Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    No, it is corrected data. There is a big difference. And the raw data does show the same trend, but not the same magnitude.

    When an instrument has a bias, we apply a correction. For example, if a CCD imager has a certain residual image due to variance in current flow through the device, we take a dark image (an image with no light on the CCD) and we SUBTRACT that image from any image we take with the CCD. This gives us a more accurate image by compensating for known defects in the imager. Likewise, if a speedometer reads +4% over the range 0 to 90mph, we multiply the value given by the speedometer by .96153 to get the actual speed.

    Notice that the corrections are allowing us to see what was actually happening at the time. They are not making the data be what we want. That is a difference between valid science and pseudo-science. The procedures, instrumentation, sites etc have been studied and systemic biases uncovered. The biases are then corrected for to give a value much closer to what the actual conditions were at the time of measurement.

    Weighted data is something very different. But I don't need to explain that to explain your error. There are known biases in the old temperature data. Those biases tend to make them read a higher temperature than would be read by modern equipment (read that as equipment without the associated bias). So to compare readings from the two sets of data, one must subtract out the known bias from the data containing the bias. When one does that, the older temperatures measured the old way reflect values that are much closer to the actual values they were trying to measure and which can be reliably compared to the modern data.
    One immediately wonders if you even know what weighting IS? Weighting is done to CORRECT for SKEW - so exactly how is 'correcting' not essentially the same exact thing? Especially since your second paragraph DESCRIBES WEIGHTING! Or is it that you are actually STUPID enough to not know that WEIGHTING in survey research ISN'T what you think it is?!?!?!

    Congratulations, you've finally given me cause to call you stupid. Happy?

    And then there's the 'we need to correct our raw data' bit - which brings the raw data into question.

    GAH!

    Even if - and I'm not even close to conceding this based on what you wrote - correcting were somehow fundamentally different (hard to prove when you DESCRIBE THE SAME THING) it would still have similar issues - when you (general) think you're fixing something, you are running the risk of entering your own bias.




    But you clearly don't understand the difference between weighted data and corrected data. For example, the TOBS adjustment I am talking about is not a weight, it is a correction. Likewise, if a thermometer was moved from a site that due to urban heat island trended 2 degrees warmer than the sight is was moved to, the data itself is also corrected for that shift over time. Homogenization is also a bias removal technique, were sites that tend to give biased readings are adjusted based on readings from areas around it (this has to be done carefully, a thermometer in a valley legitimately gives warmer readings that the 10 thermometers around it that are located in the hills above the valley).

    But again, in summary, the majority (I can't guarantee all) of what we are talking about, and certainly the most significant contributors to the adjustments made, are not weights. They are know bias corrections.

    Jim
    That's it - welcome to ignore. I'm tired of this underhanded nastiness of yours. I'm neither ignorant nor stupid and I am NOT putting up with your back handed name calling any longer.

    YOU are the one that doesn't know what the bleep WEIGHTING actually IS!

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      And the raw data does show the same trend, but not the same magnitude.
      False. I've shown you examples in this thread and in past discussions where cooling trends are "corrected" into warming ones.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        One immediately wonders if you even know what weighting IS? Weighting is done to CORRECT for SKEW - so exactly how is 'correcting' not essentially the same exact thing? Especially since your second paragraph DESCRIBES WEIGHTING! Or is it that you are actually STUPID enough to not know that WEIGHTING in survey research ISN'T what you think it is?!?!?!
        Teal - it is possible there are different definitions of weighting being used in different fields. Nevertheless, you are not understanding what I am talking about. I am talking about applying a correction for known systematic bias in a physical measuring system. I am not talking about population bias in answering questions. In your dismissal of the corrections you have so far not shown any actual understanding of them, nor have you given any substantive evaluation of their correctness.

        Congratulations, you've finally given me cause to call you stupid. Happy?
        I could expect no less from you. It is your defining characteristic.

        And then there's the 'we need to correct our raw data' bit - which brings the raw data into question.

        GAH!
        No it doesn't. I can take measurements from an instrument with a known bias and have no concern at all about the result once I apply the bias. As long as the bias doesn't change, that instrument can be as accurate or even more accurate than an instrument that has very little bias.

        Even if - and I'm not even close to conceding this based on what you wrote - correcting were somehow fundamentally different (hard to prove when you DESCRIBE THE SAME THING) it would still have similar issues - when you (general) think you're fixing something, you are running the risk of entering your own bias.
        With physical devices, you can measure the bias. With physical systems, you can study their characteristics. TOBs is simply the result of studying what happens to a temperature average when the readings are taken at different times. There is an algorithm for adjusting between systems where the TOB's differ. Likewise, we can study the different temperatures inside the thermometer housing at the same site using different types of outside paint, and we can then adjust older measurements made in housing painted with paint A and newer measurements made in housing painted with paint B. And so on.

        Perhaps you are confusing the fact the math can be the same even though the purpose is different. Take my speedometer example. To remove the bias I multiply by a constant. Now in many cases where data is weighted, I also multiply by a constant. Take the previously mentioned weighting of test and homework results. But the purpose is quite different. The multiplier used on the speedometer corrects for measurement bias, the multiplier in the semester average controls the amount of influence that data point has on the final solution.



        That's it - welcome to ignore. I'm tired of this underhanded nastiness of yours. I'm neither ignorant nor stupid and I am NOT putting up with your back handed name calling any longer.

        YOU are the one that doesn't know what the bleep WEIGHTING actually IS!
        I think there may be some difference in how we are using the terms - I'm not going to continue with that accusation. Nevertheless, it is clear you are misapplying your work in the social sciences to this topic.

        The 4 adjustments listed define known, well studied biases in the data. TOBs is just plain math. Reading temperature data at different times of day introduce fixed and known bias into the temperature average. Some of the components of Homogenization could legitimately be argued as perhaps risky - but you aren't doing that - and they introduce on .2 degree when used in the US data. The other two have minimal impact but are fairly robust, more like TOBs. These are not made up things, they are real, and their effect tends to reduce the value of older measurements for well known reasons.




        Jim
        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          False. I've shown you examples in this thread and in past discussions where cooling trends are "corrected" into warming ones.
          This comment is a moving of the goal posts. I'm talking about the overall trend from 1880 to the present. During that period there are several changes in slope for short term trends.

          And I will admit the adjustment may well change one or more short term trends. I am talking about the 100 year trend. THE trend. The overall warming. I mean, I was quite clear discussing the change in the Atlantic circulation that resulted in an almost 2 degree cooling on the southeast coast of the US. That is part of the cooling/flat trend between 1955 and 1970 or so for the US. That short term trend does not change the fact we have warmed. But the adjustments, which may turn that short term trend from cooling to flat or maybe even warming, still only affect the magnitude of the 100 year trend. The trend is the overall direction. And that overall direction is UP and continues to be so.


          Jim
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-31-2019, 07:38 PM.
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            I am talking about the 100 year trend. THE trend.
            And what about the 1000 year trend? Or the 1 million year trend?

            But, anyway, you'll hear climate nutjobs whoop and holler about "Hottest year on record!" ... but only because the trend was "corrected" to decrease the previous record holder and increase whatever year they're whooping and hollering about. This has happened repeatedly.
            Last edited by Mountain Man; 07-31-2019, 07:42 PM.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              A couple of points. First, where I live in southern New England used to be covered with 50-100 foot glaciers. Glacial melt has been happening for for 15,000 years ( and no one really knows why). Perhaps this preset warming is just a more rapid continuation of what caused warming since the ice age and as the heat increases so does the rate or feedback (as you said: warming begets more warming.). According to NOAA the earth has warmed about 1 degree Celsius since 1880. Which hasn't caused any unusual weather conditions, who know how bad a 1.5 degree rise will be - really. And remember the Arctic was once tropical, perhaps the earth is just returning to what it once was.
              If you look at the temperature trends, the change in slope is unmatched by any historical measure. As for 'no one really knows why' - that is a bit of a stretch. We know that historically glaciers advance and recede, the climate warms and it cools. We know there are astronomical correlations with the recession of the Earth and the relationship between summer/winter and the close/far points in our orbit. The periods match. But there is little to match what we see today in the historical record of temperature change - so the idea this is part of that natural cycle doesn't have a great deal of merit.

              As for the arctic being tropical ... I think you may mean Antarctica (that is the more commonly reference pole for past Tropical weather because it is so cold there and a continent), but both were - at 55 and 52 million years ago respectively - many glacial cycles in the past - before the glacial cycles actually (first one was 2.4 million years ago).

              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-31-2019, 07:50 PM.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                And what about the 1000 year trend? Or the 1 million year trend?

                But, anyway, you'll hear climate nutjobs whoop and holler about "Hottest year on record!" ... but only because the trend was "corrected" to decrease the previous record holder and increase whatever year they're whooping and hollering about. This has happened repeatedly.
                We are at the end of a glacial of 100,000 years or so. Glacials are a trend that started 2.4 million years ago. The distant past has all sorts of climactic differences from our current world. The continents where in different places. Sometimes there was only 1 continent. It's been WAY hotter than now. We've had several times life was almost completely obliterated. But all of that is irrelevant to a world where humans live and work on the Earth and the impact to us and our civilization of the current warming trend. We have only been here about 100,000 years. And our civilizations appear to mostly only have prospered in the last 10,000 or less. The period of the current inter glacial. Nevertheless, we are kicking that temperature up at a rate unprecedented. And by mechanisms (greenhouse gas emissions) that are not quickly abated.

                Bottom line - Your mockery only belies your lack of understanding - a real waste of what is actually, as best I can tell, a good mind.


                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-31-2019, 08:01 PM.
                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  The fact is Jim the earth has been warming since the ice age, and we do not KNOW what those drivers were. Is this just a continuation of that process?
                  This is not the scientific view. It's the uninformed rationalization of climate-change deniers.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Nevertheless, we are kicking that temperature up at a rate unprecedented.
                    At least according to the "corrected" data.

                    As I've said before, if creationists were to put their thumbs on the scale as blatantly as climatologists, the howls of protest from the secular scientific community would be deafening.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      I could expect no less from you. It is your defining characteristic.
                      Wow.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        If you look at the temperature trends, the change in slope is unmatched by any historical measure. As for 'no one really knows why' - that is a bit of a stretch. We know that historically glaciers advance and recede, the climate warms and it cools. We know there are astronomical correlations with the recession of the Earth and the relationship between summer/winter and the close/far points in our orbit. The periods match. But there is little to match what we see today in the historical record of temperature change - so the idea this is part of that natural cycle doesn't have a great deal of merit.
                        First, Jim I'm not sure what glaciers have advanced for the last 20,000 years. They haven't come back to New England since the. There has been a pretty consistent warming (besides the little ice age) for many thousands of years. And as you said warming begets more warming, and in the last 100 years or so deforestation has been unprecedented (which adds to the present warming). And no Jim, we do not know what has cause the warming since the little ice age - every theory has serious problems. So is man adding to the problem, probably, but who know how much our meager 3% of the total Co2 is driving this.


                        The reason for the retreat of the ice sheets remains elusive, however. Whereas there was a change in the relative strength of the sun roughly 20,000 years ago thanks to variations in the planet's orbit, it was smaller than changes that preceded it and failed to trigger a melt. In fact, ice cores from Greenland suggest there was an even larger warming event in the north roughly 60,000 years ago, notes climate scientist Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey in a comment on the findings also published in Nature.

                        "We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research. The melting in the north could have been triggered "because the ice sheets had reached such a size that they had become unstable and were ready to go." This may also help explain the cyclical rise and fall of ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years.

                        Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. "There is no convincing evidence that a sufficiently large reservoir of old metabolic carbon existed in some mysterious location in the glacial ocean only to be ventilated during deglaciation," argues paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California, who was not involved in the study. But a paper published online in Science on March 29 suggests that the extra CO2 did come from the Southern Ocean, based on analysis of the isotopes of carbon embedded in the molecule most responsible for global warming. Stott also argues that the timing of the warming versus that of increasing CO2 levels remain too close to be sure which came first. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/

                        As for the arctic being tropical ... I think you may mean Antarctica (that is the more commonly reference pole for past Tropical weather because it is so cold there and a continent), but both were - at 55 and 52 million years ago respectively - many glacial cycles in the past - before the glacial cycles actually (first one was 2.4 million years ago).

                        Jim
                        No I was speaking of the Arctic:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-n...-was-tropical/ and the point is there is no mean temperature for the earth, and I doubt very much that we understand all the variables that drive this preset warming.
                        Last edited by seer; 08-01-2019, 10:36 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          This is not the scientific view. It's the uninformed rationalization of climate-change deniers.
                          You were saying?

                          The reason for the retreat of the ice sheets remains elusive, however. Whereas there was a change in the relative strength of the sun roughly 20,000 years ago thanks to variations in the planet's orbit, it was smaller than changes that preceded it and failed to trigger a melt. In fact, ice cores from Greenland suggest there was an even larger warming event in the north roughly 60,000 years ago, notes climate scientist Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey in a comment on the findings also published in Nature.

                          "We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research. The melting in the north could have been triggered "because the ice sheets had reached such a size that they had become unstable and were ready to go." This may also help explain the cyclical rise and fall of ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years.

                          Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. "There is no convincing evidence that a sufficiently large reservoir of old metabolic carbon existed in some mysterious location in the glacial ocean only to be ventilated during deglaciation," argues paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California, who was not involved in the study. But a paper published online in Science on March 29 suggests that the extra CO2 did come from the Southern Ocean, based on analysis of the isotopes of carbon embedded in the molecule most responsible for global warming. Stott also argues that the timing of the warming versus that of increasing CO2 levels remain too close to be sure which came first. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            First, Jim I'm not sure what glaciers have advanced for the last 20,000 years. They haven't come back to New England since the. There has been a pretty consistent warming (besides the little ice age) for many thousands of years. And as you said warming begets more warming, and in the last 100 years or so deforestation has been unprecedented (which adds to the present warming). And no Jim, we do not know what has cause the warming since the little ice age - every theory has serious problems. So is man adding to the problem, probably, but who know how much our meager 3% of the total Co2 is driving this.
                            The warming itself hit a hiatus about 13,000 years ago due most likely to an asteroid impact (Younger Dryas - current best guess - recently announced finding hard evidence of it) which plunged us back into an ice age for about 1500 years, then the modern warming began in earnest about 11,600 years ago.

                            Meager 3%? You guys persist in not reading anything but anti-climate pseudo science. The natural equilibrium is just that - equilibrium. Of what we are adding, only about 40% can be reabsorbed. So about 60% of what we add STAYS and is not reabsorbed. That is why there is a steady, year over year advance in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. IT doesn't matter that nature contributes 20x what we do if the earth can only reabsorb what nature naturally creates. What we add then pushes the concentration up slowly year by year, decade by decade. About 3ppm per year (current rate), from around 300ppm at the start of the 20th century to over 410ppm now - an increase of 33%. And the real problem is that of that growth, 80% if it in from 1980 to the present - the growth is not linear.


                            co2_and_ch4_thick_25pct.png



                            No I was speaking of the Arctic:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-n...-was-tropical/ and the point is there is no mean temperature for the earth, and I doubt very much that we understand all the variables that drive this preset warming.
                            NP, I note that both were tropical ... over 50 million years ago. As for 'don't really understand', what you really mean is "can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt". AFAIK, we know, we are the only continuously rising source of CO2 on the planet. There isn't much else that can be producing the steady rise we see based on what we know at this time.

                            No, there is no mean temperature for the earth over it's entire lifetime. But we are talking about the time when mankind has been on the Earth and the species that cohabit it with us. And it is not so much the mean temperature as it is the rate of change that is critical. Slow enough, life adapts. Too fast, some can, some can't. But I'm not as much about the gloom and doom potential of warming, and more just that it IS and it is REAL. What that means to us, the the Earth etc, that is another dicussion.

                            THIS THREAD mocks the idea that we are running out of time to limit temperature growth to 1.5C. And the author is wrong. But what does 1.5C mean? How do we respond to it? Do we care? Should we care? Those are other questions and the answers to those questions should NOT be driving how we interpret or understand the science showing that the planet is warming and how fast it is warming. Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to get people to deal with the question of IS the planet warming due to human activity independent from the politics of WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT.


                            Jim
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-01-2019, 12:51 PM.
                            He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                            "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              The warming itself hit a hiatus about 13,000 years ago due most likely to an asteroid impact (Younger Dryas - current best guess - recently announced finding hard evidence of it) which plunged us back into an ice age for about 1500 years, then the modern warming began in earnest about 11,600 years ago.
                              OK and?

                              Meager 3%? You guys persist in not reading anything but anti-climate pseudo science. The natural equilibrium is just that - equilibrium. Of what we are adding, only about 40% can be reabsorbed. So about 60% of what we add STAYS and is not reabsorbed. That is why there is a steady, year over year advance in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. IT doesn't matter that nature contributes 20x what we do if the earth can only reabsorb what nature naturally creates. What we add then pushes the concentration up slowly year by year, decade by decade. About 3ppm per year, from around 300ppm at the start of the 20th century to over 410ppm now - an increase of 33%. And the real problem is that of that growth, 80% if it in from 1980 to the present - the growth is not linear.


                              NP, I note that both were tropical ... over 50 million years ago. As for 'don't really understand', what you really mean is "can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt". AFAIK, we know, we are the only continuously rising source of CO2 on the planet. There isn't much else that can be producing the steady rise we see based on what we know at this time.


                              Jim
                              Jim, did you read my link? We don't even know in the past if the rise of Co2 preceded the warming or if the warming drove the rise in Co2. And, I quote:Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. So in these past warming trends we don't even know where this extra Co2 came from. And what exactly is the natural equilibrium for the earth? What is the mean? And if we were not cutting down trees and such a rate most of his may be mitigated.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                                . Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to get people to deal with the question of IS the planet warming due to human activity independent from the politics of WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT.
                                Maybe cos people like to jump from 'warming is happening' to 'we must pull all stops to stop warming cos sky is falling!!!' Measure of temp more certain than prophesy of disaster, but they pretend cos we are so so sure about warming we are so so sure that sky is falling.

                                Tell demi 'earth is warming, even unprecedented'. Ok, so what???
                                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Maranatha, Yesterday, 10:58 PM
                                3 responses
                                30 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Terraceth  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 03:56 PM
                                3 responses
                                28 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:32 AM
                                13 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:11 AM
                                1 response
                                31 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:28 AM
                                1 response
                                33 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X