| 97% of Scientists Can't be Wrong, Can They?14-12-2015 20:18 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution? |
| 14-12-2015 21:14 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21596) |
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
Like any number quoted, you first have to find out where it came from and how it was generated before it makes any sense.
In this case, the number is a misquote.
According to the guy doing the study, scientific papers were analyzed to look for the phrase 'global warming' or 'climate change' in their text. This resulted in about 37% of the papers analyzed. Of these, the papers were further analyzed to determine if the author(s) favored global warming or climate change. About 97% of that 37% did.
The data for this study was never released. No regard for what kind of scientific branch wrote the paper was specified. Papers as distant at a study on geological volcanic formations could easily have been included. No regard is made as to the opinion of scientists that wrote papers that had nothing to do with climate change or global warming. The author is this study is of questionable reliability. No regard is made to the funding source of any study.
At best, the 97% number refers to 37% of scientists across all disciplines. Most of these are probably government funded studies (like most studies done in science today).
To push this 'devastatingly' high number, the guy and his wife created the skeptical science website. If anything, the guy is guilty of improper statistical math for a variety of reasons: no visible source of data (fabricated for all we know), incorrect summary calculation, and misleading summary. He also demonstrates quite clearly his illiteracy in the scientific method and philosophy.
Science itself isn't about consensus. No one 'votes' on science. A single piece of reliable data or a single argument free of fallacy can shoot down a scientific theory. No theory in science can be constructed in such a way as to not allow a negative test for it. This is the falsifiable theory model that is the heart of the scientific method. It is a method derived from philosophy that goes all the way back to Aristotle. It is what keeps a circular argument from becoming a theory.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-12-2015 22:08 |
Buildreps★☆☆☆☆
(100) |
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
That's a good question. The climate models are incorrect since past predictions have to be updated almost constantly. That's a sign of incompleteness.
There are still people today who believe the earth is flat. A few hundred years ago almost everyone believed that, and even scholars agreed with that paradigm. In secret circles they had other theories that were more consistent with reality, but to openly support these ideas was harmful for their position.
Running against the mainstream is not good for your reputation and career, so that's why the majority will bow to their masters and agree. They have a job in making greenhouse models, doing research, writing papers and having interesting congresses. Why should they bother?
The governments have introduced lots of new rules to reduce co2 emissions. There's also an insane amount of money invested in sustainability. I think air pollution is a much more serious issue than climate warming. Air pollution is 100% sure, climate warming not. |
| 14-12-2015 22:42 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
So if the whole thing is basically a fabrication without any real substance, how does anybody go about getting that message across when there is such a strong "green" lobby that has such a loud voice?
Surely if we as a planet are going to invest so much money in something that is not required, emission reduction, surely someone will notice? |
| 14-12-2015 22:44 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it? |
|
| 14-12-2015 22:48 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Buildreps wrote:
There are still people today who believe the earth is flat. A few hundred years ago almost everyone believed that, and even scholars agreed with that paradigm. In secret circles they had other theories that were more consistent with reality, but to openly support these ideas was harmful for their position.
This, like the rest of your post, is complete nonsense. It has been known since antiquity that the Earth is roughly spherical. The Greeks even managed to estimate its diameter fairly accurately by measuring the angle of incidence of sunlight at different locations.
Edit: It was Eratosthenes.
Edited on 14-12-2015 22:54 |
| 14-12-2015 22:59 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
I can't debate the physics but I do know that the processes that are described in those various papers and journals do conflict and I still have issues with the war on CO2 especially.
On the subject of COP21 I find it amusing that they passed some declaration that global temperature rise would be limited to 1.5C without explaining how. I don't think they have heard of King Kanute! I have have grave doubts that any of the emission reduction stratergys will have any affect at all to the processes that are naturally occuring. The big question is what do they blame "climate Change" on when reducing CO2 does nothing at all? |
| 14-12-2015 23:10 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set. |
| 14-12-2015 23:11 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
I can't debate the physics but I do know that the processes that are described in those various papers and journals do conflict and I still have issues with the war on CO2 especially.
On the subject of COP21 I find it amusing that they passed some declaration that global temperature rise would be limited to 1.5C without explaining how. I don't think they have heard of King Kanute! I have have grave doubts that any of the emission reduction stratergys will have any affect at all to the processes that are naturally occuring. The big question is what do they blame "climate Change" on when reducing CO2 does nothing at all?
You can't debate the physics, yet you're convinced that all those scientists are wrong. What is the reason for your conviction? |
| 14-12-2015 23:15 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No, it doesn't; rather the opposite, in fact. You'd probably struggle to find many papers explicitly endorsing the sphericity of the Earth, but that doesn't mean all the other papers are claiming that the Earth is flat! |
| 14-12-2015 23:20 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No, it doesn't; rather the opposite, in fact. You'd probably struggle to find many papers explicitly endorsing the sphericity of the Earth, but that doesn't mean all the other papers are claiming that the Earth is flat!
But we have been into orbit and seen the earth is a sphere so any papers to the contrary would be foolish, don't you think?
The validity or not of M2C2 seems to be much less conclusive. |
| 14-12-2015 23:28 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
I can't debate the physics but I do know that the processes that are described in those various papers and journals do conflict and I still have issues with the war on CO2 especially.
On the subject of COP21 I find it amusing that they passed some declaration that global temperature rise would be limited to 1.5C without explaining how. I don't think they have heard of King Kanute! I have have grave doubts that any of the emission reduction stratergys will have any affect at all to the processes that are naturally occuring. The big question is what do they blame "climate Change" on when reducing CO2 does nothing at all?
You can't debate the physics, yet you're convinced that all those scientists are wrong. What is the reason for your conviction?
Its not so much a conviction it is just that nobody talks about what will happen if they are right and the changes being made are "successful" in returning us to the idilic pre-industrial age level of CO2.
Will sea levels fall because of 200ppm reduction in CO2? will we be plunged into an ice age? or will it be a return to perfect summers and snow at Christmas?
They proponents of M2C2 obviously believe in the processes they are putting forward as the criminals in this case but what is the consequence of action, vice letting the chips fall where they may? |
| 14-12-2015 23:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No. There may be no dataset. The author of this study never provided it. You also don't know the opinion of the remaining 63%. You also don't know WHY there is an opinion supporting global warming at all. Like I said, most of these guys are funded by a single funding source. That alone puts a horrible bias on everything said, especially since we know the government has an agenda.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-12-2015 23:32 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No, it doesn't; rather the opposite, in fact. You'd probably struggle to find many papers explicitly endorsing the sphericity of the Earth, but that doesn't mean all the other papers are claiming that the Earth is flat!
But we have been into orbit and seen the earth is a sphere so any papers to the contrary would be foolish, don't you think?
The validity or not of M2C2 seems to be much less conclusive.
We have also measured the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the absorption and emission of infra-red radiation by the atmosphere, so any papers to the contrary would be equally foolish. |
| 14-12-2015 23:38 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No. There may be no dataset. The author of this study never provided it. You also don't know the opinion of the remaining 63%. You also don't know WHY there is an opinion supporting global warming at all. Like I said, most of these guys are funded by a single funding source. That alone puts a horrible bias on everything said, especially since we know the government has an agenda.
More conspiracy drivel. Why would governments (especially pro-fossil fuel leaders) bribe scientists to invent an effect that is a pain in the butt for them to deal with? How would such a vast conspiracy be organised? Why are all the climatologists not driving around in Rolls Royces? |
|
| 14-12-2015 23:40 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
MK001 wrote:
Its not so much a conviction it is just that nobody talks about what will happen if they are right and the changes being made are "successful" in returning us to the idilic pre-industrial age level of CO2.
Actually they do indirectly. Supposedly, returning us to the pre-industrial levels will prevent all the disasters they keep coming up with. I don't believe a word of it.
MK001 wrote:
Will sea levels fall because of 200ppm reduction in CO2? will we be plunged into an ice age? or will it be a return to perfect summers and snow at Christmas?
No. Just as CO2 does not have the ability to warm the planet, it does not have the ability to cool it by reducing it's concentration either. Our summers and Christmas weather will be dependent on the same source as before (the sun).
MK001 wrote:
They proponents of M2C2 obviously believe in the processes they are putting forward as the criminals in this case but what is the consequence of action, vice letting the chips fall where they may?
No change. We do not have the power to change the climate, even if we wanted to.
We have the power to pollute regions (or not!), even cause slight shifts in weather patterns around cities and denuded forest land, but we cannot change the climate.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-12-2015 23:43 |
MK001★☆☆☆☆
(64) |
Surface Detail wrote:
We have also measured the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the absorption and emission of infra-red radiation by the atmosphere, so any papers to the contrary would be equally foolish.
The basic premise of what you say may be correct but has it really tanslated to an empirical correlation? Thats where I think the concepts stumble and hence the debate begins. |
| 14-12-2015 23:44 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No, it doesn't; rather the opposite, in fact. You'd probably struggle to find many papers explicitly endorsing the sphericity of the Earth, but that doesn't mean all the other papers are claiming that the Earth is flat!
But we have been into orbit and seen the earth is a sphere so any papers to the contrary would be foolish, don't you think?
The validity or not of M2C2 seems to be much less conclusive.
We have also measured the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the absorption and emission of infra-red radiation by the atmosphere, so any papers to the contrary would be equally foolish.
We also understand that none of all that absorption matters. The total energy emitted from the Earth equals that coming in. It always has. Notches in the emission spectrum do not change that.
CO2 is not a magick gas.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-12-2015 23:49 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No, it doesn't; rather the opposite, in fact. You'd probably struggle to find many papers explicitly endorsing the sphericity of the Earth, but that doesn't mean all the other papers are claiming that the Earth is flat!
But we have been into orbit and seen the earth is a sphere so any papers to the contrary would be foolish, don't you think?
The validity or not of M2C2 seems to be much less conclusive.
We have also measured the effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the absorption and emission of infra-red radiation by the atmosphere, so any papers to the contrary would be equally foolish.
We also understand that none of all that absorption matters. The total energy emitted from the Earth equals that coming in. It always has. Notches in the emission spectrum do not change that.
And that's why we call you deniers. You cite no evidence to the contrary or give any alternative theories; just flat denial of the mountains of evidence gathered by the scientists. It's pathetic. |
| 14-12-2015 23:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No. There may be no dataset. The author of this study never provided it. You also don't know the opinion of the remaining 63%. You also don't know WHY there is an opinion supporting global warming at all. Like I said, most of these guys are funded by a single funding source. That alone puts a horrible bias on everything said, especially since we know the government has an agenda.
More conspiracy drivel. Why would governments (especially pro-fossil fuel leaders) bribe scientists to invent an effect that is a pain in the butt for them to deal with? How would such a vast conspiracy be organised? Why are all the climatologists not driving around in Rolls Royces?
Governments are not bribing scientists. They pay them for their studies. If they don't conform to the agenda, they don't get their funding.
The reason the government does this is simple and is common to all governments (and the IPCC). Since governments do not produce profit, their metric of success is not profit based. Like any organization, it wants to expand and grow. To do that, it must convince the taxpayers to pay more in taxes or accept greater regulations.
The first purpose of any government or government agency is to justify itself, expand, and grow. If that means creating a 'problem' that needs 'solving', that's what they do. What better way than to join the climatic Armageddon team?
Climatologists aren't driving around in Rolls Royces for two reasons. 1) the government is cheap. 2) Rolls Royce cars are big and heavy gas guzzlers.
Governments also know they have to keep an economy of some kind going. They know that to shut down 'fossil' fuels entirely would kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-12-2015 00:00 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
We hear the phrase 97% of all scientists believe and agree that climate Change is real and global warming is real!
More accurately: 97% of a large sample of scientific papers expressing a position on AGW endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
So what are they all agreeing to? and has anyone actually, definatively, explained the mechanism that causes the supposed change?
The mechanism for global warming, which leads to climate change, has been known about for over a century and has since been explained in detail. See any textbook on atmospheric physics for more information.
If they are correct and the sky has already fallen, then why arent governments actively working to find a real solution?
There was a meeting in Paris just recently that you may have heard about. I think the press may have mentioned it?
In that link you referenced it said 97% of those papers that expressed an opinion on AGW (32.5%) supported the man made global nonsense. So does that mean I can go round saying the 60% of scientists dont think M2C2 is real? it is the same data set.
No. There may be no dataset. The author of this study never provided it. You also don't know the opinion of the remaining 63%. You also don't know WHY there is an opinion supporting global warming at all. Like I said, most of these guys are funded by a single funding source. That alone puts a horrible bias on everything said, especially since we know the government has an agenda.
More conspiracy drivel. Why would governments (especially pro-fossil fuel leaders) bribe scientists to invent an effect that is a pain in the butt for them to deal with? How would such a vast conspiracy be organised? Why are all the climatologists not driving around in Rolls Royces?
Governments are not bribing scientists. They pay them for their studies. If they don't conform to the agenda, they don't get their funding.
The reason the government does this is simple and is common to all governments (and the IPCC). Since governments do not produce profit, their metric of success is not profit based. Like any organization, it wants to expand and grow. To do that, it must convince the taxpayers to pay more in taxes or accept greater regulations.
The first purpose of any government or government agency is to justify itself, expand, and grow. If that means creating a 'problem' that needs 'solving', that's what they do. What better way than to join the climatic Armageddon team?
Climatologists aren't driving around in Rolls Royces for two reasons. 1) the government is cheap. 2) Rolls Royce cars are big and heavy gas guzzlers.
Governments also know they have to keep an economy of some kind going. They know that to shut down 'fossil' fuels entirely would kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
If you really think that every single government in the world is paying its scientists to somehow cooperatively fudge their measurements in order to produce warming, and that the world's scientists are playing along with this and keeping it secret, then you are utterly deluded. You are quite simply beyond reason. |
| 15-12-2015 00:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We also understand that none of all that absorption matters. The total energy emitted from the Earth equals that coming in. It always has. Notches in the emission spectrum do not change that.
And that's why we call you deniers. You cite no evidence to the contrary or give any alternative theories; just flat denial of the mountains of evidence gathered by the scientists. It's pathetic.
On the contrary, I have cited falsifying evidence (you only need one). Please refer to the Data Mine (an earlier thread on this board) for examples of data I have presented. Others have presented evidence in there also that falsifies the Global Warming religion (not a theory).
I and others have explained the theories Global Warming violates. I and others have also explained why it cannot be a theory at all. I and others have already described what these 'mountains of evidence' really are (which is why I created the Data Mine using the rules set out in the first post of that thread).
Numbers have no meaning unless you know where they came from and how they were generated. I ask this question of anyone presenting numbers as evidence. I demand the raw data, not someones interpretation of composite data, adjusted (fudged) data, or fabricated data. Unfortunately, the central NOAA website and the NASA website is filled with this fake data.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-12-2015 00:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Governments are not bribing scientists. They pay them for their studies. If they don't conform to the agenda, they don't get their funding.
The reason the government does this is simple and is common to all governments (and the IPCC). Since governments do not produce profit, their metric of success is not profit based. Like any organization, it wants to expand and grow. To do that, it must convince the taxpayers to pay more in taxes or accept greater regulations.
The first purpose of any government or government agency is to justify itself, expand, and grow. If that means creating a 'problem' that needs 'solving', that's what they do. What better way than to join the climatic Armageddon team?
Climatologists aren't driving around in Rolls Royces for two reasons. 1) the government is cheap. 2) Rolls Royce cars are big and heavy gas guzzlers.
Governments also know they have to keep an economy of some kind going. They know that to shut down 'fossil' fuels entirely would kill the goose laying the golden eggs.
If you really think that every single government in the world is paying its scientists to somehow cooperatively fudge their measurements in order to produce warming, and that the world's scientists are playing along with this and keeping it secret, then you are utterly deluded. You are quite simply beyond reason.
No, it is you that is beyond reason. Science isn't about consensus.
Every single government in the world has the same agendas as ours, however. Why wouldn't they? They all want to expand and grow. None of them do it by making a profit.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 15-12-2015 00:09 |
| 15-12-2015 00:16 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We also understand that none of all that absorption matters. The total energy emitted from the Earth equals that coming in. It always has. Notches in the emission spectrum do not change that.
And that's why we call you deniers. You cite no evidence to the contrary or give any alternative theories; just flat denial of the mountains of evidence gathered by the scientists. It's pathetic.
On the contrary, I have cited falsifying evidence (you only need one). Please refer to the Data Mine (an earlier thread on this board) for examples of data I have presented. Others have presented evidence in there also that falsifies the Global Warming religion (not a theory).
I and others have explained the theories Global Warming violates. I and others have also explained why it cannot be a theory at all. I and others have already described what these 'mountains of evidence' really are (which is why I created the Data Mine using the rules set out in the first post of that thread).
Numbers have no meaning unless you know where they came from and how they were generated. I ask this question of anyone presenting numbers as evidence. I demand the raw data, not someones interpretation of composite data, adjusted (fudged) data, or fabricated data. Unfortunately, the central NOAA website and the NASA website is filled with this fake data.
You've done nothing of the sort. All I've seen from you is scientifically illiterate blather and nutty conspiracy theories. I've no idea how you manage to delude yourself that your ramblings have any scientific relevance whatsoever.
All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller. |
| 15-12-2015 02:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
We also understand that none of all that absorption matters. The total energy emitted from the Earth equals that coming in. It always has. Notches in the emission spectrum do not change that.
And that's why we call you deniers. You cite no evidence to the contrary or give any alternative theories; just flat denial of the mountains of evidence gathered by the scientists. It's pathetic.
On the contrary, I have cited falsifying evidence (you only need one). Please refer to the Data Mine (an earlier thread on this board) for examples of data I have presented. Others have presented evidence in there also that falsifies the Global Warming religion (not a theory).
I and others have explained the theories Global Warming violates. I and others have also explained why it cannot be a theory at all. I and others have already described what these 'mountains of evidence' really are (which is why I created the Data Mine using the rules set out in the first post of that thread).
Numbers have no meaning unless you know where they came from and how they were generated. I ask this question of anyone presenting numbers as evidence. I demand the raw data, not someones interpretation of composite data, adjusted (fudged) data, or fabricated data. Unfortunately, the central NOAA website and the NASA website is filled with this fake data.
You've done nothing of the sort. All I've seen from you is scientifically illiterate blather and nutty conspiracy theories. I've no idea how you manage to delude yourself that your ramblings have any scientific relevance whatsoever.
All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
Since you refuse to look into the Data Mine, I can't help you. You insist on staying deluded.
Enjoy your false god.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-12-2015 13:06 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14403) |
Surface Detail wrote:All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
Question: What is the warmizombie "gold standard" for tipping one's king?
Answer: Declare that all non-existent support for unfalsifiable dogma is "available on the internet."
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-12-2015 13:21 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14403) |
Surface Detail wrote:. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
All religions tout their standard compliment of proponents who "once were nonbelievers."
www.everystudent.com/wires/atheist.html
The gullible always fall for it.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-12-2015 17:27 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
Question: What is the warmizombie "gold standard" for tipping one's king?
Answer: Declare that all non-existent support for unfalsifiable dogma is "available on the internet."
"You can lead a denier to data, but you can't make him think." |
| 15-12-2015 21:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
I see no raw data available at all on the site...anywhere.
I do see a lot of composited data. I see a lot of fudged data. I even see a few datasets of fabricated numbers. But I see no raw data in any form anywhere on the site.
Could you refer me to one?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-12-2015 21:37 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
I see no raw data available at all on the site...anywhere.
I do see a lot of composited data. I see a lot of fudged data. I even see a few datasets of fabricated numbers. But I see no raw data in any form anywhere on the site.
Could you refer me to one?
You just have to follow a link. The complete dataset used by GISS, not yet adjusted to take into account differences such the time at which measurements are taken, changes in local surroundings and measuring methods, can be download from:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
The "QCU" files are the raw, unadjusted data. Knock yourself out.
Edit: By the the way, data homogenisation, that is, adjusting data to account for changes in measuring circumstances, is not "fudging". It is a perfectly normal and essential part of data analysis.
Edited on 15-12-2015 21:39 |
|
| 15-12-2015 22:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
I see no raw data available at all on the site...anywhere.
I do see a lot of composited data. I see a lot of fudged data. I even see a few datasets of fabricated numbers. But I see no raw data in any form anywhere on the site.
Could you refer me to one?
You just have to follow a link. The complete dataset used by GISS, not yet adjusted to take into account differences such the time at which measurements are taken, changes in local surroundings and measuring methods, can be download from:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
The "QCU" files are the raw, unadjusted data. Knock yourself out.
Edit: By the the way, data homogenisation, that is, adjusting data to account for changes in measuring circumstances, is not "fudging". It is a perfectly normal and essential part of data analysis.
This is a different web site. However, the link you provided I suspect is similar to data I have already shown, although in tabular form. I would have to check it further to make sure.
It is never perfectly normal to adjust data. That's fudging. If it is done as part of the data analysis, the resulting summary will also be fudged.
Instrumentation must remain calibrated to independent standards to mean anything. There are no circumstances that validate fudging.
Data homogenisation is another word for compositing data. That too is fraught with peril, since bias is easily introduced by the compositing method. In the case of NOAA, they've introduced bias due to the inconsistent density of stations in various areas of the country. They've also introduced fabricated data from stations that are unreliable in their composites.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-12-2015 22:27 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
All of the temperature data used by NASA is available for download at the GISS website. It is available in both its raw and adjusted forms, and the reasons for the adjustments are explained. The algorithms used to derive global temperatures are also available for anybody to download and examine. The NASA data has also been verified by the BEST project, led by the initially sceptical Richard Muller.
I see no raw data available at all on the site...anywhere.
I do see a lot of composited data. I see a lot of fudged data. I even see a few datasets of fabricated numbers. But I see no raw data in any form anywhere on the site.
Could you refer me to one?
You just have to follow a link. The complete dataset used by GISS, not yet adjusted to take into account differences such the time at which measurements are taken, changes in local surroundings and measuring methods, can be download from:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
The "QCU" files are the raw, unadjusted data. Knock yourself out.
Edit: By the the way, data homogenisation, that is, adjusting data to account for changes in measuring circumstances, is not "fudging". It is a perfectly normal and essential part of data analysis.
This is a different web site. However, the link you provided I suspect is similar to data I have already shown, although in tabular form. I would have to check it further to make sure.
It is never perfectly normal to adjust data. That's fudging. If it is done as part of the data analysis, the resulting summary will also be fudged.
Instrumentation must remain calibrated to independent standards to mean anything. There are no circumstances that validate fudging.
Data homogenisation is another word for compositing data. That too is fraught with peril, since bias is easily introduced by the compositing method. In the case of NOAA, they've introduced bias due to the inconsistent density of stations in various areas of the country. They've also introduced fabricated data from stations that are unreliable in their composites.
Goof grief, you don't even understand basic data processing terminology, yet you feel qualified to judge the work of experts in the field. Talk about arrogance! Data homogenisation refers, as I said, to the adjustment of individual data points to take account of how they were measured. It has nothing to do with compositing.
Do you really think it makes sense to, for example, directly compare temperature readings taken in the morning and afternoon? Of course it doesn't. That's why climatologists put so much effort into ensuring that the data is, as far as possible, comparable. This requires that temperature readings taken under different conditions are adjusted to give, as closely as possible, the values that they would have been had they been taken under modern, standardised conditions. |
| 15-12-2015 23:01 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is never perfectly normal to adjust data. That's fudging. If it is done as part of the data analysis, the resulting summary will also be fudged.
Instrumentation must remain calibrated to independent standards to mean anything. There are no circumstances that validate fudging.
Data homogenisation is another word for compositing data. That too is fraught with peril, since bias is easily introduced by the compositing method. In the case of NOAA, they've introduced bias due to the inconsistent density of stations in various areas of the country. They've also introduced fabricated data from stations that are unreliable in their composites.
Goof grief, you don't even understand basic data processing terminology, yet you feel qualified to judge the work of experts in the field. Talk about arrogance! Data homogenisation refers, as I said, to the adjustment of individual data points to take account of how they were measured. It has nothing to do with compositing. It has everything to do with compositing. Perhaps you don't understand data homogenization as clearly as you say you do.
Surface Detail wrote:
Do you really think it makes sense to, for example, directly compare temperature readings taken in the morning and afternoon? Of course it doesn't.
That depends entirely on what you're measuring for.
In the case of daily weather information, this is why measurements are taken every half hour (and taken continuously through automation these days).
Surface Detail wrote:
That's why climatologists put so much effort into ensuring that the data is, as far as possible, comparable. Climatologists don't have to do anything. The data is measured against independent standards of calibration.
Surface Detail wrote:
This requires that temperature readings taken under different conditions are adjusted to give, as closely as possible, the values that they would have been had they been taken under modern, standardised conditions.
You are advocating the use of no independent standard this way. The readings from such an instrument are utterly useless. It is uncalibrated. You can't even determine how variant you are from the standard conditions.
This is the dirty little problem with satellite instrumentation, by the way. Instrument drift. In general, there is no way to calibrate the craft's instruments back to a known independent standard once launched. There are a few exceptions, but they regard time and position, not temperature.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-12-2015 00:42 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is never perfectly normal to adjust data. That's fudging. If it is done as part of the data analysis, the resulting summary will also be fudged.
Instrumentation must remain calibrated to independent standards to mean anything. There are no circumstances that validate fudging.
Data homogenisation is another word for compositing data. That too is fraught with peril, since bias is easily introduced by the compositing method. In the case of NOAA, they've introduced bias due to the inconsistent density of stations in various areas of the country. They've also introduced fabricated data from stations that are unreliable in their composites.
Goof grief, you don't even understand basic data processing terminology, yet you feel qualified to judge the work of experts in the field. Talk about arrogance! Data homogenisation refers, as I said, to the adjustment of individual data points to take account of how they were measured. It has nothing to do with compositing. It has everything to do with compositing. Perhaps you don't understand data homogenization as clearly as you say you do.
Surface Detail wrote:
Do you really think it makes sense to, for example, directly compare temperature readings taken in the morning and afternoon? Of course it doesn't.
That depends entirely on what you're measuring for.
In the case of daily weather information, this is why measurements are taken every half hour (and taken continuously through automation these days).
Surface Detail wrote:
That's why climatologists put so much effort into ensuring that the data is, as far as possible, comparable. Climatologists don't have to do anything. The data is measured against independent standards of calibration.
Surface Detail wrote:
This requires that temperature readings taken under different conditions are adjusted to give, as closely as possible, the values that they would have been had they been taken under modern, standardised conditions.
You are advocating the use of no independent standard this way. The readings from such an instrument are utterly useless. It is uncalibrated. You can't even determine how variant you are from the standard conditions.
Well done for completely missing the point. We're not talking about measurements performed today; we're talking about measurements that were taken in the past using a variety of methodologies. Since we can't travel back in time to dictate a global standard technique, these historic readings must be properly corrected if they are to be compared with today's measurements.
This is the dirty little problem with satellite instrumentation, by the way. Instrument drift. In general, there is no way to calibrate the craft's instruments back to a known independent standard once launched. There are a few exceptions, but they regard time and position, not temperature.
Yes, it's true that the derivation of temperature from satellite temperature data is not straightforward and has been prone to error. That's why most scientists consider the surface temperature data to be more reliable. |
| 16-12-2015 00:53 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Well done for completely missing the point. We're not talking about measurements performed today; we're talking about measurements that were taken in the past using a variety of methodologies. Since we can't travel back in time to dictate a global standard technique, these historic readings must be properly corrected if they are to be compared with today's measurements. Measurements taken in the past used the same independent standards we use today. That's what makes them relevant. No 'correction' is needed. That is fudging the data.
Surface Detail wrote:
This is the dirty little problem with satellite instrumentation, by the way. Instrument drift. In general, there is no way to calibrate the craft's instruments back to a known independent standard once launched. There are a few exceptions, but they regard time and position, not temperature.
Yes, it's true that the derivation of temperature from satellite temperature data is not straightforward and has been prone to error. That's why most scientists consider the surface temperature data to be more reliable.
The difference is the availability of independent standards for calibrating (and recalibrating) the instruments.
I have shown the surface temperatures and precip data from the raw data from many stations. I have also shown the instrumentation used and how it is calibrated. See the Data Mine.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 16-12-2015 00:56 |
| 16-12-2015 01:35 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Measurements taken in the past used the same independent standards we use today. That's what makes them relevant. No 'correction' is needed. That is fudging the data.
You obviously don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Until recently, meteorologists had no idea that their temperature readings would be used for global comparison. There was no standard time of day for taking readings. Weather stations were moved, became overgrown or were affected by the proximity of heated buildings. If you look at the raw data, you'll see jumps and discontinuities resulting from these changes.
One of the main tasks of the scientists charged with building an accurate historic temperature record is to identify and, as far as possible, compensate for these changes. That is why historic data is adjusted. This is no secret - look at the FAQ on the GISS website for more details about the reasons for adjustment. |
| 16-12-2015 02:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Measurements taken in the past used the same independent standards we use today. That's what makes them relevant. No 'correction' is needed. That is fudging the data.
You obviously don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Until recently, meteorologists had no idea that their temperature readings would be used for global comparison. What global comparison??? We still do not have the capability to measure a global temperature!
Surface Detail wrote:
There was no standard time of day for taking readings. Yes there was. Every half hour.
Surface Detail wrote:
Weather stations were moved, Some were, most were not. If a station is moved, that data is closed and a new track starts.
Surface Detail wrote:
became overgrown A station still in operation is not overgrown.
Surface Detail wrote:
or were affected by the proximity of heated buildings. Easily detectable by a jump. That station must now be moved or be removed from any hope of building a composite.
Surface Detail wrote:
If you look at the raw data, you'll see jumps and discontinuities resulting from these changes. Equipment breakdown is a fact of life. Each station also logs it's reliability. During this time, it must be excluded from any composite. NOAA instead fabricates data on what the station is 'supposed' to be reading and adds that.
Surface Detail wrote:
One of the main tasks of the scientists charged with building an accurate historic temperature record is to identify and, as far as possible, compensate for these changes. That is why historic data is adjusted. Fudging is fudging. There is no change you've mentioned that justifies fudging.
Surface Detail wrote:
This is no secret - look at the FAQ on the GISS website for more details about the reasons for adjustment.
The GISS website does not contain any raw data that I can find. I could give a dead rat about their justification for fudging or fabricating numbers.
Fudged and fabricated numbers are not data. It doesn't matter what the GISS calls it. Composited data is also not data. It is someones idea of interpretation of data, since the source data is not uniform. The ONLY time composited data has any validity is when the source data is uniform in density of collection (how evenly the collections points are spaced). We don't have a uniform distribution of weather stations.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 16-12-2015 02:30 |
| 16-12-2015 02:55 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
The raw data can be found here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
GISS doesn't use the raw data because it would make no sense to ignore station moves (very few stations have not been moved at some time, or been influenced by nearby buildings, or been shaded by vegetation to varying degrees) and different measurement times. They give their rationale here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.
Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions of the conspiracy theorists, NASA has not been engaged in wholesale (but curiously public) "fudging" of the data; they have simply been ensuring that the temperature data used for comparison is as accurate as possible. That's what real scientists do. |
| 16-12-2015 03:27 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21596) |
Surface Detail wrote:
The raw data can be found here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
So you've told me. I have already answered this. Do you have a memory problem?
Surface Detail wrote:
GISS doesn't use the raw data because it would make no sense to ignore station moves (very few stations have not been moved at some time, or been influenced by nearby buildings, or been shaded by vegetation to varying degrees) and different measurement times.
You are denying your own argument here. I have also found there was no need to correct problems at stations for the bulk of them.
Surface Detail wrote:
They give their rationale here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
[quote]Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.
The rationale is not sensible. It is fudging. Thermometers are calibrated to independent standards. So are precipitation gauges. There is no need to adjust (fudge) anything. The raw data coupled with the reliability log (also kept by each station) is all you need. If a station in influenced by non-weather problems, you move or repair the station so it isn't.
Surface Detail wrote:
Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions of the conspiracy theorists, NASA has not been engaged in wholesale (but curiously public) "fudging" of the data; they have simply been ensuring that the temperature data used for comparison is as accurate as possible.
NASA does not do this job. The station operators do through NOAA funding. They've done a pretty good job too. The stations have excellent records of raw data.
Surface Detail wrote:
That's what real scientists do.
The old 'true scotsman' argument eh?
No, a scientist will figure out why the data is errant and fix the instrument if necessary, then discard the errant data while logging the gap in data collection. This is how the station operators log their data.
If a scientist includes errant data in their log, knowing it's errant data, they are knowingly introducing a bias into their result. No reputable scientist would do that. A disreputable scientist would. We certainly have no shortage of them through the years. Fortunately, they don't work for NOAA weather stations.
The fudging and fabrication of data has been done by NOAA itself. NASA is even worse.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-12-2015 10:54 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The raw data can be found here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
So you've told me. I have already answered this. Do you have a memory problem?
You asked again, I gave it to you again. You're welcome.
Surface Detail wrote:
GISS doesn't use the raw data because it would make no sense to ignore station moves (very few stations have not been moved at some time, or been influenced by nearby buildings, or been shaded by vegetation to varying degrees) and different measurement times.
You are denying your own argument here.
That seems to be your stock meaningless phrase when you're stuck for a reply. It's wearing thin.
I have also found there was no need to correct problems at stations for the bulk of them.
Bullshit. I doubt there is a single station in the world that has taken measurements under exactly the same circumstances since 1880. And I certainly don't believe you've done any data analysis. Give an example of one of these many perfect datasets you claim to have found.
Surface Detail wrote:
They give their rationale here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/FAQ.html
Q. Why use the adjusted rather than the "raw" data?
A. GISS uses temperature data for long-term climate studies. For station data to be useful for such studies, it is essential that the time series of observations are consistent, and that any non-climatic temperature jumps, introduced by station moves or equipment updates, are corrected for. In adjusted data the effect of such non-climatic influences is eliminated whenever possible. Originally, only documented cases were adjusted, however the current procedure used by NOAA/NCEI applies an automated system that uses systematic comparisons with neighboring stations to deal with undocumented instances of artificial changes. The processes and evaluation of these procedures are described in numerous publications — for instance, Menne et al., 2010 and Venema et al., 2012 — and at the NOAA/NCEI website.
The rationale is not sensible. It is fudging. Thermometers are calibrated to independent standards. So are precipitation gauges. There is no need to adjust (fudge) anything. The raw data coupled with the reliability log (also kept by each station) is all you need. If a station in influenced by non-weather problems, you move or repair the station so it isn't.
Still totally clueless, I see. This has very little to do with calibration. The main problems are:
1) most stations have been moved at some point
2) almost all stations have been affected by changes in their local environment
3) daily measurements have been taken at different times of day.
Surface Detail wrote:
Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions of the conspiracy theorists, NASA has not been engaged in wholesale (but curiously public) "fudging" of the data; they have simply been ensuring that the temperature data used for comparison is as accurate as possible.
NASA does not do this job. The station operators do through NOAA funding. They've done a pretty good job too. The stations have excellent records of raw data.
The station operators can take precise measurements, but they cannot maintain their local environment in exactly the same state.
Surface Detail wrote:
That's what real scientists do.
The old 'true scotsman' argument eh?
As opposed to internet poseurs like you.
No, a scientist will figure out why the data is errant and fix the instrument if necessary, then discard the errant data while logging the gap in data collection. This is how the station operators log their data.
You still don't comprehend the issue, do you? This has little to to with inaccurate instrumentation and everything to do with the circumstances of measurement.
If a scientist includes errant data in their log, knowing it's errant data, they are knowingly introducing a bias into their result.
Still no understanding. All temperature measurements depend on the changing state of the local environment. It is the job of climate scientists to quantify and allow for the effects of this.
No reputable scientist would do that. A disreputable scientist would. We certainly have no shortage of them through the years. Fortunately, they don't work for NOAA weather stations. The fudging and fabrication of data has been done by NOAA itself. NASA is even worse.
You clearly have very little comprehension of the processes involved in establishing a consistent temperature record, yet you have no hesitation in branding those that do to be liars. You are an arrogant fool. |