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

  • Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?
    No. Why? Politics!

    Europe’s green parties have made major gains across the continent in this week’s EU elections in a “Green wave”, according to results released overnight on Sunday.
    Need 'sky is falling' fear for mobilisation of voters.
    Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

    Comment


    • The world is flat, therefore GLOBAL warming is false.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        No, actually, I don't 'believe in' science. It's a methodology that I find sound and usually works well - but those that report it are as human as any other, make mistakes, have bad days - and even sometimes are bad actors. But 'science' isn't something to 'believe in' - it either works and can be trusted or it doesn't.

        So no, no faith in science - just conviction that the methodology does work when used correctly. And an equal conviction that humans don't stop being human when they don lab coats.
        Ok, and though not believing in science is pretty sad in itself, it's no excuse for burying your head in the sand.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Ok, and though not believing in science is pretty sad in itself, it's no excuse for burying your head in the sand.
          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?
          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
            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?
            Another science denier, I see. No seer, the science shows that we are the cause, and that only we can stop it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mossrose View Post
              I just love how the faithful are so taken with the science of climate change, even when it contradicts itself over and over again, but refuse to listen to those scientists who will tell you that there are only 2 genders and that an unborn baby is actually a human being before it's born.

              Talk about cherry-picking.........
              'Science' is their loyal servant.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Another science denier, I see. No seer, the science shows that we are the cause, and that only we can stop it.
                I'm not denying science, the earth is getting warmer and has been for 20,000 years or more. Of the total Co2 man contributes about 3% - is that enough ALONE to drive this preset warming? Are there other factors? We don't know - period. And BTW Jim, we are not going to stop it, without China, Africa and India on board (and they are not) nothing will change.
                Last edited by seer; 07-31-2019, 08:38 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 Mountain Man View Post
                  Two words: "adjusted data".
                  Ah yes - the old 'but they changed the data'.

                  Let me try to help unveil the 'mystery of the changed data' which gives rise to so many of the pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories related to climate science.

                  The four major adjustments to the US temperature data are:

                  1) Quality control on the Raw data itself

                  2) Time of observation bias

                  3) Pairwise homogenization

                  4) infilling of missing station months

                  Time of observation Bias and Homogenization are the chief offenders in the global conspiracy/fake science crowd. Why? Because together they account for about .45 degree C of the almost 2 degree C rise from 1960 to the present seen in the US data.

                  us-cag-annual-tavg-620.jpg

                  Temperature adjustment deltas.jpg

                  ** see explanation below

                  (This is US data, not global data. It is helpful to understand that - relative to GLOBAL temperature rise - over the period around 1955 to 1975 and affecting the eastern continental US, there was a change in the Atlantic circulation that contributed somewhere between .25 and .5 degree C of COOLING in the US average during that period, thus the restoration to normal circulation accounts for another < .5 degree of the 2 degree rise. It and other factors account for the somewhat flat period of temperature growth we see in and around that time)

                  The most significant of the adjustments is Time of Observation Bias (TOBS). It contributes about .25 C to that same rise. With homogenization adding in another .2C

                  Where do these come from? Time of Observation Bias comes from a change over time in WHEN the high and low readings for the day were taken - with the previous method producing slightly WARMER*** average temperatures than the current measurements. This means that adjusting for TOBS makes older temperatures look warmer than they were relative to current methods. the second is the homogenization which includes a large number of algorithms designed to remove detectable biases (urban heat island, site changes from inner cities/towns to isolated areas like airports etc) One of the large of these was due to changeover in the types of housing of the instruments and the type of thermometer used. These changes almost universally introduced positive biases into the older data. And thus make modern termperatures look cooler than they would be if taken using older equipent or at the same sites as the older measurements.

                  IOW, changes in measurement methods and equipment have revealed that our older temperature data is biased slightly warmer relative to what would have been recorded by modern equipment and siting practices. And so, in order to understand what is happening to the climate, those net positive biases need to be removed from the older data.

                  None of this is arbitrary, and it is all supported by sound research. We can look directly at what happens to temperature data taken with the equipment and practices used at the historical time of measurement and compare that to what happens using the current standards. That is, we can look at what data is recorded by older equipment using older siting practices and compare that directly to readings taken at the same site using modern equipment and practices. This defines the bias. And these sources are the primary contributors to the downward adjustment of older data which reveal a hidden 25% of the actual warming in the US*.

                  And the less scientifically minded need to understand it that if we could go back in time and use modern equipment and siting methods, we would see the same temperature delta over time as is shown by the adjusted data. IOW, after adjustment, the data is much closer to the REAL temperature change seen in the continental US than the raw data itself. And that is born out by looking at other independent indicators of temperature rise - such as the extent of the frost free season, rises in CO2 over time, arctic sea ice extent, sea level rise and so on.

                  For more thorough treatment of the issues see:

                  https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html

                  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...l-etal1986.pdf

                  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...e-etal2003.pdf


                  Jim

                  *it is critical that we also understand this is US data, not necessarily global data - that distinction also often gets lost by those less well versed in the actual data and science

                  ** these deltas are based on order of application. RCed, TOBS, HOM, infilled So the deltas are QCED-RAW, then TOBS-QCED, then HOM-TOBS, then infilled - HOM. The cumulative total is primarily in TOBS and HOM, and together they contribute about .45C to the observed 2C rise from 1960 to present in the US temperature data.

                  *** Sanity check: siting changes, temperature housing construction and paint, etc almost universally are aimed at removing artificial HEATING sources that increase the recorded AIR temperature. So yes it makes sense that modern readings would appear cooler than older ones.
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-31-2019, 08:56 AM.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Another science denier, I see.
                    Jimmy, unless you have something intelligent, on topic and relative to the discussion - go away.

                    Yes, this is an official request from the OP.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Ah yes - the old 'but they changed the data'.

                      Let me try to help unveil the 'mystery of the changed data' which gives rise to so many of the pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories related to climate science.

                      The four major adjustments to the US temperature data are:

                      1) Quality control on the Raw data itself

                      2) Time of observation bias

                      3) Pairwise homogenization

                      4) infilling of missing station months
                      The problem is that they have irreparably corrupted the historic data and have, as far as I know, destroyed the original records, so the only thing we have any access to are the "adjustments" and not the original temperature readings. Organizations like NOAA and NASA have been repeatedly caught red-handed "cooling" the past and "warming" the present in a rather obvious attempt to force the impression that reality conforms to their models when the proper method would be to adjust the models to conform with reality. And it's been happening for years.

                      "Adjusting" current temperature readings to account for known variables might (might!) be fine, but reaching decades into the past to make arbitrary "adjustments" is certainly not.
                      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 Mountain Man View Post
                        The problem is that they have irreparably corrupted the historic data and have, as far as I know, destroyed the original records, so the only thing we have any access to are the "adjustments" and not the original temperature readings. Organizations like NOAA and NASA have been repeatedly caught red-handed "cooling" the past and "warming" the present in a rather obvious attempt to force the impression that reality conforms to their models when the proper method would be to adjust the models to conform with reality. And it's been happening for years.

                        "Adjusting" current temperature readings to account for known variables might (might!) be fine, but reaching decades into the past to make arbitrary "adjustments" is certainly not.
                        I think you are reading too many conspiracy novels. And as I explained, the adjustments are not arbitrary. They are supported by valid science (did you read the text below what you quoted?) Your comment about 'arbitrarily cooling the past' was explained in the text following my list of the adjustments themselves and which you cut from the reply. They were not 'caught red handed'. Someone just did a difference between the before and after values, which I showed you in my post. I also explained why the adjustment tend to overall reduce the value of the recorded temperatures in the older data. It is because the changes in practice and equipment tend to be oriented around removing artificial heat sources. That means that the older data is almost universally reading too high. IOW, If we had never changed our equipment or practices, we'd show the same warming, or most likely, even MORE warming. To see why, you need to understand what the changes were and how they are being compensated for.


                        I do not know why they are not keeping the raw data available for public consumption, it would seem in the interest of transparency that would be the right thing to do, but to make it available requires disk drives, servers, and internet access and people to maintain and service that, all of which costs $$$, so maybe its just a budget thing. A full time IT guy is 100K+ a year LLR, and you also have to buy the bandwidth and the equipment.

                        However, to test new algorithms, they must retain the original data. So I would guess it is very unlikely the raw data is 'gone'.


                        Jim

                        PS - here is the cut text again in case you would like to try to understand what the changes are and why they have the effect they do:

                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd
                        Time of observation Bias and Homogenization are the chief offenders in the global conspiracy/fake science crowd. Why? Because together they account for about .45 degree C of the almost 2 degree C rise from 1960 to the present seen in the US data.

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]38737[/ATTACH]

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]38738[/ATTACH]

                        ** see explanation below

                        (This is US data, not global data. It is helpful to understand that - relative to GLOBAL temperature rise - over the period around 1955 to 1975 and affecting the eastern continental US, there was a change in the Atlantic circulation that contributed somewhere between .25 and .5 degree C of COOLING in the US average during that period, thus the restoration to normal circulation accounts for another < .5 degree of the 2 degree rise. It and other factors account for the somewhat flat period of temperature growth we see in and around that time)

                        The most significant of the adjustments is Time of Observation Bias (TOBS). It contributes about .25 C to that same rise. With homogenization adding in another .2C

                        Where do these come from? Time of Observation Bias comes from a change over time in WHEN the high and low readings for the day were taken - with the previous method producing slightly WARMER*** average temperatures than the current measurements. This means that adjusting for TOBS makes older temperatures look warmer than they were relative to current methods. the second is the homogenization which includes a large number of algorithms designed to remove detectable biases (urban heat island, site changes from inner cities/towns to isolated areas like airports etc) One of the large of these was due to changeover in the types of housing of the instruments and the type of thermometer used. These changes almost universally introduced positive biases into the older data. And thus make modern termperatures look cooler than they would be if taken using older equipent or at the same sites as the older measurements.

                        IOW, changes in measurement methods and equipment have revealed that our older temperature data is biased slightly warmer relative to what would have been recorded by modern equipment and siting practices. And so, in order to understand what is happening to the climate, those net positive biases need to be removed from the older data.

                        None of this is arbitrary, and it is all supported by sound research. We can look directly at what happens to temperature data taken with the equipment and practices used at the historical time of measurement and compare that to what happens using the current standards. That is, we can look at what data is recorded by older equipment using older siting practices and compare that directly to readings taken at the same site using modern equipment and practices. This defines the bias. And these sources are the primary contributors to the downward adjustment of older data which reveal a hidden 25% of the actual warming in the US*.

                        And the less scientifically minded need to understand it that if we could go back in time and use modern equipment and siting methods, we would see the same temperature delta over time as is shown by the adjusted data. IOW, after adjustment, the data is much closer to the REAL temperature change seen in the continental US than the raw data itself. And that is born out by looking at other independent indicators of temperature rise - such as the extent of the frost free season, rises in CO2 over time, arctic sea ice extent, sea level rise and so on.

                        For more thorough treatment of the issues see:

                        https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html

                        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...l-etal1986.pdf

                        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ush...e-etal2003.pdf


                        Jim

                        *it is critical that we also understand this is US data, not necessarily global data - that distinction also often gets lost by those less well versed in the actual data and science

                        ** these deltas are based on order of application. RCed, TOBS, HOM, infilled So the deltas are QCED-RAW, then TOBS-QCED, then HOM-TOBS, then infilled - HOM. The cumulative total is primarily in TOBS and HOM, and together they contribute about .45C to the observed 2C rise from 1960 to present in the US temperature data.

                        *** Sanity check: siting changes, temperature housing construction and paint, etc almost universally are aimed at removing artificial HEATING sources that increase the recorded AIR temperature. So yes it makes sense that modern readings would appear cooler than older ones.
                        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 07-31-2019, 10:14 AM.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          And as I explained, the adjustments are not arbitrary.
                          OK, fine, the adjustments are not technically arbitrary but are adjusted after the fact to conform with "predictions" and "models". As Sherlock Holmes famously said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist the facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          I do not know why they are not keeping the raw data available for public consumption...
                          Yes you do.

                          Here's a story from 2012:

                          A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

                          We’ve been hearing that 2012 has been the “hottest on record.” I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth’s surface. The “global temperature” in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

                          I thought I’d update that analysis to include July’s and August’s temperatures. To my surprise, NASA’s entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA’s June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.

                          I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA’s web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed.

                          [Emphasis mine. -MM]

                          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/...a-quality-act/

                          And a more recent story from 2017:

                          A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

                          “Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

                          The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

                          Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.

                          Basically, “cyclical pattern in the earlier reported data has very nearly been ‘adjusted’ out” of temperature readings taken from weather stations, buoys, ships and other sources.

                          In fact, almost all the surface temperature warming adjustments cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend, according to the study’s authors.
                          “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”

                          “You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

                          Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
                          “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

                          Based on these results, the study’s authors claim the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases “is invalidated.”

                          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/...-climate-data/
                          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


                          • And in case you're wondering, we're not talking about minor adjustments...

                            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 JimL View Post
                              Ok, and though not believing in science is pretty sad in itself, it's no excuse for burying your head in the sand.
                              Science is a thing - it's a concept more than anything else. It CAN'T make or keep promises - so no, there's nothing to 'believe in'.

                              Conviction that the methodology has merit and is a good means of making determinations - THAT I subscribe to!

                              Trusting an industry because we stick the word 'science' in - no thanks. Been there, done that, would you like one of the lousy T shirts?

                              Trusting academia because we stick the word 'science' in - No freaking WAY! I have two degrees. I studied in both of the major forms of science (social and hard) and I know only too well that it's wrought with the same foibles as any other human endeavor. Show me the methodology and data - THEN I'll see if I trust your conclusion.

                              To a lesser degree, trusting government bodies because we stick the word 'science' in - Worked for one! The folks on the ground are usually well intentioned and hard working - admins... I have a much, much dimmer view of... Again, show me the methodology - I don't give a fig for the 'government scientist's' pronouncements.

                              So no, I DON'T 'believe in' science - it's a silly notion. We use 'science' to refer indiscriminately to all sorts of things. I find the tendency to confuse applied and theoretical science down right scary. Just because chemists are good at making spiffy things that clean better or lubricate more doesn't mean astrophysicists actually know how the universe formed. Doesn't mean they don't, either - the things are unrelated other than the conceptual methodology (hopefully) used to prove the theory. But it's scary how many people 'trust science' blindly because one has more of an impact than the other.
                              "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)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                'Science' is their loyal servant.
                                it really isn't. But it IS amazingly easy to twist people's arms and well....
                                "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)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                299 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X