AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@Briancrc,

Quote:

we should have been entering another period of decreasing trends in CO2, but instead, experienced a sudden level increase.

Decreasing trend of co2 and then far more likely the returns of the miles thick ice sheets to cover most of north american once more.

Given the choice of risks for myself between a nice and warm climate with most of the now coast line under water and having most of the land mass of the US under ice sheets I know what I would prefer.

One thing we do know is that the climate is not going to go steady state anytime soon with or without mankind.

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/images_1.jpg

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I used the term "whole earth?" Where did I use that term? The only game we are playing seems to be one where you make up things you think I said.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

So you don't have any data points showing a PAUSE (your word) in global warming for the last 20 years? (your time frame)

I only see you making a claim and then providing no data or any other science to back it up.

0 Replies

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/9c31cd7a-866f-4495-b2b9-83bd10ff1c09.png

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I used the term "whole earth?" Where did I use that term? The only game we are playing seems to be one where you make up things you think I said.

It was only a few posts of your ago as a matter of fact.

Quote:

energy gain and loss doesn't apply when calculating temperature of the earth as a whole.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Was that graph using the original recorded temperatures or the corrections or far more honest term the fudge temperature readings........LOL

If the temperatures does not matter our theories we find reasons to correct those reading to made the damn universe fit our theories.

Quote:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

And according to North Korean news, most Americans are homeless. Got a more scientifically authoritative source than "The Daily Caller"? Rolling Eyes

Peer-reviewed data, maybe, compiled by actual climatologists?

1 Reply

@FBM,

LOL are you trying to claim that the temperature readings had not in fact been adjusted on a very large scale by NOAA!!!!!!!!

Sorry when NOAA is openly repeat openly fudging data so it fit it theories you have no ground to question the Daily Caller for reporting that fact as it is not a secret.

So once more was your last graph using the data as it was recorded or after it been adjusted by NOAA?????

1 Reply

@BillRM,

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/bored.gif

Prove it was falsified. Got any peer-reviewed data compiled by climatologists? You're making the claim. You back it up.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Peer review does not apply as there is no question that NOAA had been adjusting the temperature readings and not using the raw original data. That info can be found on their own website.

The adjusted data just happen to fit very nicely into the current theories while the original date does not do so.

Hell of a note when you are given reasons to question how honest NOAA happen to be, as most scientists when their data does not fit their theories begin by either abandoning the theories or at least modifying those theories not repeat not modifying the data that does not agree with the theories.

I should thank the creator of this thread as I always had some doubts about the climate change models predictions but until I look into the matter thank to this thread I never dream that it was far more of a pseudoscience then a science.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You don't seem to understand one basic fact: Figures are adjusted all the time to make them more accurate. It doesn't have anything to do with falsifying anything. What matters is whether or not the data published are accurate. If you're claiming that the data are wrong, prove it. Otherwise, you've got nothing but a demonstration of your wingnut, denialist lack of basic understanding on how research is carried out. Show us something that proves the data are wrong.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Yes they was adjusted to made them more accurate and now just happen to match the models almost in an ideal manner after the adjustments.

First the public is being sold on details climate predictions using computer modeling that by an accepted branch of mathematics the models can not achieve , then when it is pointed out that the temperatures readings does not match the story of a tight relationship between CO2 increased and temperature increased the data was adjusted so they just happen to match.

The word is pseudoscience and the title of this thread should be an assault on pseudoscience not an assault on science.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

OK, so

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/emot-tinfoil.gif

. You have nothing but your paranoid denialism to support your claim. As suspected. Compared to what you have, that so-called "pseudoscience" is looking pretty robust.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Given the choice of risks for myself between a nice and warm climate with most of the now coast line under water and having most of the land mass of the US under ice sheets I know what I would prefer.

It's really a false choice. You don't get to choose. If you get punched in the arm, the natural response isn't to say, "well, I prefer that over a kick in the shin; so I'd choose the punch in the arm". The other problem is that the effects of rising co2 extend beyond temperature. The climate and the planet's species are being effected in ways that are concerning to scientists. The rising temperature of the oceans, the changes in salinity, the changes in currents and other features of water systems are resulting in the death of vital coral systems and other water species. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/the-effects-of-climate-change-on-coral-reef-health/
So the issue doesn't really just boil down to whether you wear shorts or a coat more often.

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

True that. The short-sighted don't seem to realize the interconnectedness of the ecosphere. Raise the acidity of the oceans by just a tad, then there will be a cascade of repercussions. Corals, plankton, krill and all the life they support will be fucked in short order. But surely that won't affect humans, eh? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

No matter how the extra CO2 arrived on the site that does not mean that the results will be more harmful

No, it is well established that greenhouse gasses act like a thermal blanket over the Earth and play a role in global temperature increases, and the effects have been harmful.

Quote:

An do not forget that mother earth long before mankind had produce an atmosphere of 7000 ppm of CO2 over 17 times the current reading for that gas.

And what do you think you would find relative to the species on the planet at that time? Adaptation worked such that some members of species could adapt given the period of time over which the environment changed. When there is a sudden change in the environment such that adaptation cannot occur, then entire species are wiped out. What do you think happened to dinosaurs?

We are adaptable in ways that all other species on the planet are not. We can change our behavior because we have learned how to observe and report on what we do. We can put together predictions and plans; which allow us to survive in conditions we would not naturally survive in. What will the rest of the planet do?

1 Reply

@Briancrc,

First as the numbers had been changed/rigged to match the models so there is little point in addressing the issue of the possibilities of future warming of the climate when we do not even have past numbers we can have any faith in.

As far as claims that we already had been harm by such warming that is nonsense as every time there is now any severe weather event worldwide from no rains, to flooding to even heavy snow falls it is always the fault of man make climate changes.

The fact that we happen to live on a planet where severe weather events are common and had always been common is overlook.

Hell my grandmother accepted the theory to her death that the used of heavy guns in the fighting during world war one cause some of the severe weather events in the US half a planet away from the fighting.

As I had already stated this have all repeat all the earmarks of a Pseudoscience.

In any case, I am dropping this thread as there seems little point in debating people who are cheerfully willing to used known rigged data in their debating. .

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

First as the numbers had been changed/rigged to match the models so there is little point in addressing the issue of the possibilities of future warming of the climate when we do not even have past numbers we can have any faith in.
...

So you have absolutely no genuine empirical evidence to support your claim that the revised numbers are less accurate than the initial ones. Nothing but rabid, ill-informed, wingnut denialism. Why should anyone have any respect for your claims if you refuse to substantiate them with credible data?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/ewacky.gif

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You might want to quote my entire sentence. This is long after you started on about black body radiation. You are the one that introduced that term in the conversation and I was responding to it.

Quote:

Since you agree that the laws of thermodynamics do apply to the Earth then explain how the energy gain and loss doesn't apply when calculating temperature of the earth as a whole.

0 Replies

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know