- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So NOAA and NASA are doctoring temperature data.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 10:38 am to Champagne
Posted on 7/23/14 at 10:38 am to Champagne
quote:no
Hasn't it also been revealed that many temperature gauges relied on to measure alleged global warming are installed on vast plains of black asphalt, such as parking lots and runways?
1
Posted on 7/23/14 at 10:47 am to Korkstand
quote:
no
agreed, but I'm sure you know that they do have to calibrate for urbanization, for things like parking lotsPosted on 7/23/14 at 10:53 am to CptBengal
quote:
agreed, but I'm sure you know that they do have to calibrate for urbanization, for things like parking lots
Yeah, heat islands are mentioned in the article linked in the OP, and that's one of the reasons we're talking about "doctored" data to begin with.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 10:55 am to Korkstand
quote:
heat islands are mentioned in the article linked in the OP
yeah, and the method of pariwise comparisons to correct the data is appropriate, but they dont use a spatially explicit covariance structure as I found out by reading Iosh's link.
Instead they use an autoregressive one to account for the time series. that's a bad call as they even state they are using this with the assumption that spatially close stations are expected to be similar.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 11:03 am to wfeliciana
LINK
Gumbo, you could post a link to anything, climate change worshipers with tear it apparent with nothing but Gore's data. Made by a group making quit a comfortable living of of his new business.
Gumbo, you could post a link to anything, climate change worshipers with tear it apparent with nothing but Gore's data. Made by a group making quit a comfortable living of of his new business.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 11:07 am
Posted on 7/23/14 at 11:13 am to CptBengal
quote:
yeah, and the method of pariwise comparisons to correct the data is appropriate, but they dont use a spatially explicit covariance structure as I found out by reading Iosh's link. Instead they use an autoregressive one to account for the time series. that's a bad call as they even state they are using this with the assumption that spatially close stations are expected to be similar.
They began with climate models that have not panned out exactly as predicted.
They start out of modern technology designed to measure temp., sea level etc. and they apply the results against data taken years ago in an entirely different way.
Then they take measurements and tweak them to comply with the results they want to see.
But throw all of that out, we're talking climate not weather; yet they worry about the hottest Summer in half a century or the third hottest June in 35 years, and use that to prove we're in a meteoric heating cycle when they don't really know and no one really does.
And even if it is getting hotter and the climate is changing, we all know it has been hotter before and sea level shave been higher than what we see today.
Man will just have to adapt. Man can't change the climate unless they go to extreme measures and blow everything up, etc.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 11:14 am to GumboPot
quote:These are the kinds of statements that keep me coming back to this board.
So NOAA and NASA are doctoring temperature data.
I used to think highly of these agencies, however in the age of Obama I suppose nothing in the federal government is immune to corruption.
To honestly believe that corruption in NOAA or NASA or any other government agency began on Obama's watch is beyond comprehension.
It's kind of like watching that old Cosby show, "Kids Say The Darndest Things."
You just never know what someone will post next.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 11:42 am to TX Tiger
quote:
It's kind of like watching that old Cosby show, "Kids Say The Darndest Things."
You just never know what someone will post next.
So you're saying you like watching kids (bid kids too) grow up.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 11:43 am to GumboPot
Bump for someone (particularly an AGW advocate) to answer the question.
quote:
if the average global temperature has increase there should be a corresponding sea volume increase...has that physical action been observed?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 11:56 am to GumboPot
quote:Not only that, they then come back with a snappy juvenile comment and tell you to grow up.
It's kind of like watching that old Cosby show, "Kids Say The Darndest Things."
You just never know what someone will post next.
So you're saying you like watching kids (bid kids too) grow up.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:22 pm to CptBengal
quote:Over a sample size of 900+ stations, with urban rural distances between 30-100km, I don't get why this is a bad assumption. For this assumption to bite the results, you not only would need to see consistent background weather patterns slicing between the urban-rural divides throughout the pairwise set, those background temps would have to consistently "favor" the rural side of the pair (so that they would mask the UHI trend). This seems incredibly unlikely.
yeah, and the method of pariwise comparisons to correct the data is appropriate, but they dont use a spatially explicit covariance structure as I found out by reading Iosh's link.
Instead they use an autoregressive one to account for the time series. that's a bad call as they even state they are using this with the assumption that spatially close stations are expected to be similar.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:35 pm to Iosh
There has to be a way to verify whether or not these scientist are using the correct adjusted data set. Thus my previous question pertaining to a delta in sea level correlated to a global delta in temperature.
Is there another direct physical environmental effect from a changing global temperature? And I don't believe glacial patterns are good examples simply because they are not global enough.
Is there another direct physical environmental effect from a changing global temperature? And I don't believe glacial patterns are good examples simply because they are not global enough.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:40 pm to GumboPot
quote:quote:
Bump for someone (particularly an AGW advocate) to answer the question.
if the average global temperature has increase there should be a corresponding sea volume increase...has that physical action been observed?
According to Al Gore in 2007, the Arctic should be completely melted during some Summer seasons by now but instead it's continuing to rebound from a its low in 2012. Meanwhile, Antarctic ice has grown to the largest it's been since records started in 1979.
NSIDC
Logic dictates that if temperatures are increasing the BOTH caps would be shrinking. They aren't.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:41 pm to Iosh
You missed the content of my post completely.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:52 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Even small regular waves are a couple of feet high but these "scientists" can measure the sea level rise in centimeters? I call bull shite. as an oceanographer, I'm telling you it's quite easy using harmonic analysis.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:54 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Is there another direct physical environmental effect from a changing global temperature? And I don't believe glacial patterns are good examples simply because they are not global enough.
I disagree. If there were a problem, especially to the extent of Chicken Little-ism that goes on in some areas, we would see shrinking in both polar caps (to go along with the rise in sea levels).
While the Arctic has shrunk some since 1979, the Antarctic (a much larger body) has grown.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 12:55 pm to Iosh
So your telling me that in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics, a substance with a higher heat capacity is cooling while an area with a much lower heat capacity which experiences massive fluctuations in temperature in a twenty four hour period...is warming?
Lol
Lol
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:15 pm to CptBengal
quote:It's really sort of depressing how people either pretend to be dumb or actually stop thinking where AGW is concerned. Like, you're an oceanographer. Am I really going to sit here and explain to you the concept of a halocline?
So your telling me that in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics, a substance with a higher heat capacity is cooling while an area with a much lower heat capacity which experiences massive fluctuations in temperature in a twenty four hour period...is warming?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News