- 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: You just couldnt make this stuff up. NASA: Sea levels have been falling for two years
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:02 pm to RobbBobb
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:02 pm to RobbBobb
Dude, I'm conservative, but you would have to be a fool (or just a dumbass) to not see some changes in data. I'm not sold on why it is happening and what there is to be done, but there ARE changes.
2
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:03 pm to Bham4Tide
quote:I hate to be the one to tell you this but you're not a conservative.
Dude, I'm conservative, but you would have to be a fool (or just a dumbass) to not see some changes in data.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:03 pm to REG861
quote:
you would see, as everyone else does, that the La coast line is disappearing (albeit for other reasons).
So you agree it has nothing to do with CO2?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:06 pm to Iosh
Nope. Try again. This time use NOAAs own graph showing their adjustments. Notice anything?
It was never even a question that the '30s were the hottest on record, yet now?
quote:In the 1930s, the dust bowl years? Notice the adjustment down? Then since the 70s, up?
black line is the adjustment for time of observation. The red line is for a change in maximum/minimum thermometers used. The yellow line is for changes in station siting. The pale blue line is for filling in missing data from individual station records. The purple line is for UHI effects (this correction is now removed).
It was never even a question that the '30s were the hottest on record, yet now?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:07 pm to Iosh
quote:
Presumably that would include "no more warming"
Thats a dodge. It implies that, weather doing what climate shows, temps are always going up or down. So what?
Presumably you think temps should be like setting a thermostat and be constant??
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:09 pm to AUbused
quote:
But you have to admire Trumpkins willingness to be wrong over.....and over...........and over.....and over.
Wrong about what? Be as specific as possible. Thanks.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:13 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
And in both cases Trumpkins make a strong case for the lasting damage the war on science and education across the country has had in terms of America's scientific literacy.
You're projecting again. Obamtrons and Bernie Bros are some of the most anti science groups on the planet next to "environmentalists".
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:16 pm to League Champs
quote:
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
You should probably read into the fallacies of using raw data.
If I have three weather stations recording data in New York, LA, and Chicago, than in year 10 another weather station gets added in Minnesota, what do you think happens if I just plot the 15 year raw data?
You are going to see a major average temp drop when Minnesota gets added to the data pool. But if you adjusted the data, only looking at the places where you had consistent measurements, you can see the long-term trend more accurately. You can than also look at Minessota's 5 year change since it was incorporated. Adjust the data to see what the average change from their individual baselines is.
And also, maybe the measurements from the older stations have a known and measurable negative deviation of 3 degrees.
Maybe the time of day the observations made are not properly aligned, so you are getting really spastic readings. Chicago is taking temps at night, while New York during peak sunlight.
And if you are unconvinced by the practices of their adjustments, there is a really nifty way to express those grievances, which is with peer-reviewed studies submitted to accredited scientific journals.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:17 pm to JJthomson
quote:
It definitely can't be ice melting. Ice melting has nothing to do with temperature.
And water definitely cannot evaporate, especially during warmer temperatures. We should write a science book.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:18 pm to League Champs
quote:I look pretty dumb because I responded to a post regarding the interpretation of a sea level graph, and you posted some graphs about temperature? Not only are they not the same metric, my post was solely about the interpretation of the graph as presented by the OP.
You probably shouldn't have typed that before I posted the graphs. Now you look pretty dumb.
If you couldn't differentiate the two discussions, then it's no wonder you don't see the a major problem with the two graphs you posted, that has nothing to do with the data in the graphs itself.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:18 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
And water definitely cannot evaporate, especially during warmer temperatures. We should write a science book.
Texas and Louisiana would probably be very interested.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:19 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Forget about the adjustments, do you see anything different about the graphs themselves in the title area?
You should probably read into the fallacies of using raw data.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:21 pm to olddawg26
quote:
You think the spokesman for climate change is someone who’s not a climate scientist?
What does that even mean?
Who, in your opinion, are the top 3 "spokemen" (sexist term) for and against "climate change"?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:25 pm to Bham4Tide
quote:
I'm not sold on why it is happening and what there is to be done, but there ARE changes.
The climate has always been changing. So what?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:31 pm to League Champs
quote:Well no because you posted a version for ants. However if one looks at the full version:
Nope. Try again. This time use NOAAs own graph showing their adjustments. Notice anything?
It shows that TOBS adjustments didn't change much between 1930 and 1940. There are two adjustment "spikes" in the late 1910s and around 1950, and then a slow rise. And if you look at the data for when weather stations did their daily recordings, it matches pretty exactly.
In 1920 and 1950 there were large but temporary jumps in stations recording morning temperatures. Then it slowly became a more permanently adopted standard (this is because weather stations also have to record things like dewpoint). Since morning temperatures are cooler, the records have to be adjusted.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 5:33 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:31 pm to RobbBobb
Why don't you reference a page which actually exists: firestorms in California have killed 31 (confirmed deaths) with hundreds more missing, and entire towns including Santa Rosa and Calistoga have been obliterated, and there's no foreseeable end to this death and destruction.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:32 pm to tarzana
Wildfires are not a new thing
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:34 pm to Dale51
quote:Well it should mean that both sides need to stop listening to the political opportunists. And both sides need to stop wondering why an issue is politicized when they only listen to the political opportunists.
What does that even mean?
For example, Al Gore should never have been a "leader" of the science; he obviously took science and politicized it, which invariably results in a more exteme misrepresentation.
Then in response, as seen in this thread, people took the opposite stance, again from a political point of view.
Now we have idiots with their stupid doomsday predictions, but even worse, they've come early and we're in the midst of the climate apocalypse every time there is a major weather event.
Then we have the idiots on the other side, that decide that it's all fake, not just human impact, but any trend of warming. And they use every warm winter day or cool summer day to argue their stupid points.
And now there is essentially no science involved anymore and it's purely idiotic emotionally-driven politics.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:35 pm to tarzana
quote:
firestorms in California have killed 31 (confirmed deaths) with hundreds more missing, and entire towns including Santa Rosa and Calistoga have been obliterated, and there's no foreseeable end to this death and destruction.
And? Is this suposed to have something to do with "global weather weirding"?
Posted on 10/13/17 at 5:36 pm to RobbBobb
Pebble Beach Golf Course in California.
Coastline unchanged in almost 100 years / end thread!
Coastline unchanged in almost 100 years / end thread!
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News