What's new
By:

Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

babe said:
I hear enough from "the inside" to understand their frustrations with basically uninformed rhetoricians on the discount side of this "debate". Point still is, as framer has asked, why there is a cultural bias against naysayers within the scientific community that is so strong that nobody but nobody dares squeak within the insider ranks in this field of "enquiry". I'd say there is a very strong institutional bias that squelches honest objections and points of fact. It's also true that there is a determined sort of propaganda now to project an essentially false solid "front" to the public, as your link exhibits.

I mean no "outsider" could possibly have the expertise to evaluate that kind of jargon for objectivity.

I think this is a fine example for showing, in due course, why we just can't let the government control science, or institutionalize it "in the public interest". What I predict is within twenty years a complete reversal on AGW and a concerted new "emergency" to deal with unprecedented. . . lol. . . . ice ages.
Click to expand...

Since you brought it up a new emergency why don't we forget about AGW for a minute and talk about ocean acidification. LINK CO2 seems to also be the culprit here. Is this another example of "institutional bias" leading to junk science?
 
I don't know about equating tectonic plates to GW (or the couple Hitler references the GW crowd has put into this thread).
 
♪alt13 said:
That's not recorded data. That's modelling data. It's computed. Further it represents a region surrounding that weather station. Finally it doesn't represent temperature but rather temperature anomalies(deviation from the base period).

Here is an explanation for why the modelling data is different prior to 2012. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/GHCNM-v3.2.0-FAQ.pdf
Click to expand...

Did you even read it? Or go to the links? It is the actual raw data before it was adjusted. Easy to dismiss. Tough to actual consider objectively. And that article is far from the only one showing falsification of data. If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Did you even read it? Or go to the links? It is the actual raw data before it was adjusted. Easy to dismiss. Tough to actual consider objectively. And that article is far from the only one showing falsification of data. If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.
Click to expand...

I've worked as an analytical chemist. Those adjusted data graphics are so out of whack that I cannot see how it's possible to manipulate raw data like that. Manually adjusting an area under a spike might add a minute amount of difference; we are talking a tenth of a percent if the chemist is lucky.

I hope we have a meteorologist or somebody with this type of instrumentation experience who can chime in.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Did you even read it? Or go to the links? It is the actual raw data before it was adjusted. Easy to dismiss. Tough to actual consider objectively. And that article is far from the only one showing falsification of data. If you can look past the biases it's amazing what you might see.
Click to expand...



Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT ?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.


Q. What SAT do the local media report ?
A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.
Click to expand...

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Yeah, I looked at it and I read it. Instead of taking a bloggers word for it I went to the source and tried to gain some level of understanding of what I was actually looking at. My understanding may be rudimentary but it's better than being completely clueless because I took some random wordpress page as gospel.
 
Last edited:
I think they should legalize pot
 
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size];1112506 said:
Krockodile bro. Krockodile. Legalize any drug it should be Krock. Try it my friend. Life changing. Like the LSD LIFE CHANGING.
Click to expand...

Krokodil*
 
♪alt13 said:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Yeah, I looked at it and I read it. Instead of taking a bloggers word for it I went to the source and tried to gain some level of understanding of what I was actually looking at. My understanding may be rudimentary but it's better than being completely clueless because I took some random wordpress page as gospel.
Click to expand...

Actually, I favor these efforts to compensate for known inaccuracies in the data, but at the same time it shows the problems we face in invoking this data as the basis for major decisions and long-range plans. I still don't see data that justifies the regulations and social policies some want to emplace.

Ten or twenty year spikes in temp have been demonstrated in analyzing sediment cores and ice cores as a prelude to each known "ice age". Before we take drastic actions, we need to figure out what causes ice ages, which do not correlate to sudden changes in ambient atmospheric CO2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top