 4:28 pm

        Just because I don’t agree with you, I am a clone, unoriginal, and blind?

        No. It’s because you keep repeating everything that has become hackneyed with all of you. You are part of their Borg.

    • MikeTheDenier says:

      Sense comes along spewing nonsense. Has he taken the time to go back to the DOZENS of examples Steve has posted on this blog for numerous cities throughout North America? Obviously not. Sense, if it is the truth you seek I suggest you seek the truth in Steve’s blog archives. It’s all there.

  2. Warmest year ever? They’re Absolutely nuts!

    January, February, March, November and December are 5 months with average or below cold temperatures,
    April, May are 2 months with average monthly seasonal rise from average or below average cold temperatures,
    August, September and October are 3 months with average seasonal declining to average or below average cold temperatures,
    June and July are 2 months with average high monthly seasonal temperatures,

    That’s a strange definition of the word “warmest” if the year started with higher than average temperatures and stayed above average temperatures and if it then ended with above average temperatures, then it could be called the “warmest year in Philadelphia” or anywhere else. It didn’t! do the math!

    • It’s easier to not do the math. It’s easier to say, “Look at the IPCC. Look at James Hansen, he works at NASA”.

      As John Christy says,”….believing is easier than calculus.”

      • There seems to be the trend in what people are claiming, without hard undeniable facts.
        I’m surprised that no one a has claimed that Santa’s little helper elves and reindeer have covered the northern hemisphere with snow for Christmas, that would be more believable (ha ha I can’t wait to read the peer reviewed papers on that).

  3. peterhodges says:

    i see they have their bot back in action.

    ask it how all these individual cold places average out to warmest ever….

  4. Mike Davis says:

    Thank you Steven for an update on what turns out to be additional proof that the globe is still experiencing normal natural weather patterns that were established 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

  5. Andy Weiss says:

    Do we know whether the thermometer or the way it was exposed met NWS specs?

    Oh, I just remembered we didn’t have airplanes in 1828, so they couldn’t have put the thermometer near jet planes or a runway!

  6. drewski says:

    Amino, No global warming for 16 years — I didn’t know that. What box of cereal are you reading?

    If you are making some obtuse reference to Phil Jones, then you need to redo your homework. This may help your study: According to the data sets produced by the Met, NOAA and NASA, each of the last ten years features in the top 11 warmest years recorded in all data sets.

    PS This data refers to GLOBAL temps (not Philadelphia, PA, Peoria, ILL or Cherry Picked City, England)

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Drewski – better reread your own post. You start off trying to refute someone but end up refuting yourself. It is called “WARMING” not WARM. So your statement about 10 of the 11 (or 20 of the 12 or whatever nonsense the jobberwocky is talking about today) is irrelevant.

      Amino is correct. You may be (that is open to debate), but then if I say the price of rice is China is 10 cents a pound, that has as much relevance as your statement.

      • drewski says:

        PhilJourdan, “It is called “WARMING” not WARM.” Huh?

        “So your statement about 10 of the 11 (or 20 of the 12 or whatever nonsense the jobberwocky is talking about today) is irrelevant.” A pronounced rise in global temperatures is irrelevant — again huh?

        Please tell me you don’t operate heavy machinery.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Yes I do, and safely since I am not drinking your kool aid.

        I take it my response went completely over your head? can you do basic potty tasks? Or is that over your head as well?

  7. drewski says:

    PJ, I don’t make “Kool aid”.

    But I do rationally point out that the MET, NOAA and NASA, have all recorded each of the past 10 years as being amongst the warmest years in their data sets.

    You, on the other hand, blather about “jobberwockey”, rice in China, warming is not warm and 20 out of 12.

    You are right PJ — what you say is waaaaaay over my head.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Do you understand English? or are you ESL? Clearly talking about the sun and the moon when discussing cheese seems to make logical sense to you. No one else, hence the question of what you are drinking.

      WARMING – temperature going up.
      WARM – temperature feels nice.

      You blast Amino for correctly pointing out NO WARMING, and then talk about WARM.

      Do you have to work at being that stupid?

  8. drewski says:

    PJ, I believe that you will not find the word “warm” in any of my posts on this blog, but anyway, I think I get what you mean now.

    WARMING is like the “steady” increase of hot record local temps vs cold record local temps from an average of nearly 1 to 1 in the 1970s to the current ratio of 2.8 to 1 that we have now. And. . . .

    WARM would be like the 4C increase above the average for the 2010 winters in Greenland and Canada.

    And — now correct me if I am wrong — but “jobberwockey” is sCeptic lingo for alternate reality. You know when Goddard says that 3 is more than 16 (most of the 19 all-time heat breaking NATIONAL records in 2010 occurred in the former Soviet Union) or when he says that Pakistan is not part of Asia — he is speaking jobberwockey. Or when Amino says that the earth has not warmed in the past 16 years or when you say that you can get “20 out of 12” — you guys are also speaking jobberwockey — right?

    Good word. Haven’t figured out the price of rice in China thing yet but I am guessing it has something to do with the once-in-a-thousand year flooding they had earlier this year.

    However, I still haven’t got a clue about the sun and moon and cheese thing — can you give me a hint?

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Amino, No global warming for 16 years — I didn’t know that. What box of cereal are you reading?

      Your sarcasm is self evident. Your statement, quoted above is enough to refute the rest of your worthless diatribe. There has been no WARMING for the past 15 years, but the past 15 years have been WARM.

      You can mix in any words you want, but that is the gist of what you SHOULD be saying instead of trying to tell Amino he is wrong (when he is not).

  9. drewski says:

    “Diatribe” — do you know what that word means?

    The MET, NOAA and NASA all list the last decade as the hottest in their data sets and this past November was the hottest November on record — clearly global warming has NOT stopped.

    Unless, of course, you are using that alternate reality trick of yours.

    • Anyone paying attention can see that the Earth has warmed out of control and is now incredibly hot.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        Exactly right, Steve! The present cold is a clear indication that the feedforward response of the negative feedback portion of the CO2 feedback controlled loop arsing from sulphate aerosols is no longer present, and it follows that the system is totally out of control! It’s worse than originally thought!

      • drewski says:

        Yes Stevery, it is cold in Europe and 6 months ago it was hot in Asia — it is called weather, not climate. A real journalist would know the difference.

      • Mike Davis says:

        A cold day proves human released aerosols are effecting climate!

    • Mike Davis says:

      The DIA TRIBE is the members of the Chicken Little Brigade that have been assigned to go to Climate Realist web sites and attempt to disrupt discussions about the non scientific practices of the Climatologists.
      The DIA Tribe goes around claiming Fantasy is reality!

    • Mike Davis says:

      It was also nice of you to bring up those “Independent” research groups that are independent only by their specific Al-Gore-Rhythm used to provide the desired results. There is one globe and one set of weather monitoring stations for that one globe. By properly selecting the prefered station results they each arrive at “Independent” BS! The errors are larger than the announced results!

  10. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    December 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm
    “Diatribe” — do you know what that word means?

    Do you?

    di·a·tribe   /ˈdaɪəˌtraɪb/
    [dahy-uh-trahyb]
    –noun
    a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism

    Are you going to continue to try to weasel out of admitting your mistake? Or are you man enough to admit it now that you have been refuted at every turn?

    • Mike Davis says:

      Phil:
      I liked my version better! 😉

    • drewski says:

      di·a·tribe   /ˈdaɪəˌtraɪb/
      [dahy-uh-trahyb]
      –noun
      a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism OF AN ON-GOING OR REPEATED NATURE
      Synonyms: Tirade, harangue

      Characterize “What cereal box are you reading?” as a diatribe? Not a chance.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Simple minds cannot grasp multi-syllabic words. You are still dodging and avoiding the issue and trying to create a new one.

        It all comes down to – do you understand the difference between warming and warm? And for the record, you have cited no sources to refute Amino or back up your false claim.

        I can cite Einstein’s theory of relativity – and that pertains to this discussion how? About as much as your useless dribble.

        So stop your diatribe and answer the question – if you are man enough.

  11. drewski says:

    Does this Dia Tribe also speak jobberwockey?

    So now Al Gore controls NASA, NOAA and the Met does he? Just when you think you know the boundaries of the lunatic fringe, along comes Mike Davis.

    • Mike Davis says:

      In response to the wisdom of Drewski!

      • drewski says:

        Look around you Mike — I am am the only blogger here who has cited references to suppost their argument — the MET, NOAA and NASA. For all intents and purposes, the rest of you are simply blowing hot air — pun intentended.

        This blog is just another perfect example how sCeptics talk in circles because they have no evidence of their own.

        The more you learn the more skeptical you become of sCeptics.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Well if you use those agencies to support your position then you are the Denier on this forum. You have no supporting evidence for your position as anything you get from those agencies is corrupted by siting issues and extrapolation methods. For all we know by looking at their records it could be as cold now as it was in 1860, or colder than it was in 1934. The equipment used to monitor temperatures was not designed as a climate monitoring network and the siting does not even meet the standards that were set by the agency responsible for maintaining them.
        The models are fed Garbage data so the best output can only be Garbage. Give me 5 or 10 thousand years of regional data any time because that is what is needed to recognize climate variability. There is NO global TEMPERATURE or CLIMATE. On a given day it might be +50C or – 50C somewhere on the globe. There are hundreds of climate regions with their own characteristics and attempting to homogenize the observations among the regions only destroys the message that if being given. The smoothing destroys the signal and all you are left with is noise that means nothing or anything you want to promote!
        Your argument is just a repetition of the Chicken Little propaganda promoted by your puppet masters!
        As for evidence I have 4.5 billion years of natural climate variations to support what I am talking about!
        Maybe you should get a crainialanalectomy so you can see what is going on in the world around you!

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Jabberwocky.

      And I guess you are not man enough. Keep trying to change the subject to avoid admitting you are wrong. I guess it is the nature of those who belong to the church of AGW.

  12. drewski says:

    So Mike, I can’t quote the world’s 3 most renown and respected temperature recording institutions on the planet because their data is “suspect”. Which institutions do you trust?

    How about the National Academy of Sciences? NO?
    How about the Australian CSIRO? Hmm not them either?
    What about the National Snow and Ice Data Center? Damn! I though for sure they were above reproach.
    What about Bolivian Glaciologists? Not them either?
    I suppose I don’t need to bother referring to the thousands of peer-reviewed studies done by dozens of nationalities within the IPCC over the past 2 decades.
    Well you have to accept the findings of the US Navy then. YOU DON’T!?

    There must be someone whose data you trust. Lord Monckton you say? Yes we have a winner!

    sCeptics = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking in Circles

    • PhilJourdan says:

      You could if you knew what they were. They are NOT the “world’s 3 most renown and respected temperature recording institutions” – they are data respositories. Thermometers record temperatures. THEY gather and massage them.

      Do you think before you type?

      • drewski says:

        PJ, So what you are saying is: institutions that make records of temperatures are NOT temperature recording institutions?

        Got it.

        This jobberwockey is hard to stay up with.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Drewski:
      The IPCC was set up with one purpose and that was to provide evidence that humans are the leading cause of climate change.
      Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Any research that does not fit their goal can be ignored and the majority of government funding from the supporting governments is spent on creating that evidence.
      NAS is a political activist group that promotes more scientific research by promoting the need . If they claimed Natural causes are behind weather patterns then there would be less need for funding and they would be remiss in their goals.
      The Australia group, Same thing.
      NSIDC needs to provide justification for continued budget increases. It is a government thing.
      How wold the Bolivian Glaciologists get funding if they reported natural variations are happening in their neck of the woods.
      Navy: Same thing. Duplication of services is paramount in government circles and when one finds a funding stream you can bet the others will follow.
      Monckton is reporting things as he sees them from his position and based on his experience. The fact that he tends to see things differently than the AGW elite and I also tend to disagree with the team based on my personal training and experience.
      All scientists are sceptics and science is not based on consensus. If there is a consensus then science is not involved but rather Pathological wanna be scientists claim a consensus and robust certainty!
      I was trained to play the game and was also trained to spot the game being played. A trouble shooter needs to be able to separate bull shit from reality.

  13. drewski says:

    Wow! You basically said the entire global scientific establishment is corrupt — and the American navy — without one citation, reference or even a shred of evidence to back it up — well done.

    It is hard to argue against someone who “was trained to play the game” so I will just let your statements speak for themselves.

    Have a Merry Christmas and a Jobberwockey New Year!

    • Mike Davis says:

      Brewski:
      Interesting you take standard operating procedures as a sign of corruption. I only stated they are following standard practices of government agencies.
      It FUBAR and SNAFU are the best descriptions that were given many years ago who am I to argue when I personally observed the activity.

  14. drewski says:

    You are going a little bi-polar on me Mike — You have recently stated that major science academies and organizations produce data only if it provides them further funding or “Any research that does not fit their goal can be ignored”? Now you are saying that these practices are NOT corrupt(?!)

    This Jobberwockey is getting too much for me.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Drewski:
      I am saying that it is standard operating procedure for government agencies and academia to do just that. If a corporation that is regulated was caught doing something similar it would be considered fraud and prosecuted. In government and academia it is called self advancement or even group advancement by creative methods!
      I am not saying they are either CORRUPT or NOT as that is an ethics call. I do say it should be wrong but people like you defend and support the activity. You even claim what they are pushing is based on proper science in spite of all evidence showing it is Pathological science based BS!
      I have more respect for Astrologers and Tarot Card readers than I have for those charlatans.

  15. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    December 22, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Again, Jabberwocky.

    And I guess you are stupid. You have been given the information to bring you out of ignorance, and you chose to ignore it and maintain your ignorance. That is called stupid. Congratulations.

    Thermometers RECORD temperature. The services gather and STORE the records from the sites (that was recorded by thermometers).

    I bet you think WikiLeaks “released” the climategate emails as well. Never can teach a stupid anything.

  16. drewski says:

    Sorry PJ,
    I am trying. It is just that I am used to getting my information served on a plate of SUBSTANCE with a side order of REFERENCES, a pinch of CITATION and a hot cup of EVIDENCE. Call it a cultural thing — it was just the way I was raised.

    But I think I am beginning to understand this jobberwokey / jabberwockey belief system that sCeptics use. It is based on a few simple principles.
    (1) Less is greater than more (i.e 3 is greater than 16)
    (2) Warming is not warm
    (3) Pakistan is not part of Asia
    (4) Temperatures that from a small part of the world for a week are more relevant than global temperatures over decades
    (4) Institutions that record temperatures are not temperature recording institutions and (5) Major science academies and organizations that purposely manipulate data to gain further funding are NOT corrupt.

    Did I miss anything?

  17. drewski says:

    Now now Mikey, just because you don’t have any evidence to play with doesn’t mean that you can be mean to those who do.

  18. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    December 23, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Yes, your brain at the train station. None of what you print is anything that was stated. It is what your own biases and bigotry would like to believe (so you do not miss the power of thinking and your brain).

    If you are ESL, than I will apologize for your stupid remarks as English is a difficult language. However that does not excuse making stupid statements after being corrected numerous times. You have done nothing but try to create strawmen out of nothing,. and when the readers do not bite, you plead ignorance – at least the last part is correct.

    However the refusal to address ignorance is no longer ignorance – but stupidity.

  19. drewski says:

    Hi PJ, Hope you had a Merry and a Happy.

    I was kind of hoping that you would have used these past 2 weeks to collect some credible evidence that falsifies the theory of global warming — competent study, a body of empirical evidence — I would be happy anything at all.

    But please don’t tell me — again! — that institutions which make records of temperatures are not temperature recording institutions. That kind of logic may work with Steve Goddard, but I would prefer if we leave jobberwockey out of the conversation.

    Drewski
    PS don’t forget the references and citations: – )

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Uh, drewski – I am not responsible for your stupidity. Please do not blame me for your own ignorance. The first thing you have to ask yourself (and if you cannot answer it, please display your ignorance for all to see) is:

      What is the null hypothesis?

      Answer that, and you have just answered yourself. Or you can continue to believe in your RELIGION since nothing you printed has anything to do with science. Nor do your false strawmen have any basis in reality.

      The wonder of the internet is you can continue to make a fool of yourself, and no one can stop you.

      Answer the question or continue to be the fool.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Phil:
        You introduced a trick question! There would only be a NULL hypothesis if we were talking about a scientific endeavor! 😉
        The or in the last sentence should be “and”

      • drewski says:

        PJ, I am disappointed. I was hoping that you weren’t just another sCeptic that just talks and talks and talks without ever producing evidence to support their position.

    • suyts says:

      @ Drewski,

      You asked Phil to falsify something that isn’t falsifiable. Heck, it isn’t even articulated. Can you define the CAGW theory? That might go a long way towards refuting it. But it is interesting that you’d ask someone to disprove something that hasn’t been shown, nor accepted. Unless you can show some text, or study that articulates and shows the proof for a thought, it isn’t a theory or a postulate or an axiom or anything!

      So, I’ll provide a thought, equal in validity as the CAGW theory. I believe the CAGW theory was a contrivance of Malthusian socialists. But in their typical anti-intellectual manner, (see history’s numerous examples of socialists killing intellectuals) they didn’t have the ability to clearly state the theory in a coherent manner.

      Correlation doesn’t = causation. Not that CO2 emissions correlate well with temps, go here for a pdf that shows this. http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf&paperID=3447

      Of course, that’s only one leg of which the CAGW contrivance stands. Another is that a bit of warming is somehow bad for the earth and its inhabitants. I’m not aware of any paper that attempts to show this. Well, other than the laughable SW drought paper that Nature recently refuted. Well, there was an assertion about the Amazon in the IPCC, but that turned out to be,….. well, a socialist’s contrivance.

      Another leg of the CAGW mantra, is that mankind is responsible for the atmospheric rise in CO2. Again, this has never been shown. Given, that there is a large body of evidence showing the atmospheric CO2 being much higher than it is today, its laughable to blame a 0.001 raise in CO2 ratio on mankind. Turns out, we don’t know all of the processes involved in generating atmospheric CO2, nor do we know all of the processes of CO2 leaving the atmosphere. I’ve read papers claiming from a few years to thousands of years of CO2’s half life in the atmosphere. We don’t know that the liberated CO2 wouldn’t have been released anyway. Heck, we don’t know that our actions aren’t going to shorten the half-life in the long run. WE DON’T KNOW.

      Here’s something for you to ponder. The earth warms and/or cools every day. It does every season. It does every year. Every decade. Every century. Every millennium. It has never averaged since the recording of man’s experience. Why is it presumed that it should now?

  20. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    January 4, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    The sad part is you just made yourself the fool. You did not answer the question. Before anything (proof or citations) can be made, you have to answer the question. it is not up to me to put words in your mouth. I am sorry you are disappointed that I cannot bail you out of your stupidity, but that is not my job, vocation or mission.

    Should you ever decide to alleviate yourself of your burden of stupidity, you are welcome to answer the question. Your inability to even get one word right however does not bode well for your reputation. Or lack thereof considering your responses here.

    I will not play your bait and switch game. If you want to have an intelligent discussion of the issue, please feel free to answer the question. Otherwise continue to show the world your stupidity. No one can stop you. Unlike your gods of AGW, Steve does not censor replies, so you are free to continue your display of your own ineptness.

  21. drewski says:

    Hi Stevey, Please point out ONE piece of evidence, citation or reference to any scientific record or study in any comment on this ENTIRE blog (other than mine, of course).

  22. drewski says:

    Hey Guys, I know that you guys are busy combing this blog to find someone — anyone — who actually supports their position with evidence. But while you endeavor in your fruitless search, anyone got an opinion on the Auburn / Oregon title game?

    • Philadelphia 1828 was warmer than 2010. The evidence is presented in the article.

    • suyts says:

      Drewski, Auburn wins it only to have the title taken back after discovering they fudged on the recruiting rules.—–my prediction.

      Drewski, I’ve got on 3 different computers probably over a hundred studies that refutes CAGW in one form or another. There’s some guy that has a list of about 1000 peer-reviewed studies that refute claims by the alarmists. I’ll try to post a link if I can find it. Which study or angle would you like to investigate?

      Here, this isn’t the comprehensive list, by any means, but its a good start for beginner skeptics. 🙂

      http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

      Again, I’d be more than happy to oblige, but the CAGW theory is so vague, you’ll have to be more specific about what you want refuted or questioned. Hansen’s 88 study has been beat to death, Mann’s hockey stick study(or the several incarnations) has been refuted so many times I think most statistics classes use it as an example of “how not to do math”. See McShane and Wyner, or Mac and Mac. for peer reviewed publications.

      • drewski says:

        Suyt — your last study was actually a very good one , but don’t bother with that 1000 peer reviewed stuff — most studies listed there actually have nothing to do with climate or are ambiguous at best. Many are also “peer-reviewed” in E&E — a publication that is not even suitable for toilet paper.

        However, if you can continue to post links to studies like the last one, I will read them.

  23. PhilJourdan says:

    drewski says:
    January 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    The opposite of stupid is not smart. You can be stupid and smart at the same time. However, you just proved with that statement that you are not smart. So once again (in case you lost the link), I will ask the question:

    What is the null hypothesis?

    You have provided NO PROOF of anything – NO EVIDENCE of anything. Which is not surprising since you have not answered the basic question yet. Until you do, you have done nothing but demonstrate your stupidity.

    So there is nothing to prove or disprove. At least not to you since you do not know what you are talking about.

  24. drewski says:

    PJ, Still no evidence ay?

    If you can remember, I actually referenced the Met, NASA and the NOAA — those “institutions that record temperatures” — which showed that the last decade was the warmest in their data sets.

    What you have showed me is that “warming is not warm” — knowledge I will ponder for years to come

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Evidence of what? You have no evidence, since you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Unless you answer the basic question, you are just proving your ignorance.

      I showed you nothing. I told you that “warming” and “warm” are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. You cannot understand that, but then you have not been able to understand anything so far.

      So quit with the red herrings and strawmen and answer the question. Until you do, there is no help for you. Stupid is as stupid does.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Drewski:
      What does that warming mean?
      In you own words or a peer reviewed paper.
      The claim that it is warming alone is debatable but that minor point aside, What does the warming indicate to you, if indeed it is warming.

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