Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Are you a Gorebot? A Denier? Let's mix it up here and figure this issue out!
User avatar
psk836
Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rolla
Posts: 15827
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:22 am

Re: Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Post by psk836 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:00 pm

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads ... iament.pdf

“Figure 7 shows the model projections in pink and different observational datasets in shades of blue. You can also easily see the difference in warming rates: the models are warming too fast. The exception is the Russian model, which has much lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and therefore gives projections for the end of the century that are far from alarming. The rest of them are already falsified, and their predictions for 2100 can’t be trusted. If an engineer built an aeroplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models.“
0 x

User avatar
Falstaff2
Courtier
Posts: 975
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Post by Falstaff2 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 pm

Scooter wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:41 pm
Falstaff2 wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 pm
barrysoetoro wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:18 pm
Falstaff2 wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:47 am
I'm looking for a Mother Jones article suitable to counter that tale.
man caused global warming is an opinion. Some scientists think it's real, and it makes them popular and Rich. Nothing else.

Al Gore is a rich man because of it. Think about it, loser.
You call me a loser....... You believed in WMDs! And you were a BIRTHER!
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)
The German engineer who was developing a super gun for Iraq to deliver chemical and biological war heads to Israel was murdered in England. There was no way to deliver the WMDs to Israel and at the time no one gave a damn if Iraq and Iran slaughtered each other.
0 x

User avatar
KC_
Serene Highness
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Post by KC_ » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:24 pm

evilconempire wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:44 pm
KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:29 pm
evilconempire wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:02 pm
KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:23 am
evilconempire wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:17 am
KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:12 am
evilconempire wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:17 pm


A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... o-pristine


"Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record."
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/paper ... evised.pdf
Real scientists change their theories to fit the data. Partisan stooges masquerading as scientists change the data to fit their politically motivated agenda. In recent years the more the data refuses to cooperate the more they have to change it and the direction is always upward for recent data and downward for much older data. Any one with common sense and a degree of open mindedness can see through the scam.
Data doesn't cooperate. It just is. It is proving the existence of AGW and I've shown you a couple of times this week that not all the historical data was revised to make the warming worse. I can only show you the research. I can't understand for you.
I showed you many videos and articles how they keep changing the data more and more . They almost always lower the old data and they keep changing the recent data by an ever increasing factor to make it line up with atmospheric CO2 . That’s not science it’s propaganda for political reasons.
You've provided pseudoscience from bloggers that has been debunked. I'm providing you with actual science. Here's one example of how Stoddard aka Heller misses on the raw data:

"The study showed that the averaged raw and adjusted US land temperature data are both very close to the pristine reference data during that period of 2004–2015."

Image

Do understand the significance of that? There is no conspiracy behind the adjustments. They've put them all out there to be tested with full explanations for them.
Image
Right, we've already established that adjustments have been made sure to errors in the past. As I showed you, those adjustments have been proven to be very accurate
Upward only adjustments to current and recent temperature data don’t make sense. Temperatures from heat sink city locations which are bad data sources should be adjusted down not rural areas adjusted up.
1 x
“I’d rather die standing up than live on my knees “
Stephane Charbonnier

User avatar
psk836
Ayatollah of Rock-n-Rolla
Posts: 15827
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:22 am

Re: Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Post by psk836 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:48 pm

The new sensors match the satellite data and show essentially no warming since the 1930s. Only the old sensors, 95% of which do not meet NOAA standards, combined with models that do not match real world data, show warming.
1 x

User avatar
Evil
Somebody please hep me I been hypmotized
Posts: 43073
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:25 am

Re: Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Post by Evil » Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:10 pm

KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:24 pm
evilconempire wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:44 pm
KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:29 pm
evilconempire wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:02 pm
KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:23 am
evilconempire wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:17 am
KC_ wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:12 am
evilconempire wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:17 pm


A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... o-pristine


"Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record."
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/paper ... evised.pdf
Real scientists change their theories to fit the data. Partisan stooges masquerading as scientists change the data to fit their politically motivated agenda. In recent years the more the data refuses to cooperate the more they have to change it and the direction is always upward for recent data and downward for much older data. Any one with common sense and a degree of open mindedness can see through the scam.
Data doesn't cooperate. It just is. It is proving the existence of AGW and I've shown you a couple of times this week that not all the historical data was revised to make the warming worse. I can only show you the research. I can't understand for you.
I showed you many videos and articles how they keep changing the data more and more . They almost always lower the old data and they keep changing the recent data by an ever increasing factor to make it line up with atmospheric CO2 . That’s not science it’s propaganda for political reasons.
You've provided pseudoscience from bloggers that has been debunked. I'm providing you with actual science. Here's one example of how Stoddard aka Heller misses on the raw data:

"The study showed that the averaged raw and adjusted US land temperature data are both very close to the pristine reference data during that period of 2004–2015."

Image

Do understand the significance of that? There is no conspiracy behind the adjustments. They've put them all out there to be tested with full explanations for them.
Image
Right, we've already established that adjustments have been made sure to errors in the past. As I showed you, those adjustments have been proven to be very accurate
Upward only adjustments to current and recent temperature data don’t make sense. Temperatures from heat sink city locations which are bad data sources should be adjusted down not rural areas adjusted up.
The adjustments are not all in one direction. Adjustments were down when biased by heat islands. Like ocean temps that were being taken on the stern of boats right next to outboard motors. Bad methodology in the past has to be corrected. We have over a decade of "pristine" data that proves the adjustments were correct.

Image
0 x
"When the speech condemns a free press, you are hearing the words of a tyrant."

User avatar
Scooter
Serene Highness
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:56 pm

Re: Global Warming, Or Just Bad Data?

Post by Scooter » Sat Sep 07, 2019 1:25 pm

Falstaff2 wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 pm
Scooter wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:41 pm
Falstaff2 wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:35 pm
barrysoetoro wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:18 pm
Falstaff2 wrote:
Thu Sep 05, 2019 9:47 am
I'm looking for a Mother Jones article suitable to counter that tale.
man caused global warming is an opinion. Some scientists think it's real, and it makes them popular and Rich. Nothing else.

Al Gore is a rich man because of it. Think about it, loser.
You call me a loser....... You believed in WMDs! And you were a BIRTHER!
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)
The German engineer who was developing a super gun for Iraq to deliver chemical and biological war heads to Israel was murdered in England. There was no way to deliver the WMDs to Israel and at the time no one gave a damn if Iraq and Iran slaughtered each other.
Nice bullsht deflection, BOY.
0 x
Image
After all the lies and trumped-up charges... *STILL* your President.

Post Reply