- 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
0
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:08 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I want to also know the sea water column density of each reading. Is that taken into account when they acquire sea level readings?
I love how everyone is a fricking climate scientist.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:11 pm to cwill
quote:
I love how everyone is a fricking climate scientist.
The current spokesperson for your religion is Bill Nye. A children's entertainer
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:11 pm to JJthomson
quote:
RobbBob - Do you understand that if a temperature measuring station changes the time of day it measures temperatures, it's data across that change is useless without accounting for that change?
And yet, alter, we have historical data for over 100 years of temps, and now we have satellites that read and record info constantly 24/7, so why the need to change the time of day that you record the actual temps for that day?
????
Well, because if you didn't change the time of day, then you would have no excuse to 'adjust' data now would you?
What a damn genius you are
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:14 pm to cwill
quote:
I love how everyone is a fricking climate scientist.
My question is just basic 10th grade science.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:17 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I want to also know the sea water column density of each reading. Is that taken into account when they acquire sea level readings?
You want altered data?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:17 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
and now we have satellites that read and record info constantly 24/7, so why the need to change the time of day that you record the actual temps for that day?
????
What a damn genius you are
Give him a minute. He's trying to make sure he's logged into the correct account, and not get busted as being an alter. And then he has to have time to search for a response on the Interwebz
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:20 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Well, because if you didn't change the time of day, then you would have no excuse to 'adjust' data now would you?
You understand that most historical data comes from thousands of individual sources that are not controlled by one entity, right? Or is it you believe all the world's meteorologists have been involved in a conspiracy for 100 years?
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:21 pm to GumboPot
quote:
My question is just basic 10th grade science.
How would you have it "accounted" for? Maybe we should account for the melted ice and take that out of the total, too?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:21 pm to texag7
You think the spokesman for climate change is someone who’s not a climate scientist?
I’ll go out on a huge limb here and assume you gave ‘tuck tuck’ the victory in a fake debate between two guys who honestly sounded like neither of them knew wtf was going on. You’ve used this past summer being ‘mild’ wherever you live as evidence to discredit climate change multiple times. That alone might make you one of the lower hanging fruit targets I could actually respond to but I’m doing it anyway. You’re actually defending OP’s attempt at picking out the last 2 years of an extremely obviously increasing graph because the line went down for that small amount of time . Then used hyperbole such as “you couldn’t just make this stuff up” while he’s making up a narrative. The stock market goes down some days but zooming out its an overall increasing trend. Of all the awful cherry picked climate change straw grasps, this one, which somehow still got people up voting it who understand less than the average lower schooler about it, has to take the stupid cake.
I’ll go out on a huge limb here and assume you gave ‘tuck tuck’ the victory in a fake debate between two guys who honestly sounded like neither of them knew wtf was going on. You’ve used this past summer being ‘mild’ wherever you live as evidence to discredit climate change multiple times. That alone might make you one of the lower hanging fruit targets I could actually respond to but I’m doing it anyway. You’re actually defending OP’s attempt at picking out the last 2 years of an extremely obviously increasing graph because the line went down for that small amount of time . Then used hyperbole such as “you couldn’t just make this stuff up” while he’s making up a narrative. The stock market goes down some days but zooming out its an overall increasing trend. Of all the awful cherry picked climate change straw grasps, this one, which somehow still got people up voting it who understand less than the average lower schooler about it, has to take the stupid cake.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:23 pm to olddawg26
Yeah I'm not reading that shite
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:41 pm to JJthomson
quote:
Or is it you believe all the world's meteorologists have been involved in a conspiracy for 100 years?
Keep posting, it shows your lack of knowledge
The temps that are being 'adjusted' are those that have been historically recorded in local newspapers and airport logs. Historic. Recorded
quote:
?A comparison of raw temperature records (GHCN V2) and homogenised temperature records (adjusted records GHCN v3.1) is presented for 30 climate stations within a 1000 km radius of Alice Springs, Australia. The adjusted records are subtracted from the raw records which illustrates the degree of adjustment for each station.
In each and every instance, the temps were adjusted down historically, and up in recent years.
When you take out the adjustments , there is no pattern of warming. And since 1998, when even the adjusted numbers couldn't continue the trend of warming, guess what? They were adjusted some more. This time using ships to record temps, and not the traditional buoy method.
Also areas of sparse population with no recorded temps, and no stations within a 100 miles today, were "assigned" temps by NOAA. Going back 100+ years, guess what? Those assigned temps were much cooler than surrounding historical data, and now suddenly much hotter than RAW data
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:47 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
You just couldnt make this stuff up. NASA: Sea levels have been falling for two years
quote:They may be pretty dumb, but I bet most of them can understand the difference between a trend and error around it. They are also probably able to see that there have been time periods where sea levels fell far more dramatically than the time period you're arguing, yet the trend still persisted.
HOW DUMB ARE THESE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS
In other words, they may be dumb, but you did a good job showing that it's possible to he dumber.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:52 pm to JJthomson
Here ya go, expert. Actual RAW temps in the historic US database
Adjusted data per NOAA. Odd these graphs don't look remotely similar in their trajectory. How can adjusting for time of day, completely change that?
Adjusted data per NOAA. Odd these graphs don't look remotely similar in their trajectory. How can adjusting for time of day, completely change that?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:53 pm to League Champs
quote:Well you could start with the fact that one picture is the continental US land dataset and the other picture is the global land-ocean dataset.
Odd these graphs don't look remotely similar in their trajectory. How can adjusting for time of day, completely change that?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:54 pm to RobbBobb
If NASA's science based observations show a rise in sea level (and I don't care if this is true or not) then this shows that scientific observations regarding sea level fluctuation are accurate and science is honest.
It's idiots like the OP who refuse to accept reality unless it fits their political narrative.
The sea don't give a shite if you "don't believe it."
It's idiots like the OP who refuse to accept reality unless it fits their political narrative.
The sea don't give a shite if you "don't believe it."
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:57 pm to JJthomson
Cherry picking is fine as long as it makes Global Warming people look dumb.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:58 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
buckeye_vol
You probably shouldn't have typed that before I posted the graphs. Now you look pretty dumb. No way you can defend the 'supposed increases' from the raw to adjusted data.
Yet you tried
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:59 pm to JJthomson
quote:
Kinda looks like its fallen for a couple of years a few times in the past and then continued to go up. Talk about cherry picking your data.
You mean cherry picking like the warmists do. That said, you make the realist's point. Temps go up and down in various timed cycles...sea levels do the same, so why are the warmists so anti science and anti fact??
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 4:59 pm to League Champs
quote:Well there seems to be a very obvious answer that has nothing to do with adjustments.
Adjusted data per NOAA. Odd these graphs don't look remotely similar in their trajectory. How can adjusting for time of day, completely change that?
In fact, it's so obvious, that the I'm thing you're either being dishonest or are truly unable to understand a very simple concept.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News