Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 1,301 to 1,334 of 1334

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happydays View Post
    LOL @ the Green New Deal from Cortez. Even Pelosi is starting to distance herself from this loon
    The New Green deal is what needs to be done if you believe the science. But nobody really believes the science. Its all just a game with politicians paying lip service. Cortez actually might believe the nonsense.

    It's real Alice in Wonderland fantasy stuff. They think they can reduce carbon emissions with renewable energy. They think all the ******** is true, and that renewable energy is cheaper and will create high paying jobs due to the transition. The Democrats have been pushing this mantra so long it looks like one of them actually believes it. They cant tell Cortez she's a lunatic because this is what the Democrats have been saying for years. And they have a mountain of fake science that proves it now.

    They're so deep down the rabbit hole they don't know what reality is anymore. But they'll find out. The TRUTH is a *****.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-02-2019 at 10:08 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  2. #1302

    Default The TRUTH. The ""Green New Deal" Let's peek down the rabbit hole............

    No comment is necessary for this insanity. But this is exactly what the climate change advocates are pushing for. It's nothing new. I've even posted some of this stuff here already from other advocates. But here it is, all the insanity, all in one, honest, report. Worldwide communism, disguised as environmentalism, propped up by state sponsored fake science. Anyone ever read Orwell's 1984? Here we are.........

    Just a few excerpts from the 48 pages of The New Green Deal...............

    "Re-regulating the domestic financial system to ensure that the creation of money at low rates of interest is consistent with democratic aims........."
    "Breaking up the discredited financial institutions............."
    "Re-regulating and restricting the international finance sector................"
    "Giving poorer countries the opportunity to escape poverty without fuelling global warming by helping to finance massive investment in climate-change adaptation and renewable energy..................."


    "environmentalists have tended to neglect the role of the finance sector and economic policy; how those involved in industry, broadly defined, have failed to grasp the malign effects of the finance sector on the overall economy; and how trade unionists have for too long ignored financial and environmental concerns."

    "When it comes to propaganda, which was used so effectively in the run up to World War II, two approaches will be needed.............."

    "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies,"

    "The Green New Deal entails re-regulating finance and taxation plus a transformational policy programme aimed at tackling the unemployment and decline in demand inevitable in the wake of the credit crunch............."

    "Our initial proposals for financial renewal involve Very much tighter controls on lending and on the generation of credit."

    "Roosevelt’s was a huge infrastructure programme aimed at employing four million workers. It paid for over 600,000 miles of roads, over 120,000 bridges, nearly 40,000 schools, 8,000 swimming pools and over two million public toilets. It also had a ‘green’ aspect."

    "The potential for mobilising global pension-fund money There is a further possible route for spreading the Green New Deal beyond the UK. This lies in the potential for mobilising the capital entrusted to the world’s pension funds to finance the investment required for environmental transformation."

    "At the heart of a successful programme to tackle climate change will be everrising fuel costs per unit of economic activity. A serious recession will cut energy demand and might result in a price drop, but we believe the imminence of peak oil, coupled with the need to make fossil fuels ever dearer to enforce climate-change agreements, will ensure rising costs per unit of economic output."

    https://neweconomics.org/uploads/fil..._xbm6ihwb1.pdf
    Last edited by MrCombust; 08-02-2019 at 07:21 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  3. #1303
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,513

    Default

    Just noticed this on Facebook:

    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  4. #1304

    Default The TRUTH.

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Just noticed this on Facebook:
    Climate advocates scream "SCIENCE", then call you names (republican), and show you a cartoon.

    It's a good tactic when the actual science is crap.

    Does it look like sea level rise is accelerating in St. John's NFLD?
    https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  5. #1305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    No comment is necessary for this insanity. But this is exactly what the climate change advocates are pushing for. It's nothing new. I've even posted some of this stuff here already from other advocates. But here it is, all the insanity, all in one, honest, report. Worldwide communism, disguised as environmentalism, propped up by state sponsored fake science. Anyone ever read Orwell's 1984? Here we are.........

    Just a few excerpts from the 48 pages of The New Green Deal...............

    "Re-regulating the domestic financial system to ensure that the creation of money at low rates of interest is consistent with democratic aims........."
    "Breaking up the discredited financial institutions............."
    "Re-regulating and restricting the international finance sector................"
    "Giving poorer countries the opportunity to escape poverty without fuelling global warming by helping to finance massive investment in climate-change adaptation and renewable energy..................."


    "environmentalists have tended to neglect the role of the finance sector and economic policy; how those involved in industry, broadly defined, have failed to grasp the malign effects of the finance sector on the overall economy; and how trade unionists have for too long ignored financial and environmental concerns."

    "When it comes to propaganda, which was used so effectively in the run up to World War II, two approaches will be needed.............."

    "banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies,"

    "The Green New Deal entails re-regulating finance and taxation plus a transformational policy programme aimed at tackling the unemployment and decline in demand inevitable in the wake of the credit crunch............."

    "Our initial proposals for financial renewal involve Very much tighter controls on lending and on the generation of credit."

    "Roosevelt’s was a huge infrastructure programme aimed at employing four million workers. It paid for over 600,000 miles of roads, over 120,000 bridges, nearly 40,000 schools, 8,000 swimming pools and over two million public toilets. It also had a ‘green’ aspect."

    "The potential for mobilising global pension-fund money There is a further possible route for spreading the Green New Deal beyond the UK. This lies in the potential for mobilising the capital entrusted to the world’s pension funds to finance the investment required for environmental transformation."

    "At the heart of a successful programme to tackle climate change will be everrising fuel costs per unit of economic activity. A serious recession will cut energy demand and might result in a price drop, but we believe the imminence of peak oil, coupled with the need to make fossil fuels ever dearer to enforce climate-change agreements, will ensure rising costs per unit of economic output."

    https://neweconomics.org/uploads/fil..._xbm6ihwb1.pdf
    And this could be expected. Capitalists also line up to take advantage of any crisis or spending boom.

    Similarly many people push for massive government spending and assistance on many other issues with the agenda of aiding the private sector and capitalism. Post WWII rebuilding and veterans housing, nuclear research, medical research, NASA’s moon mission, and the list can go on and on. Just 20 years ago there was the bailout of banks, borrowers, consumers, manufacturers during the fiscal crisis. Had anyone put all this subsidization and assistance in some kind of crazy manifest it too would be shocking in its Nazism or dictatorialism. Giving hundreds of billions totalling into the trillions globally to banks, car manufacturers, etc. to ensure their survival from their own mistakes.


    One good local example has been the calls for the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to be “invested” here in Alberta in local businesses. Others have called on it to be “invested” to create local jobs.
    Last edited by KC; 09-02-2019 at 06:02 PM.

  6. #1306

    Default

    Im just bumping forward a couple earlier posts. I don’t think the issue of the shift in the normal curve, such as it is, and the tail risks was really dealt with at all. The central mean shifts and the changes to the averages may even be imperceptible, but the real issue is the impact to be seen in the extremes. (When everything is volatile, looking at averages often tells one almost nothing about life.)

    So below the graph shows temperature but there will also be changes to frequencies and precipitation, wind, etc and day counts. So in terms of day counts think of the “dirty thirties”. Just another drought but many plants and crops can withstand a short period of stress. Double that of increased the frequency and you quickly get into the realm of disaster scenarios for plants that have evolved or survived for a different type of climate volatility.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    For a couple decades I’ve been bringing up the simple old normal curve.

    Understanding the normal curve you likely studied in junior high or high school can go a long way to understanding the effects and risks of rising temperatures and other climate related variables. Causes are another matter.


    **** poor graph but you’ll get the point - maybe.



    Starting to understand extreme weather – Shell Climate Change
    https://blogs.shell.com/2012/04/05/extreme/


    Frequency of occurrence ( y axis) of local temperature anomalies...
    https://www.researchgate.net/


    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    My first thought is to apply this graph to Edmonton.........., I mean, why not? We're in Edmonton.

    Now Edmonton, being one of the coldest cities on the planet, must be to the far, far left on this graph. Long winters, freezing springs, early falls, and a general longing that summers in Edmonton will happen on a weekend so we're not at work when it happens.

    Lets now shift the graph to the right.............

    Instead of -40 degree nights in the winter, it's only -37. Maybe the car will start.
    Instead of subzero spring, maybe the ice will melt in March.
    Instead of a snowstorm, maybe on Hallowe'en it'll just rain.
    And summer? A longer crop season? More days at the beach? Maybe summer will last a full week?

    You see, this is the odd thing about climate change "science".Everything that changes, is bad. Ever seen a "climate change" article, journal publication, movie, news report, about something good happening?

    Won't any creature on the earth benefit from "climate change"?

    Not even Edmontonians?

    Shift that graph, baby, shift it. Edmontonians often shift the graph by vacationing in Mexico. Does KC know there's even direct flights?

    When was the last time you saw a Jamaican vacationing in Edmonton for the winter? That's a shift to the left. Not so popular.

    Last edited by KC; 09-02-2019 at 06:20 PM.

  7. #1307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Im just bumping forward a couple earlier posts.
    The discussion is about whether or not.............

    1) The shift is actually happening
    2) Whether CO2 or normal variability is causing the shift
    3) Whether the shift is more, or less harmful overall.

    Every single one of my posts addresses at least one of these three points.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  8. #1308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Im just bumping forward a couple earlier posts.
    The discussion is about whether or not.............

    1) The shift is actually happening
    2) Whether CO2 or normal variability is causing the shift
    3) Whether the shift is more, or less harmful overall.

    Every single one of my posts addresses at least one of these three points.
    Which are great points to address. However, if findings haven’t been established without doubts on points #1 and #2, then wouldn’t you consider point #3 as very important?

    So, in your assessment would a shift be ”more, or less harmful overall”?


    On the issue of “normal variability”, the normal curve is the result but such normal variability is data dependent so normal is a bit of a misnomer. Change the data and the curve will change. Then to just stare at the middle of the graph without regard to the rest of it is to often ignore the most relevant aspect of it.



    “But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.”

    - JM Keynes, The Tract on Monetary Reform (1923)
    Pg 80
    https://delong.typepad.com/keynes-19...ary-reform.pdf

    "I am reminded of the story Nobel Prize winner Ken Arrow tells about his experience trying to make long-range weather forecasts for the military during World War II. He told his superiors that his forecasts were so unreliable as to be useless. The word came back that the General knew his forecasts were useless, but needed them anyway for planning purposes. " - Bill Miller,

    Bolding mine


    "The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking." - John Kenneth Galbraith




    In his Fall 2008 GMO letter, Grantham commented on the underlying causes of the world credit crisis:

    “ To avoid the development of crises, you need a plentiful supply of foresight, imagination, and competence. A few quarters ago I likened our financial system to an elaborate suspension bridge, hopefully built with some good, old-fashioned Victorian over-engineering. Well, it wasn’t over-engineered! It was built to do just one under favorable conditions. Now with hurricanes blowing, the Corps of Engineers, as it were, are working around the clock to prop up a suspiciously jerry-built edifice.
    When a crisis occurs, you need competence and courage to deal with it. The bitterest disappointment of this crisis has been how completely the build-up of the bubbles in asset prices and risk-taking was rationalized and ignored by the authorities, especially the formerly esteemed Chairman of the Fed. ...[10] ”

    “ I ask myself, ‘Why is it that several dozen people saw this crisis coming for years?’ I described it as being like watching a train wreck in very slow motion. It seemed so inevitable and so merciless, and yet
    the bosses of Merrill Lynch and Citi and even U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke — none of them seemed to see it coming.

    I have a theory that people who find themselves running major-league companies are real organization-management types who focus on what they are doing this quarter or this annual budget. They are somewhat impatient, and focused on the present. Seeing these things requires more people with a historical perspective who are more thoughtful and more right-brained — but we end up with an army of left-brained immediate doers.

    So it’s more or less guaranteed that every time we get an outlying, obscure event that has never happened before in history, they are always going to miss it.
    And the three or four-dozen-odd characters screaming about it are always going to be ignored. . . .

    So we kept putting organization people — people who can influence and persuade and cajole — into top jobs that once-in-a-blue-moon take great creativity and historical insight. But they don’t have those skills.[10]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Grantham


    1/23/2009
    Debriefing Jeremy Grantham
    Forbes, by David Serchuk

    “I think great thinkers are not drawn to finance.” -Jeremy Grantham




    Please explain your theory of right- and left-brained CEOs, and how we keep choosing the wrong ones at the wrong times to lead American firms.

    I think what I call the Great American Executive is always going to be good at dealing with crises after they’ve occurred. Always moving fast, focused, short-term-oriented at making decisions. Usually they’re short-term-oriented decisions. And he has a lot going for him or her. The weakness is that special outlier events are never, ever seen coming. They’re just not the kind of people that think along those lines. That’s a more creative, right-brained activity.

    What I refer to as “the feet on the table with a coffee cup,” bullshitting about the 1930s and 1970s–[that type of person] could happen. And you take outlier events very seriously. They are informed by history and know that strange things shock the world at regular intervals. And your impatient, decisive short-term CEO is not tuned in to get that. Nor is he tuned in to listen to anyone in the organization saying they should watch their tails.
    Also, CEOs are very aware of career risk. If they’re too conservative, they are likely to be replaced by a more gun-slinging type from Credit Suisse, as I like to say.

    Do the boards share same characteristics of the CEOs?

    Yes, and it’s a shame. They are made up of CEO buddies and bootlickers. In theory, it’s an opportunity to put in more philosophical, right-brained input in a way that the CEO would have to listen–not in the way he can dismiss his in-house think-tank types. You can have members of the board lean on him, and he might listen, or she might listen. But by having similar CEO types and friends dominate, you’re not going to get that help. It’s a missed opportunity.

    What kind of brain do you have?

    I think I’m right-brained, incapable of managing my way out of a brown paper bag.
    ...

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/23/int...cks-Jan23.html



    "My second theory would be even harder to prove, and this is it: that CEOs are picked for their left-brain skills – focus, hard work, decisiveness, persuasiveness, political skills, and, if you are lucky, analytical skills and charisma. The “Great American Executives” are not picked for patience.

    Indeed, if they could even spell the word they would be fired. They are not paid to put their feet up or waste time thinking about history and the long-term future; they are paid to be decisive and to act now.

    The type of people who saw these problems unfolding, on the other hand, had much less career risk or none at all. We know literally dozens of these people. In fact, almost all the people who have good historical data and are thoughtful were giving us good advice, often for years before the troubles arrived. They all have the patience of Job.

    They are also all right-brained: more intuitive, more given to developing odd theories, wallowing in historical data, and taking their time. They are almost universally interested – even obsessed – with outlier events, and unique, new, and different combinations of factors. These ruminations take up a good chunk of their time.
    Do such thoughts take more than a few seconds of time for the great CEOs who, to the man, missed everything that was new and different? Unfortunately for all of us, it was the new and different this time that just happened to be vital.

    It is therefore ironic that we fire these top CEOs when the trouble hits. The headline should read: “Come back, leaders of Merrill, Citi, Bear, and Lehman. All is forgiven (for a while).” The typical CEO is precisely equipped to deal with emergencies and digging out. Thus, Paulson was just the man to miss the point, but equally just the man – or at least a typically good one – to deal with a complicated crisis under stress."

    Jeremy Grantham

    GMO Qrtrly Letter 2008

    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 10-02-2019 at 11:16 AM.

  9. #1309

    Default The TRUTH. You just can't make this stuff up

    Amy Klobuchar anounced her bid to run for presidency, and promised to fight climate change............ during a blizzard.

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #1310
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,811

    Default

    ^Confusing climate with weather again, are we?

  11. #1311

    Default

    ^science is hard.

  12. #1312

    Default The TRUTH. Here's the latest data fudge to match predictions.......

    I've posted many times how they keep fudging the data to match the predictions. Here's a new paper fudging ocean temperatures to match the average of 33 climate models. SCIENCE!

    Never mind there are state of the art buoys all over the oceans accurately measuring the ocean temperature. It doesn't matter how accurate the thermometers are, the data always needs to be "adjusted". And always adjusted upwards.

    As usual, the climate models predict warming, and, as usual, it's not happening. What's the solution? Change the data..............

    In climate science if you average 33 software simulations that give you the wrong answer, you get the right answer. Then you fudge the data to match the prediction..................

    The red bar is the new "observation".
    The black bar is the average of 33 wrong climate models.

    "90% confidence"! Confidence in what? Making the data match the predictions? What a hoot!

    Does the media report they're changing the data to match the predictions? Nope.......... headlines read "Oceans warming faster than expected". The lying, sycophant media won't tell the TRUTH. Scientific American...... https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...than-expected/

    Yes Ladies and Gentlemen of Alberta and Edmonton, we're all gonna die, we desperately need to do something about the warming oceans, but you can't actually read the paper unless you pay. The paper is behind a paywall, as are most climate change papers soooooo important to our survival.

    From the paper "How fast are the oceans warming?"
    http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...23/128/tab-pdf

    For a more scientific and in depth analysis go to Roy Spencer's website. Roy Spencer is the keeper of UAH satellite temperature data.....
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/01/...tudy-suggests/


    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-02-2019 at 08:11 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #1313
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,811

    Default

    ^The main takeaway from the chart above is how closely the observed change in ocean heat content is tracking the average of the 33 models. Other than a couple of outliers, the models seem to be predicting the change in ocean heat content reasonably well.

    None of the documents you posted supports your accusation that the data was fudged or changed to match the prediction. Not even Roy Spencer makes this claim in the blog post to which you provided a link.

  14. #1314

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^The main takeaway from the chart above is how closely the observed change in ocean heat content is tracking the average of the 33 models. Other than a couple of outliers, the models seem to be predicting the change in ocean heat content reasonably well.

    None of the documents you posted supports your accusation that the data was fudged or changed to match the prediction. Not even Roy Spencer makes this claim in the blog post to which you provided a link.
    Your reading comprehension seems to be 0. I don't think I'll be responding to your posts anymore...........

    "I have also included Cheng’s reanalysis of ocean heat content (OHC) data over the same period of time, showing how well it fits the *average* of all 33 models included in the study. Cheng’s OHC dataset is now the warmest of all reanalyzed OHC datasets, which means (mark my words) it will gain the greatest favor in the next IPCC report."

    "
    What is disconcerting is the huge (8x) range in ocean warming between models for the period 1971-2010."

    "
    Dodgy Statistics"
    "........
    That is, how good the various observational and model estimates of ocean warming are.........."
    Last edited by MrCombust; 13-02-2019 at 01:34 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  15. #1315
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,811

    Default

    ^Suit yourself if you no longer wish to respond to my posts. You don't most of the time anyway. Instead you go off on some new unrelated tangent.

    But this doesn't make your accusation that data was fudged or changed to match the prediction any less wrong. In using the sub-heading "Dodgy Statistics" Spencer was not claiming that Ocean Heat Content data was falsified, only not very reliable.

    Compared to other indicators of global warming (global surface temperature record, sea ice extent and volume, glacier retreat, sea level rise), there is more uncertainty around the measurement of Ocean Heat Content given the vastness and depths of the oceans and the acknowledged shortcomings of past and current observational tools. Despite Spencer's skepticism, this is an argument to keep improving the science and the measurement tools.

  16. #1316

    Default

    he's stop posting to a lot of people. Anyone who disagrees with him in a reasonable fashion, but not before he's selectively narrowed in on one small minute data point. Also doesn't seem to understand the difference between weather and climate.

  17. #1317

    Default The TRUTH. Well that didn't last long...........

    "Here's the latest data fudge to match predictions......."

    Australia just fudged it's temperature data upwards..........AGAIN.

    Australia's bureau of meteorology, like NASA and NOAA, have been fudging their temperature record upwards for decades. They do it to individual stations, and on the overall temperature record.

    "The BoM hasn’t yet issued a press release to announce ACORN 2 and there’s been no media coverage. "

    No media coverage? What a surprise that is.

    Look for NASA and NOAA to fudge their worldwide temperature record upwards again, after all, Australia is part of that dataset.

    These temperature records DO NOT have actual thermometer readings to back them up. And the press release from the lying media will again be.......... "2019 hottest year on record".

    This is the fake data they use to implement a federal carbon tax on everybody in our country.

    You can read more here, but this has been going on for decades. Soon climate science will implode on the lies they're telling.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/...imate-history/

    And here's a graph of a previous fudge to make the data fit the predictions, yes, the fudge before this latest fudge.......we don't have a graph of the new fudge yet.


    Last edited by MrCombust; 14-02-2019 at 11:14 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  18. #1318

    Default

    the only person on fudge is you but that's been well established here. Why not answer some of the points raised above? Instead, ignore and pretend like no one but you posts.


    This thread should be shut down.

  19. #1319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the only person on fudge is you but that's been well established here. Why not answer some of the points raised above? Instead, ignore and pretend like no one but you posts.


    This thread should be shut down.
    You don't like what I say so you spam bomb the thread and want it removed. That's not science. But it is "climate science". I've addressed everthing you posted anyway. You dont read my posts.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #1320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the only person on fudge is you but that's been well established here. Why not answer some of the points raised above? Instead, ignore and pretend like no one but you posts.


    This thread should be shut down.
    You don't like what I say so you spam bomb the thread and want it removed. That's not science. But it is "climate science". I've addressed everthing you posted anyway. You dont read my posts.
    “spam bomb” - what people say when they don’t like what’s being posted

    “should be shut down” - what people say when they don’t like what’s being posted

    “You dont read my posts” - what people say when they get challenged on what’s being posted

    “that’s not science” - nearly 100% of what is being posted

  21. #1321

    Default

    They moved stations, changed equipment, changed the time of measurement etc because they never envisioned someone coming along and using the data for minute temperature change analysis of long term site and time specific trends.


    Understanding adjustments to temperature data

    “... Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.“
    ...
    Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

    All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.
    ...”
    https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html


    So if the adjustments are subject to criticism are there any long standing methodologically unchanged temperature records in existence and what do those measurements show?
    Last edited by KC; 15-02-2019 at 09:28 AM.

  22. #1322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They moved stations, changed equipment, changed the time of measurement etc because they never envisioned someone coming along and using the data for minute temperature change analysis of long term site and time specific trends.


    Understanding adjustments to temperature data

    “... Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.“
    ...
    Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

    All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.
    ...”
    https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html
    These are lies. Climate lies.

    Why do you have to fudge temperature data upwards because you moved a station? It's laughable nonsense. nd how many times do you get to fudge the data? It's been 3 decades of ever higher fudging. And they're still going. Where's the explanation for Australia's latest fuďge?

    In science when you draw a graph you use the readings you got when you took the measurement. If you think it's not accurate you throw out the data or add error bars.

    What you DON'T do is change the graph, and represent it as original data. Skepticalscience is a liar blog and these are climate lies any fool can see through. Except the devoted. Religious climate devotees believe anything they're told.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-02-2019 at 10:12 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #1323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They moved stations, changed equipment, changed the time of measurement etc because they never envisioned someone coming along and using the data for minute temperature change analysis of long term site and time specific trends.


    Understanding adjustments to temperature data

    “... Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.“
    ...
    Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

    All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.
    ...”
    https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html
    These are lies. Climate lies.

    Why do you have to fudge temperature data upwards because you moved a station? It's laughable nonsense.

    In science when you draw a graph you use the readings you got when you took the measurement. If you think it's not accurate you throw out the data or add error bars.

    What you DON'T do is change the graph, and represent it as original data. Skepticalscience is a liar blog and these are climate lies any fool can see through. Except the devoted. Religious climate devotees believe anything they're told.
    So what about a heat island effect?

    I guess the temperature record should not be adjusted down for the laying of miles of black asphalt and the heat output of thousands of vehicles, factories, buildings and people. That data tells it like it is so they should use it as is: pure and untouched, right?


    Also, in science data has always been altered. Outliers are often dropped. Errors due to human error, such as interpreting what had to be a 7 as a 1 are dropped. Simply put, data is cleaned. Additionally periodic data sets are often presented despite having far more detailed data. Month end data may be used and thus making invisible more extreme data points.
    Last edited by KC; 15-02-2019 at 09:54 AM.

  24. #1324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They moved stations, changed equipment, changed the time of measurement etc because they never envisioned someone coming along and using the data for minute temperature change analysis of long term site and time specific trends.

    So if the adjustments are subject to criticism are there any long standing methodologically unchanged temperature records in existence and what do those measurements show?
    The land based records provide very good idea of past temperatures. If treated with scientific integrity you would have a good idea of the past, even with the problems. The real problem is with the fraudulent data manipulation methods used by the current culture of climate science.

    If the raw data (with error bars) were to be published it would be clear the data has been fraudulently manipulated, and CO2 is not affecting temperatures...........

    "It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”."
    Tom Wigley, CRU

    "absence of clear climate change in the United States"
    James Hansen

    But the raw data should ALWAYS be published, with error bars. That's science.

    Even perfect data is useless if scientists change it, and/or lie about it.

    Tell me why Australia is fudging the temperature upwards again......., where's the scientific report to thoroughly explain the "adjustment"?
    Why are arctic stations hundreds of miles from other stations fudged upwards? They weren't moved, no equipment was changed.
    Why does NOAA record record high temperatures in places they don't even have weather stations?

    The solution is easy. Start criminally charging scientists who publish fraudulent papers. There are thousands of them now. Clear fraud. The whole thing would be cleaned up in a year.

    Want to know why the data is fudged to show warming due to CO2? They wouldn't have a job if they didn't.

    Was this station moved? When? Equipment change? When? I want to know.............
    WHO fudged this data? Why? No explanation? You're fired.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-02-2019 at 01:37 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  25. #1325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They moved stations, changed equipment, changed the time of measurement etc because they never envisioned someone coming along and using the data for minute temperature change analysis of long term site and time specific trends.


    Understanding adjustments to temperature data

    “... Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.“
    ...
    Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

    All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.
    ...”
    https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html
    These are lies. Climate lies.

    Why do you have to fudge temperature data upwards because you moved a station? It's laughable nonsense.

    In science when you draw a graph you use the readings you got when you took the measurement. If you think it's not accurate you throw out the data or add error bars.

    What you DON'T do is change the graph, and represent it as original data. Skepticalscience is a liar blog and these are climate lies any fool can see through. Except the devoted. Religious climate devotees believe anything they're told.
    So what about a heat island effect?

    I guess the temperature record should not be adjusted down for the laying of miles of black asphalt and the heat output of thousands of vehicles, factories, buildings and people. That data tells it like it is so they should use it as is: pure and untouched, right?


    Also, in science data has always been altered. Outliers are often dropped. Errors due to human error, such as interpreting what had to be a 7 as a 1 are dropped. Simply put, data is cleaned. Additionally periodic data sets are often presented despite having far more detailed data. Month end data may be used and thus making invisible more extreme data points.
    There are thousands of stations all over the world. Show me one (1) that changed from a rural area to a cityscape and then the data was fudged lower to compensate.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-02-2019 at 02:27 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  26. #1326

    Default The TRUTH. Look closely, notice what NASA is doing..........

    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta.......... pay attention. Look closely. Look closely at what NASA is doing................... then tell me I'm wrong...........

    1900 to 1920 are raised. Why would they raise early, cold, temperatures if they wanted to show more global warming?
    1920 to 1950 is lowered.
    1950 to 1990 is raised, smoothed, and flattened.
    2000 to 2010 is raised.

    What do you get? A fake hockey stick graph. Natural variability before 1990 is flattened, warming after 1990 is exaggerated.

    Look at the raw data. What caused 1.5 degrees of warming 1900 to 1950? 1940 to 1980 is a 40 year cooling trend. That's no good if you want to show CO2 is controlling the temperature. Does it look like rising CO2 is correlated?

    Look at the red (adjusted) data, doesn't that look better?

    Fraud.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-02-2019 at 02:24 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  27. #1327

  28. #1328

    Default

    How to cook a data set





    Take a look at this chart, which has been doing the rounds of Climate Change denier blogs and other discussion forums under the title of 'NASA satellites reveal no Global Warming for 30 years'. The original source appears to be here, a blog called C3 Headlines.

    Pretty conclusive heh? Four out of six data points showing cooling easily balancing out the two that show warming. The source of the data, the very respectable National Space Science and Technology Centre, adds a touch of respectability too.

    So what's the trick?

    Well, the data isn't made up. The original numbers are all here and, although it takes a bit of time to wade through them, the figures used on the chart are correct.

    What's been done is a bit of good old fashioned cherry picking. That's easy enough to do, but what some eagle eyed denier has spotted is that the cherries that are worth picking lie at 5 year intervals. Neat.

    The result is a bit like the Bible Code. If you have a big enough set of numbers then, rather like the million monkies with their typewriters coming up with Hamlet, there's always going to be a pattern that shows what you want to find. If you searched hard enough you'd probably find the results of the Six Nations rugby tournament hidden somewhere.

    This trick wouldn't have worked last month, where the figures would have been 0.19, -0.04, -0.18, 0.03, -0.13 and 0.02 - a clear warming trend, even though this has been a cold winter.

    The trick certainly didn't work last February either, when the data set would have shown an even stronger warming trend: 0.18, -0.09, -0.01, -0.24, -0.32, -0.07.

    Games like this can be played all day, but they don't really prove anything. The only way to tell if we're warming or cooling is to do a proper statistical analysis, and that's shown on the bottom line of the data - a warming trend of 0.14 degrees per decade. At 15 years this trend becomes statistically significant with a confidence level of 95%. So, we are warming.

    But I'm not going to leave it there.

    If any climate scientist had tried to use a trick liked this to 'prove' Climate Change, then it would have been all over for the discipline. C3 Headlines can get away with this stuff because it serves a particularly gullible and self interested client group.

    Scientists by contrast have to be open, honest and upfront. When Professor Phil Jones and the UAE were accused of fraud after Climategate their entire body of work was on trial.

    The likes of C3 Headlines though are expendable. They put out their bogus data, which can ultimately be denied itself by those who fund it and quote from it.

    As Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat, lamented on Tuesday, if only the media would stop reporting the debate about Climate Change as if it was a divorce trial and start showing how barren the cupboard was on the denier side.

  29. #1329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    How to cook a data set
    Spam bombing the forum again?

    At least use quotes and provide a link when you cut and paste your spam bombs.

    Forum Rules and Guidelines

    Rules




    1. Descriptive subject lines and research into your posts are encouraged. These simple procedures reduce the chance of duplicate posts and ensure that other members can read items that they find important and ignore the rest.






    1. No commercial-oriented posts (spam), and no flooding with useless content........................
    2. When posting newspaper articles, only post the first 150 words followed by a link to the article's source.



    Posting Guidelines


    1. When posting images be considerate of people who have slower computers and connections that you. Try and keep large gallerys off site or else at least warn in the thread title if there are many images.


    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  30. #1330

    Default

    Maybe you could heed your own advice copypasta warrior?

  31. #1331

    Default

    I really enjoyed reading post #1328!!!


    Moreover I wouldn’t see it as spam in the slightest.

    Identifying cherry picked data or patterns in data is highly relevant to understanding the credibility of the people presenting a position.

    Additionally, simply understanding the issues at play and reasoning behind any data selection is important. Blindly saying that the raw data has been fudged and so is invalid just shows inherent bias and not a pursuit of the truth.


    So in the case of a station not moving and not changing equipment but adjusting the data, that may be a valid methodology if the timing of the data collection was changed.
    Last edited by KC; 15-02-2019 at 04:50 PM.

  32. #1332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    They moved stations, changed equipment, changed the time of measurement etc because they never envisioned someone coming along and using the data for minute temperature change analysis of long term site and time specific trends.


    Understanding adjustments to temperature data

    ... Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.
    ...
    Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) inStevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems(MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

    All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.
    ...
    https://skepticalscience.com/underst...temp-data.html
    These are lies. Climate lies.

    Why do you have to fudge temperature data upwards because you moved a station? It's laughable nonsense.

    In science when you draw a graph you use the readings you got when you took the measurement. If you think it's not accurate you throw out the data or add error bars.

    What you DON'T do is change the graph, and represent it as original data. Skepticalscience is a liar blog and these are climate lies any fool can see through. Except the devoted. Religious climate devotees believe anything they're told.
    So what about a heat island effect?

    I guess the temperature record should not be adjusted down for the laying of miles of black asphalt and the heat output of thousands of vehicles, factories, buildings and people. That data tells it like it is so they should use it as is: pure and untouched, right?


    Also, in science data has always been altered. Outliers are often dropped. Errors due to human error, such as interpreting what had to be a 7 as a 1 are dropped. Simply put, data is cleaned. Additionally periodic data sets are often presented despite having far more detailed data. Month end data may be used and thus making invisible more extreme data points.
    There are thousands of stations all over the world. Show me one (1) that changed from a rural area to a cityscape and then the data was fudged lower to compensate.
    Thats a great request!!!! I cant do anything about it.

    However I find it hard to believe that such an obvious failure to adjust for a heat island effect wouldnt have been sought out by now by the many sceptics out there. Surely they must have published the results of their findings somewhere.

  33. #1333

    Default The TRUTH. How to debunk a liar blog

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    How to cook a data set





    Take a look at this chart, which has been doing the rounds of Climate Change denier blogs and other discussion forums under the title of 'NASA satellites reveal no Global Warming for 30 years'. The original source appears to be here, a blog called C3 Headlines.

    Pretty conclusive heh? Four out of six data points showing cooling easily balancing out the two that show warming. The source of the data, the very respectable National Space Science and Technology Centre, adds a touch of respectability too.

    So what's the trick?

    Well, the data isn't made up. The original numbers are all here and, although it takes a bit of time to wade through them, the figures used on the chart are correct.

    What's been done is a bit of good old fashioned cherry picking. That's easy enough to do, but what some eagle eyed denier has spotted is that the cherries that are worth picking lie at 5 year intervals. Neat.

    The result is a bit like the Bible Code. If you have a big enough set of numbers then, rather like the million monkies with their typewriters coming up with Hamlet, there's always going to be a pattern that shows what you want to find. If you searched hard enough you'd probably find the results of the Six Nations rugby tournament hidden somewhere.

    This trick wouldn't have worked last month, where the figures would have been 0.19, -0.04, -0.18, 0.03, -0.13 and 0.02 - a clear warming trend, even though this has been a cold winter.

    The trick certainly didn't work last February either, when the data set would have shown an even stronger warming trend: 0.18, -0.09, -0.01, -0.24, -0.32, -0.07.

    Games like this can be played all day, but they don't really prove anything. The only way to tell if we're warming or cooling is to do a proper statistical analysis, and that's shown on the bottom line of the data - a warming trend of 0.14 degrees per decade. At 15 years this trend becomes statistically significant with a confidence level of 95%. So, we are warming.

    But I'm not going to leave it there.

    If any climate scientist had tried to use a trick liked this to 'prove' Climate Change, then it would have been all over for the discipline. C3 Headlines can get away with this stuff because it serves a particularly gullible and self interested client group.

    Scientists by contrast have to be open, honest and upfront. When Professor Phil Jones and the UAE were accused of fraud after Climategate their entire body of work was on trial.

    The likes of C3 Headlines though are expendable. They put out their bogus data, which can ultimately be denied itself by those who fund it and quote from it.

    As Jay Inslee, a Washington Democrat, lamented on Tuesday, if only the media would stop reporting the debate about Climate Change as if it was a divorce trial and start showing how barren the cupboard was on the denier side.
    As usual, the climate advocates scream "SCIENCE", but completely ignore it. medwards' posts crap from a liar blog and he thinks it's "SCIENCE". It's not.

    This is a graph of RSS satellite temperature data vs climate model predictions. RSS and UAH use the same satellite data and are very closely related.

    I'm not going to go through the half-wit nonsense medwards' liar blog babbles about, but you can see how carefully they avoid comparing the UAH satellite data to predicted warming.

    RSS satellite data is the black line BELOW THE YELLOW ERROR MARGIN of climate model predictions.

    Medwards' liar blog says there's a "confidence level of 95%" that there's a warming trend. Well I'm 100% confident there's a warming trend. I'm also 100% confident the warming trend is below all predictions, the climate models are not accurate, and can't be trusted.

    The long flat trend in the RSS data is what's known as the pause. Warming is not rising exponentially as predicted. Everybody knows it, because the science proves it.

    "No statistical global warming" means the warming trend is so low it actually disproves the climate models. Not only is the warming trend low, the trend itself is declining. The liar blog says "The only way to tell if we're warming or cooling is to do a proper statistical analysis, and that's shown on the bottom line of the data - a warming trend of 0.14 degrees per decade." But that was when this blog was posted in 2011, 8 years later updated UAH data now shows a warming trend of 0.13 degrees per decade. So rather than an increasing rate of warming as CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, a declining rate of warming is in progress.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of Edmonton and Alberta........, keep the link below handy. When someone tells you climate change is real, we're all gonna die, and we need a carbon tax to save the planet................ show them this graph of the climate models getting it wrong and ask them if they're basing their concerns on climate models that can't predict 10 years ahead, never mind 100.

    You can find this graph on the website of the people who produce and publish the RSS satellite data

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

    Last edited by MrCombust; Yesterday at 01:00 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  34. #1334
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,540

    Default

    Bill Gates. may be on to something about climate change
    https://www.businessinsider.com/bill...-change-2019-2
    Noah's ark was built by volunteers...... The Titanic was built by professionals.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •