- 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: Nearly ALL current global warming is fabricated: peer reviewed study finds
Posted on 7/10/17 at 7:27 am to Pax Regis
Posted on 7/10/17 at 7:27 am to Pax Regis
quote:Not according to the post-adjusted NASA Data. That's the point.
There's a reason the Midwest was referred to as the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. It was hot as frick
0
Posted on 7/10/17 at 8:11 am to Errerrerrwere
Can someone explain to me why 'raw' data has to be adjusted at all?
Seriously. Let's say a weather reporting station says today's high at that location is 88 degrees, but the 'scientist' believes it was 89.2. Why adjust the temperature upward?
The issue isn't how hot or cold it is. The issue is the amount of change over a certain period of time. The amount of change remains constant regardless of whether that station is reporting slightly warmer or colder than actual temps.
This one of the first places the AGW crowd loses me. If you screw with the raw data, then you're adding bias to the mix.
Seriously. Let's say a weather reporting station says today's high at that location is 88 degrees, but the 'scientist' believes it was 89.2. Why adjust the temperature upward?
The issue isn't how hot or cold it is. The issue is the amount of change over a certain period of time. The amount of change remains constant regardless of whether that station is reporting slightly warmer or colder than actual temps.
This one of the first places the AGW crowd loses me. If you screw with the raw data, then you're adding bias to the mix.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 8:15 am to mtntiger
Easiest way is to say it's all wrong but depending on the measurement method it's wrong high or wrong low.
It's a calibration for uniformity across measurement methods.
It is necessary but is highly susceptible for manipulation and I think that's what your getting at.
It's a calibration for uniformity across measurement methods.
It is necessary but is highly susceptible for manipulation and I think that's what your getting at.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 8:22 am to Errerrerrwere
I can't find in the beritbart fake news article - in which credible scientific journal was this published?
Who sponsored/paid for this study? I did not see a statement setting forth potential conflicts which I imagine goes hand in hand with it not being published
Who sponsored/paid for this study? I did not see a statement setting forth potential conflicts which I imagine goes hand in hand with it not being published
Posted on 7/10/17 at 8:30 am to Pax Regis
quote:
the Midwest was referred to as the Dust Bowl in the 1930s.
The fact that prairie land was being turned into farm land at the time didn't help.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 8:42 am to Errerrerrwere
From Breitbart? Come on.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:37 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
From Breitbart? Come on.
Don't you know. It's the only "real" news source for Trumpkins.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:39 am to UHTiger
quote:I asked this question in the last thread about this and got nothing. My guess is by "peer review" they mean "more than one guy wrote this."
I can't find in the beritbart fake news article - in which credible scientific journal was this published?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:42 am to Iosh
quote:Dr. Alan Carlin
I asked this question in the last thread about this and got nothing. My guess is by "peer review" they mean "more than one guy wrote this."
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:42 am to mtntiger
quote:
Can someone explain to me why 'raw' data has to be adjusted at all?
to remove not-climatic variables
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:44 am to Salmon
What's a non-climate variable when it comes to measuring temperature?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:46 am to Errerrerrwere
Time of observation, station location, measuring equipment, urbanization, etc.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:47 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
What's a non-climate variable when it comes to measuring temperature?
city vs rural (artificial light)
direct sunlight
wetness
probe on a roof vs on the ground
type of equipment
etc
Here is an article explaining
LINK
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 10:48 am
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:50 am to Iosh
Doesn't sound like a damn thing that would effect average global temperature.
Maybe, measuring equipment but that's if it was not functioning properly.
The point is; you can't get an accurate "average" temperature of the earth, Losh.
Making most of the claims bogus. If you're claiming you need to make over five adjustments to data based on this many variables...there is NO WAY any of that data can be trusted. Think about it.
Maybe, measuring equipment but that's if it was not functioning properly.
The point is; you can't get an accurate "average" temperature of the earth, Losh.
Making most of the claims bogus. If you're claiming you need to make over five adjustments to data based on this many variables...there is NO WAY any of that data can be trusted. Think about it.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:51 am to Salmon
And here we are again, not discussing the article.
Why is almost ALL of the data adjusted upwards?
Why is almost ALL of the data adjusted upwards?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:52 am to Errerrerrwere
At the rate these adjustments are flowing in the ocean will boil by Christmas
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:52 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:It's not. As I pointed out the last time this paper was posted, it doesn't discuss ocean adjustments, which adjust the trend down.
Why is almost ALL of the data adjusted upwards?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:53 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Breitbard
quote:
Wordpress
quote:
Peer reviewed
You still don't know what this means, do you?
This is like the other dude trying to claim the early copies of the Bible were peer reviewed.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:53 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Why is almost ALL of the data adjusted upwards?
Would the fact that the earth is warming be an acceptable answer?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 10:53 am to Iosh
This paper hasn't been posted before.
But the study was done saying otherwise.
Reread it.
But the study was done saying otherwise.
Reread it.
Page 2 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News