- 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 2/11/19 at 8:42 pm to narddogg81
quote:I believe that all of this information is available including the raw data, the adjusted data, and the methodology/rationale for adjustments.
every temperature point adjustment made needs to subject to an independent audit, with citation of what is adjusted, and why.
That’s what I’ve been arguing. Once I researched one of the major data sets, and downloaded some of the data and read their rationale, my initial skepticism about the data itself and the adjustments were unfounded.
quote:But this is largely unrelated to the actual science unfortunately.
We are talking about data that people are using to justify economic decisions that cost trillions of dollars.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 8:49 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:many have pointed out that the data quality is poor, that surface measurement coverage is completely insufficient especially over the oceans and wide swaths of uninhabited continental interior, and argue with the validity of the practice of inserting modeled data into the data set to substitute for areas where data points are not present or where stations were available in the past but have closed. You don't have to be commiting intentional fraud to be using poor statistical methodology.
There are many reputable scientists who have made valid criticisms of the current theory.
Yet, I can’t think of one who has argued that the data itself is fraudulent
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 8:52 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:would be interested in looking at this myself. Link?
I believe that all of this information is available including the raw data, the adjusted data, and the methodology/rationale for adjustments.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 8:58 pm to narddogg81
quote:I agree. And I think that’s one of the major reason why the predictions have had an upward bias. That being said, they seem to have improved, as they should.
You don't have to be commiting intentional fraud to be using poor statistical methodology.
Regardless, I can now see that your points are valid and reasonable. The reason I’m referring to “fraud” is because the thread is titled:
quote:These types of arguments infuriate me because it detracts from reasonable criticism and skepticism, like you presented.
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
Instead of countering the completely unscientific arguments like “settled science” and “infallible predictions” or the ridiculous doomsday hyperbole, with rational and evidence-based criticisms, we’re resorting to even more ridiculous and unscientific claims of “fraud or hoax.” I believe that this has done only helped the doomsayers and done a disservice to the valid criticism.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:20 pm to narddogg81
quote:I forgot which one I looked at (I think it was NASA’s GISTEMP),
would be interested in looking at this myself. Link?
but here are links to the most commonly used datasets. These also include a bunch of information regarding the research and various changes to the modeling and measurement.
HadCRUT
GISTEMP
GHCN
NCDC
Berkeley Earth
And I think this provide a brief but useful and interesting comparison of some of the datasets.
Comparison of Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, and Hadley CRU averaging techniques on ideal synthetic data
This post was edited on 2/11/19 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:46 pm to L.A.
The technology of ambient temperature measurement changed so completely over the last 100 years such that there is not any relative comparison statistically appropriate. The last 30 years continuous monitoring and aggregation of data has been possible due to computers. For about 20 years before mechanical strip charts were operator evaluated and aggregation was done by somebodies maybe around the world. 1950 and before maybe the train station operator woke up and wrote down the high temp at the hottest part of the day. Aggregation was maybe done by anybody around the world . Adjusting this basis really has no value.
Posted on 2/11/19 at 9:53 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
It is the biggest fraud ever committed on mankind
The N W O people need to continue the lie that mankind's emission of CO2 causes the planet to warm.
Alway remember: Their goal is population control.
Once you make people believe that you HAVE to control CO@ emissions, then you control how many people can live on this planet. You will control everything.
This is coming. Electing Trump has only slowed them down. Look at the lib dims. They have unveiled deeply demonic policies. This evil is coming. The US must repent AND make sacrifices to God because evil is making sacrifices to Satan.
God has allowed Trump to be our prez to give us time. Make wise use of this time.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 6:45 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
quote:
These types of arguments infuriate me because it detracts from reasonable criticism and skepticism, like you presented.
But the reason we see these types of arguments/headlines is because the Doomsday crowd have tried to BULLY people into never, ever questioning their "methods" or the results.
People with GENUINE intellectual curiosity who don't buy the company line completely are labeled as murderers for Gods' sake, so it's not really surprising to see that sort of hyperbole used in a counter-punch.
Posted on 2/12/19 at 9:13 am to L.A.
Very good summary of the truth. There is probably some mankind effects, but the effects of the sun's activity is left out.
As has been mentioned in several replies, the models are based on a flat earth model. The 3D heat transfer equation is an unsolvable equation. Since there is no possible 3D model, all that is left is a flat surface model. For a very small area, the assumption may work. I have serious reservations about using it for global modeling.
OmniPundit, Ph.D. Chemistry with an Engineering minor. Graduate research included heat transfer.
As has been mentioned in several replies, the models are based on a flat earth model. The 3D heat transfer equation is an unsolvable equation. Since there is no possible 3D model, all that is left is a flat surface model. For a very small area, the assumption may work. I have serious reservations about using it for global modeling.
OmniPundit, Ph.D. Chemistry with an Engineering minor. Graduate research included heat transfer.
This post was edited on 2/12/19 at 9:27 am
Posted on 2/12/19 at 9:26 am to L.A.
It’s pretty clear to me that we can affect the climate, and it’s pretty clear to me that the only thing that will eliminate our negative effect on it will be the inevitable disappearance of the combustible engine. As long as combustion makes money, it will exist. One day it won’t be economically expedient, and it will go away, and then this issue goes away sometime after that.
This post was edited on 2/12/19 at 9:27 am
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News