Hockey Stick Revisited in Brand New Context

[waldo]

Please do...your credibility on that count is already shot to hell. Time to drain the live well.

whaaa! My credibility in this regard is doing quite well - thank you very much. However, I could again recommend further remedial work for you... next time before you decide to spout off about climate data integrity and cast broad-based aspersions toward an organization, one most heavily ensconced in ensuring it's integrity and the integrity of it's climate data processing/management, you might want to spend some time in, (1) making sure you're referencing the appropriate organization - you know, realize that NOAA's OR&R organization has nothing to do with it's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); (2) making sure you actually understand something about NOAA's climate data processing and management and the efforts involved by NOAA scientists to ensure the integrity of it's climate data/management; (3) making sure you actually understand something about website disclaimers (you know, website content/presentation versus the integrity of the underlying data/management separate and distinct from what might be available at any particular time from a website); (4) seek counseling for your obsessive insecurity - perhaps start with acknowledging you actually reside in Regina - hey?

now, many deniers have attempted to disparage NOAA's NCDC in previous MLW threads... Simple was regularly trotting out his favoured TV weatherman's challenges to the integrity of NCDC data/management. There's a veritable denier cottage industry out there! Why don't you go google-happy and actually come back with something to presume to denigrate NOAA's NCDC and it's climate data management... you know, pursue practical extension in hoping to work on improving on your severely beaten credibility. Go for it - sure, you can!

[waldo]

You got trolled hard Waldo. But if you have been here long enough, you'd know how BC posts. You can't fall for this kind of shtick, but then again, you do like to insult many in almost every post you do, tit for tat really. If you really want to get rid of him, just hit that report button. Trolling is considered against the rules here, but yet he blatantly says he is trolling. You can do something or keep whining.

hardly - I decided to toy with the troll and momentarily pulled him off my ignore list... his 'shtick' is exactly why he's been on my ignore list - he's a predictable troll forever playing his one-trick dog&pony show... from Regina!

But anyways because of the disclaimer on the NOAA site, they consider all other data useless, because if it screws or modifies their model at all, they may not get the results they are really looking for. That is not science at all. Scientists can't be biased with the results. If the tests and data are true and accurate and consistent, then you got something. But if they don't want to consider other valuable data, then they are not doing science anymore. They are not able to give us an accurate and real picture of this AWG.

bullshit! Be specific - absolute... I will run you to wall on this. Go for it.

And it is good to note that the terms have changed over the years.

Global Warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Climate change

Climate disruption

ect ect ect .............why has the term changed so many times? Soon it will be just another meaningless term thrown around for convenience, like the War on Terror, for example.

the terms mean different things - are you truly that obtuse?

[waldo]

That phrase doesn't mean what people think it does.

yes, as dealt with many times over within previous MLW threads - "Hide the Decline" is/was a standard denier parrot routine... as I stated, no self-respecting semi-literate denier even bothers to trot that one out anymore since it's been so soundly beaten back... of course, since B_C is neither self-respecting or semi-literate...

[bush_cheney2004]

whaaa! My credibility in this regard is doing quite well - thank you very much. However, I could again recommend further remedial work for you...

Yada, yada, yada......America, America.

Why don't you go google-happy and actually come back with something to presume to denigrate....

Why would I do that? I love the NOAA...they make the best nautical charts in the world! America...America

[waldo]

Yada, yada, yada......America, America.

Why would I do that? I love the NOAA...they make the best nautical charts in the world! America...America

ok, ok... I accept your unconditional surrender!

[bush_cheney2004]

hardly - I decided to toy with the troll and momentarily pulled him off my ignore list... his 'shtick' is exactly why he's been on my ignore list - he's a predictable troll forever playing his one-trick dog&pony show... from Regina!

The "tard" and "troll" simply posted a NOAA data disclaimer without any further comment. The resulting over-reaction from waldo was priceless!

[waldo]

The "tard" and "troll" simply posted a NOAA data disclaimer without any further comment. The resulting over-reaction from waldo was priceless!

keep on trying to salvage it - hey? What again does a website disclaimer (separate from anything to do with underlying non-website data integrity), one from an unrelated organization that has nothing to do with climate data, actually buy you?

again, what was truly priceless was your back-peddling and attempted save-face routine; however, I wouldn't necessarily call it an over-reaction on your part... it's really just your standard fare. You're back to simply recycling your nothingness... do you have more? Would you like... more?

The site says everything you need to know about AGW, or climate change or whatever, then it's all practically negated by the disclaimer.

The devil is in the

detail

disclaimer.

Pretty much as you said....and no doubt a direct result of the AGW circus we have seen recently.

In God We Trust...all others bring data!

[bush_cheney2004]

keep on trying to salvage it - hey? What again does a website disclaimer (separate from anything to do with underlying non-website data integrity), one from an unrelated organization that has nothing to do with climate data, actually buy you?

"buy" me? Another member found the disclaimer interesting and relevant. But we forgot this is The Waldo Show! LOL!

Hide the Decline!!!!

[waldo]

"buy" me? Another member found the disclaimer interesting and relevant. But we forgot this is The Waldo Show! LOL!

Hide the Decline!!!!

excellent... now we see you reaching for a friend! ... one who lapped up that disclaimer without actually bothering to check where it was from and what it applied to. Why don't you lay it out for your friend (he still seems to be in lapper mode) - why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[GostHacked]

hardly - I decided to toy with the troll and momentarily pulled him off my ignore list... his 'shtick' is exactly why he's been on my ignore list - he's a predictable troll forever playing his one-trick dog&pony show... from Regina!

Actually he was toying with you, and you fell for it. Should have kept him on ignore and kept walking.

bullshit! Be specific - absolute... I will run you to wall on this. Go for it.

So in order for you to convince me that you are right, you are going to run me into a wall. Is that like beating some sense into a child when they don't understand something? Has that ever really worked? Resorting to violence won't get you anywhere.

the terms mean different things - are you truly that obtuse?

Yes they do mean different things.. so why are they all used the same way when talking about Climate change and the impact it will have on the world? All the terms are used to show that the world is getting hotter.

[waldo]

Actually he was toying with you, and you fell for it. Should have kept him on ignore and kept walking.

hardly - he screwed up and hasn't the balls to acknowledge it... instead he plays the back-peddling save-face fool routine, one he's quite versed in. I'll also acknowledge your enabling - well done. By the way, since you fell into his irrelevant and unrelated disclaimer - you lapped it up... what does that make you - other than a lapper? Were you 'toyed' with... did you like it?

So in order for you to convince me that you are right, you are going to run me into a wall. Is that like beating some sense into a child when they don't understand something? Has that ever really worked? Resorting to violence won't get you anywhere.

nice try - it's an expression suggesting we'll engage in a long and winding path that will have you absolutely needing to precisely and contextually apply your assertion. As it stands now, you've simply expounded on your lapper idolizing for an irrelevant and unrelated disclaimer - one that has nothing to do with, none whatsoever, underlying climate data integrity and the appropriate organization (within NOAA) responsible for that climate data processing/management. You simply puffed up your earlier puffery... the same challenge offered to the 'tard' awaits you. If you feel so emboldened with your (for now) baseless assertion, spend some cycles and come back with something to actually question the data integrity/processing within NOAA's NCDC organization. Otherwise stfu - was that clear enough... too violent?

Yes they do mean different things.. so why are they all used the same way when talking about Climate change and the impact it will have on the world? All the terms are used to show that the world is getting hotter.

great - thanks for acknowledging the multiple terms actually mean different things. Are they used the same way? By who? If they are used the same way, then that use is misunderstood usage, or improperly applied usage, or contextually incorrect usage, or... - ya, think?

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually he was toying with you, and you fell for it. Should have kept him on ignore and kept walking.

Absolutely....you know how I roll. I used one of his favorite sites against him.

So in order for you to convince me that you are right, you are going to run me into a wall. Is that like beating some sense into a child when they don't understand something? Has that ever really worked? Resorting to violence won't get you anywhere.

You tried to tell him in a very reasonable way, but this guy goes into screeching alarm mode instantly. They are trained to shout down and insult anyone perceived as a "denier", so desperate be the situation given the past year.

[Keepitsimple]

Tree rings do have their place, especially when they can be validated against observations. One of the big reasons that Global Warming is increasingly failing to resonate with the public is the radical claims of oceans rising, snow disappearing, polar bears dying.....exaggerating the SYMPTOMS of what could be natural climate variations, manmade variations, or a combination of both. One such exaggeration is the melting of the Tibetan snowpack. Here's a fairly straight forward article that offers a fuller perspective:

Liu et al. had snowpack data for their study area from 1988 to 2004, and as seen below, the tree ring measurements were relatively good at predicting variance in the snowpack measurements. As you look at the figure below, ask yourself if there is any evidence of a decline in snowpack in western China. Oh no, there is evidence of a decline, and we are amazed this finding hasn’t been reported already throughout the world. We suspect the reason why is because the tree rings allow for a reconstruction of snowpack extending back to 1890, and the longer term data tell a completely different story.

The graph below certainly makes the downward trend from 1988 to 2004 look a whole lot differently, doesn’t it? Liu et al. describe the patterns noting “The most notable features of the reconstruction are the higher snow accumulation around 1990. The reconstruction also shows that the Gongga Mountain experienced some lower snow-depth episodes during 1910s, 1930s, 1950–1980, and later 1990s. The higher snow-depth intervals occurred during 1910s, 1940s, and the period around 1990 with the highest values during past 100 years. We defined extreme snowpack depth years as those years with values more than one standard deviation (plus or minus) from the average. Although there are several clusters of extreme years over the past century, the century is notable for the long period of snow-depth variations in a normal way except the higher snowpack depth values around 1990.”

So, what we get here is a classic case of an apparent decline in snowpack from the late-1980s to the near-present, and someone might be tempted to suggest the decline is related to global warming. The Chinese scientists figured a way to reconstruct snowpack going back over 100 years, and that time series shows no evidence whatsoever of any downward trend (in fact, there appears to be a slight upward trend in the data).

So you thought snowpacks were declining everywhere in the world? Think again!

Link: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/10/08/tibetan-snowpack-decreasing/#more-450

[waldo]

Absolutely....you know how I troll. I used one of his favorite sites against him.

fixed it for ya...

nope, sorry - won't fly, no matter how many times you try to weasel it. You presumed to attack the integrity of climate data (NOAA's climate data) by stupidly and ignorantly quoting an unrelated and irrelevant disclaimer - one that has absolutely nothing to do with climate data or the area within NOAA responsible for climate data. You failed - accept it. Is it that hard for you - really? For you to, as you say, "use one of my favourite sites against me", you'd have to actually quote from the relevant related site (not from OR&R, as you did)... and quote from something actually relevant to the underlying data integrity separate from website presentation. Since you did neither, your troll was exposed big time and came back to bite you in the ass - big time.

I quoted from/linked to NOAA's 2010 Arctic Report Card - a report authored by an international grouping of scientists, referencing an international complement of published papers, endorsed by an international community (the Arctic Council of nations). Wow! I've also made past references to NOAA's NCDC in regards to the silly and unfounded TV weatherman attacks on the integrity of the surface temperature record... what was Simple's favoured path for so long. That makes NOAA, as you say, "one of my favoured sites" - really?

You tried to tell him in a very reasonable way, but this guy goes into screeching alarm mode instantly. They are trained to shout down and insult anyone perceived as a "denier", so desperate be the situation given the past year.

ha! To you, "reasonable" is someone lapping up your unrelated and irrelevant attempt to denigrate climate data and the organization within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for that climate data. You failed - big time... your "reasonable" attachment holds no significance/weight. Here, let's have you keep coming back to this following quote - I'll keep it handy and repeatedly draw your attention in failing to answer it... or... you could just accept you failed - man up, hey?

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[bush_cheney2004]

fixed it for ya...

America...America...God shed his data on thee!

[waldo]

America...America...God shed his data on thee!

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[jbg]

special dispensation applied to converse with the normally muted:

hey laughing boy... your idiocy is on full display - what could be sweeter than a full frontal exposing of your brazen know-nothing pomposity. Genius boy **********

irony? Just keep on, keeping on... like I said, nothing sweeter than a full frontal exposing of your brazen know-nothing pomposity. Well done, sir - well done, indeed!

beauty... you spin your colossal screw-up into a... wait for it... failure to apply appropriate editorial review!

**************

oh no... no way... I prefer to keep your downward spiral on full frontal display - keep up your failed work/best!

Quite an elevated, considered discussion of the merits </sarcasm>

[bush_cheney2004]

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

The association was made by you alone...the American NOAA posted the data disclaimer without any input from me. Complain to them as an "angry Canadian" if you wish....LOL!

[waldo]

Quite an elevated, considered discussion of the merits </sarcasm>

I am taken aback, truly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH46oIA6I2c

[jbg]

I am taken aback, truly

Very mature for a "bris" age boy or maybe for a Bar Mitzvah age boy.

Edited November 3, 2010 by jbg

[waldo]

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

The association was made by you alone...the American NOAA posted the data disclaimer without any input from me. Complain to them as an "angry Canadian" if you wish....LOL!

it just keeps getting better. So... even though your intent to disparage climate data/NOAA was well staged and even though you acknowledged it, wholeheartedly, to your lapping lil' buddy... your newest, latest save-face reach has you claiming to have randomly sought out, purposely, an unrelated and irrelevant disclaimer - one that has nothing to do with climate data or the area within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for climate data management. You really should take a break and walk away from the keyboard, genius boy!

here... once again:

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[bush_cheney2004]

it just keeps getting better.

Yes, the American NOAA is much better since reigning in such absurd claims based on its data. Now I wonder why it did that....hmmmmmmmm?

[waldo]

Very mature for a "bris" age boy or maybe for a Bar Mitzvah age boy.

it's on the level of your denier arguments - the one's you continually make and later claim, when challenged, that your full time job doesn't allow you to properly vet your arguments for accuracy. It's just too bad you don't have the integrity to actually stand behind your arguments, as offered... or withdraw them when you fail to substantiate them. But instead, we get your half-assed best... like initiating this bullshit thread - the 'hockey stick' - really? Or like you playing the high & mighty offering sanctimonious /snarc into the mix ala your, "elevated, considered discussion of the merits" statement. Is that what you intended with this thread... elevated, considered discussion of the merits... is that what you intended with this, your bullshit thread?

[waldo]

Yes, the American NOAA is much better since reigning in such absurd claims based on its data. Now I wonder why it did that....hmmmmmmmm?

what, you're hummer boy now?

I see we're making progress and you're wanting to discuss data again... here, chew on the following, again... perhaps you'll actually be able to speak to your now stated "reigning in", your now stated "absurd claims". But... won't that mean you'll actually have to be specific and apply related and relevant reference to actual climate data and the actual area within NOAA (NCDC) responsible for that climate data/management? Such a quandary you'll find yourself in, hey? Actually needing to be specific and apply appropriate related and relevant reference to climate data and the area responsible for it.

c'mon... just answer the questions - sure you can!

...why don't you tell your lil' buddy what relevance there is in you quoting a website disclaimer from NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration... just exactly what does that have to do with climate data integrity and your attempt to disparage climate data and the actual area within NOAA (the NCDC) responsible for climate data processing/management? C'mon... lay it out for your friend. Don't hide your decline - be proud of it... be loud and proud of it!

[bush_cheney2004]

what, you're hummer boy now?

I see we're making progress and you're wanting to discuss data again...

That was the original intent, but it seems to upset you so. Good!