Global Warming

[franklin]

Heh. If those changes are to unfold over 1000s of years, then the whole thing is irrelevant. Can you imagine the level of technology in 1000 years?

I imagine pretty much everything will be as close to free as possible and we won't know what to do with ourselves.

 

[One Brow]

... I would like to again ask, why was the data was altered. Don't you find this strange?

I don't see any altered data. I see two graphs, created at different times, regarding different land areas, and with different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. When you go the source where the graphs are first listed, one graph is labeled "U. S. ", and the other graph is labeled "Contiguous U. S.". Last I checked, these were not the same thing.

The website first quoted specifically claims "NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data." The second offered "Hansen corrupted the US temperature record", and deliberately removes the caption about "Contiguous US" in order to advance the deception (given the placement in the original diagram, there is no other expanation for it to be missing). Your attempt to distance yourself from these claims is transparent and pathetic.

If you were really interested in finding out the truth about global warming/climate change, you could have followed these links for yourself, to see this obvious lie. Instead, you spread lies (whether you knew it or not, the origin of this story is a lie, and you did indeed spread it by linking to the story) about altered data, where not one single datum was shown to be altered. Perhaps spreading lies does not bother you. That, I do not find strange at all.

However, since there is no altered data, your original question is moot.

 

[One Brow]

I sorta hate multiquotes, I lose track of what I'm talking about. . . .

1 I'm thinking you're not clear on the issues of accuracy and precision. Sure we can measure temp to .001C. That's precision. Accuracy is another issue. When the variance is greater in the phenomena, you have to consider accuracy no matter how precise a thermometer may be. How representative is that precise value of the situation?

By accuracy here, I presume you mean "as opposed to bias". That is the usual meaning in this context.

Bias is irrelevant when looking at relative change, only precision matters. If we consistently measure some number as true value at time x is 5, and measure that number as 9, then when we measure using the same method later on and get an 11, it will be because the underlying value changed to 7. There is still an increase of 2.

If you did not mean "as opposed to bias", then please explain what you meant.

I argue that the best response to a crisis is to let people act for themselves. I know you can argue otherwise. Say a theatre catches fire, and the manager uses the intercom to cry out "Fire". Or not. Scene one has people trampling one another, scene two not so much.

Scene two has a lot more people dying.

So if we have AGW why can't we be building nuclear power plants already, why not invest in cold fusion research? lots of people choosing to put solar panels up on their roofs now, riding bikes and stuff. If people see a problem, and are free to try their own solutions, chances are we'll find one that really works best, and people will rapidly turn to it on their own good observation. I really think governments are dedicated to dinosaur solutions and ages behind the learning curve in nature. At least I don't think we should do the global carbon tax.

Government intervention does not prevent entrepreneurship. It can help it.

 

[Siro]

I imagine pretty much everything will be as close to free as possible and we won't know what to do with ourselves.

I imagine it will be far stranger than that. We should discuss it sometime. I enjoy talking about what it is ultimately possibly and watch people squirm as they impulsively reject ideas that make them uncomfortable, but can't quite think of reasons WHY they can't happen.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't see any altered data. I see two graphs, created at different times, regarding different land areas, and with different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. When you go the source where the graphs are first listed, one graph is labeled "U. S. ", and the other graph is labeled "Contiguous U. S.". Last I checked, these were not the same thing.

The website first quoted specifically claims "NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data." The second offered "Hansen corrupted the US temperature record", and deliberately removes the caption about "Contiguous US" in order to advance the deception (given the placement in the original diagram, there is no other expanation for it to be missing). Your attempt to distance yourself from these claims is transparent and pathetic.

If you were really interested in finding out the truth about global warming/climate change, you could have followed these links for yourself, to see this obvious lie. Instead, you spread lies (whether you knew it or not, the origin of this story is a lie, and you did indeed spread it by linking to the story) about altered data, where not one single datum was shown to be altered. Perhaps spreading lies does not bother you. That, I do not find strange at all.

However, since there is no altered data, your original question is moot.

I have not attempted to distance myself from any claims so stick your transparent and pathetic comment where the sun don't shine. The stuff you brought up about "contiguous" is interesting. I hadn't noticed that. I'll look into it, but unless their methods of computing average temperature are highly weighted toward Alaska and Hawaii, the only way the elimination of those two states from the graph would make such a big difference is if they are experiencing far less change due to GW than the rest of the country. That seems to be the opposite of earlier comments about the effects of climate change in this portion of the world, but maybe I misunderstood.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't see any altered data. I see two graphs, created at different times, regarding different land areas, and with different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. When you go the source where the graphs are first listed, one graph is labeled "U. S. ", and the other graph is labeled "Contiguous U. S.". Last I checked, these were not the same thing.

The website first quoted specifically claims "NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data." The second offered "Hansen corrupted the US temperature record", and deliberately removes the caption about "Contiguous US" in order to advance the deception (given the placement in the original diagram, there is no other expanation for it to be missing). Your attempt to distance yourself from these claims is transparent and pathetic.

If you were really interested in finding out the truth about global warming/climate change, you could have followed these links for yourself, to see this obvious lie. Instead, you spread lies (whether you knew it or not, the origin of this story is a lie, and you did indeed spread it by linking to the story) about altered data, where not one single datum was shown to be altered. Perhaps spreading lies does not bother you. That, I do not find strange at all.

However, since there is no altered data, your original question is moot.

Take a look at this link:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
That's the original version of the data which you noted was for the entire US, but if you read the caption beneath the graph you will discover that it is actually for the contiguous US.

The current version of the graph mentions that it is the contiguous US in the title:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

In other words, these appear to be two versions of the same graph from the same author, yet they show a completely different trend. I'm sure you'll have another explanation for that now that your previous explanation has been debunked. So who is transparent and pathetic now?

 

[babe]

By accuracy here, I presume you mean "as opposed to bias". That is the usual meaning in this context.

Bias is irrelevant when looking at relative change, only precision matters. If we consistently measure some number as true value at time x is 5, and measure that number as 9, then when we measure using the same method later on and get an 11, it will be because the underlying value changed to 7. There is still an increase of 2.

If you did not mean "as opposed to bias", then please explain what you meant.



Scene two has a lot more people dying.



Government intervention does not prevent entrepreneurship. It can help it.

I view accuracy and bias to be different things. Accuracy is a concept of how close the measurement is to the true value. TV=m,+/-d. high accuracy would have "difference" very small so true value= measurement. I consider a thermometer to be accurate if it indicates the true temp. It might be imprecise with resolution of only say 0.5 F on it's scale, or it might be very precise if it's electronic digital readout of resolution .0005 F.

bias could be in some cases the same thing, but not necessarily in all cases. bias describes a persistent trend to vary in the same direction from the true value. It can arise from the method or the operator or the instrument. So if a fairly complacent researcher places his thermometer close to the ground, albeit in a slatted white box, and takes his daily temp reading at 3pm, he's going to bias the result positive.

To determine "bias" you need a second measuring system, and some data that shows the first system doesn't reflect the truth very well. Or you need to have the instrument calibrated against some standard of reference.

If the locations of the measurement device set is distributed irregularly, and no appropriate weighting is given to the extent of the earth a reading represents, you could bias the result no matter how accurate those thousands of readings near growing cities with building construction. . . roads and sidewalks heat-sink materials.

Overall, for several considerations, I don't think our temp measurements are very accurate, though as you say one way to deal with that is the relative difference method. We probably bias that with switching thermometers mid-steam in our data collection in a significant number of sites. . ..or not having the sense to stop comparing data from sites where there is some ongoing change like construction in the area which can impact in a directional way the results gathered. . . . .

In a similar vein, I do think our instrumentation is quite "precise" and "unbiased" in character. But I don't think our science is "unbiased" on the subject. "Highly politicized", yes.

 

[LogGrad98]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

As I read that article I kept thinking, holy crap this is going to piss off a lot of Scientific American readers. I got to the comment section and discovered that I was right. Bravo to SI for at least giving this perspective a voice. I think it has been a disservice to science that so far they have been unwilling to acknowledge that the actual temperatures we are measuring are significantly lower than the predictions that turned GW into such a cause célèbre. In the long run it is far better if we make our decisions based upon the truth.

 

[carolinajazz]

You haven't changed the fact that I believe climate change is happening. The reason I believe it: science!

....from what I've read about "climate change" or "global warming" is this: It does not mean that every spot on the planet is getting warmer, but rather "climate change" or "global warming" creates EXTREMES! In other words, because of what man has done to the environment and atmosphere, he has created extremes in which some places will be hotter than normal, others places colder! Some places will be dryer than others, some place wetter! The resulting conditions from man's mismanagement of the earth and it's resources is that extremes are created that wreck havoc and cause weather conditions that are not "normal"! Not to be alarmed because we have this fact that escapes the notice of the great majority of mankind! (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . .: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

 

[Zombie]

As I read that article I kept thinking, holy crap this is going to piss off a lot of Scientific American readers. I got to the comment section and discovered that I was right. Bravo to SI for at least giving this perspective a voice. I think it has been a disservice to science that so far they have been unwilling to acknowledge that the actual temperatures we are measuring are significantly lower than the predictions that turned GW into such a cause célèbre. In the long run it is far better if we make our decisions based upon the truth.

That's funny, when I was reading the article it made me think about Al Gore.

You see I hear a lot of people who claim Global Warming doesn't exist, or it does but it's not out fault, or it is but it's not that big of a deal, complain about Alarmists politicizing the issue, not letting the science do the talking. Often times Al Gore is brought up, it's wonderful.

And here we have an article with a different perspective! in a science magazine!

Written by a politician and pundit.

Hmmm.

 

[Siro]

That's funny, when I was reading the article it made me think about Al Gore.

You see I hear a lot of people who claim Global Warming doesn't exist, or it does but it's not out fault, or it is but it's not that big of a deal, complain about Alarmists politicizing the issue, not letting the science do the talking. Often times Al Gore is brought up, it's wonderful.

And here we have an article with a different perspective! in a science magazine!

Written by a politician and pundit.

Hmmm.

I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but aren't you doing exactly what you're criticizing people of? I mean, skipping facts of the matter and focusing on personalities?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That's funny, when I was reading the article it made me think about Al Gore.

You see I hear a lot of people who claim Global Warming doesn't exist, or it does but it's not out fault, or it is but it's not that big of a deal, complain about Alarmists politicizing the issue, not letting the science do the talking. Often times Al Gore is brought up, it's wonderful.

And here we have an article with a different perspective! in a science magazine!

Written by a politician and pundit.

Hmmm.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make, but I do know that Al Gore is a complete buffoon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14kNtnJgXXM
Is that the sort of wonderful stuff you like so much?

 

[Zombie]

I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but aren't you doing exactly what you're criticizing people of? I mean, skipping facts of the matter and focusing on personalities?

What I am doing is pointing out that when it comes to the facts of this matter we should take anything a politician or pundit says on the matter with a large grain of salt.

Why are we letting the AL Gores and Matt Ridleys of the world dominate the conversation.

 

[Zombie]

That's my whole point Joe. I would take an article by Al Gore just as seriously as the one you linked to. Which is to say, not at all.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That's my whole point Joe. I would take an article by Al Gore just as seriously as the one you linked to. Which is to say, not at all.

Fair point (though I'm not the one who linked to the article you're talking about). Obviously there are ramifications of this discussion that go beyond the scientific. I certainly think Gore has had a platform to state his case. This is the first I've ever heard of Ridley.

I still feel that it's refreshing to hear an admission from a respected voice on this issue (Scientific American) that the data we are now measuring are showing a much smaller change than what the models told us would happen.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's my whole point Joe. I would take an article by Al Gore just as seriously as the one you linked to. Which is to say, not at all.

So can you actually point out the pieces of it you disagree with and why, or is your only argument "well that guy is wrong because reasons".

 

[One Brow]

I'm sure you'll have another explanation for that now that your previous explanation has been debunked. So who is transparent and pathetic now?

I don't need another explanation. There are still two different graphs, created at different times, using different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. They are indeed of the same land mass. There is still no evidence that the data was doctored nor that the temperature record was corrupted. It is still a lie.

Here's something to ask yourself: when there were so many points in my post to look at, and one of which is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the OP, you chose one error on my part and declared the entire post invalid. Are you really so desperate to win this argument that you will take any excuse? What do you have to gain from falsifying global warming? What does it say about you that you are allowing tribalism to override the evidence in your position here?

 

[One Brow]

So can you actually point out the pieces of it you disagree with and why, or is your only argument "well that guy is wrong because reasons".

I disagree with the premise that warming has slowed. There used to be 60-years cycles of temperature increasing and decreasing, now the cycle is one of flattening and increasing quickly. We just finished a flat period.

I also disagree with the general notion that simply because there was a lull, we shouldn't deal with the problem urgently.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't need another explanation. There are still two different graphs, created at different times, using different scales, being presented by people who have a history of misrepresenting the truth. They are indeed of the same land mass. There is still no evidence that the data was doctored nor that the temperature record was corrupted. It is still a lie.

Here's something to ask yourself: when there were so many points in my post to look at, and one of which is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims of the OP, you chose one error on my part and declared the entire post invalid. Are you really so desperate to win this argument that you will take any excuse? What do you have to gain from falsifying global warming? What does it say about you that you are allowing tribalism to override the evidence in your position here?

Hi