- 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: Study: Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:08 pm to texag7
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:08 pm to texag7
I've read that the oceans are absorbing much of the rising warmth rather than the atmosphere. When the ocean's temp rise becomes "saturated", then we'll start to see more effects.
Is any of that true or not? I don't know.
I do believe we should be somewhat vigilant in protecting our planet, and it pisses me off that this has become so politicized by the left. Partisan bickering and falsehoods has really fricked us in putting together an action plan. All we will do now is argue over this.
Is any of that true or not? I don't know.
I do believe we should be somewhat vigilant in protecting our planet, and it pisses me off that this has become so politicized by the left. Partisan bickering and falsehoods has really fricked us in putting together an action plan. All we will do now is argue over this.
0
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:09 pm to Jyrdis
quote:The graph I posted goes through 2013 (since that's when it was made). 1955-2010 refers to the baseline period. Global temperature changes are usually graphed as anomaly-from-baseline since it's the most logical way to compare data that includes both the Arctic and the Gulf.
I rarely follow this climate debate, so I don't have much to add. I am, however, curious as to why the chart you posted stopped in 2010. It seems that each line got to 2005, then began to trend downward over the next five years.
If I made the same graph today it would look substantially identical and still prove my point, since the new adjustments to HadSST / ERSST are very minor compared to the major pre-1940s adjustments.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:11 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
And I suppose we're just going to pretend that they haven't REPEATEDLY had to change their models in reaction to actual data that didn't conform to prior model predictions. Yeah. We'll just pretend that too.
I haven't read the report yet, but didn't the models fail because of the x3 multiplier or something? The x3 multiplier didn't pan out because, as in my above post, the oceans absorbed more heat than previously predicted.
I know enough to be stupid on the subject.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:11 pm to Iosh
quote:
Maslowski's predictions were not well-regarded among most scientists at the time
You're cute when you play scientist.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:13 pm to the808bass
quote:Thank you for doing your part to maintain the infinite ratio of vague snark to actual disproof.
You're cute when you play scientist.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:15 pm to Iosh
I'm frankly out of my depth on this topic and I know it. It's a boundary you might want to learn. Free advice. Worth what you pay for it.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:15 pm to LSUwag
quote:
It's a complete fraud.
Correct, however it no longer matters. the cat is out of the bag and liberals have adopted the bullshite. They will never walk it back they will just create more crap to prop up their straw-man argument.
This is a much bigger scale of the Rolling Stone UVA-Rape story.
Once it was proven false they launched into the "Just because it wasn't true doesn't mean it can't happen and Colleges have a rape culture." BS.
Trust me these loons double down on stupid when proven wrong.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:19 pm to RobbBobb
Global Warming was contrived to create a market for the selling, buying and trading of Carbon Credits. (Catholic playbook - selling of Indulgences)
The Carbon Credit market failed soon after being launched and the new data indicated a cooling trend leading to Global Warming becoming Climate Change. Baseless, Climate Change has to morph into a political battle to stay alive. It's now on it's death bed and will be gone within a decade.
Does the planet cool and warm ? Yes, of course it does. Just like the sun, hmmm. Is 200 or so years an adequate data sample to gauge the long term trends of a planet millions/billions of years old ?
Uh, no.
The Carbon Credit market failed soon after being launched and the new data indicated a cooling trend leading to Global Warming becoming Climate Change. Baseless, Climate Change has to morph into a political battle to stay alive. It's now on it's death bed and will be gone within a decade.
Does the planet cool and warm ? Yes, of course it does. Just like the sun, hmmm. Is 200 or so years an adequate data sample to gauge the long term trends of a planet millions/billions of years old ?
Uh, no.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:20 pm to RobbBobb
Is this the thread where losh tries to sound smart using talking points he read somewhere else?
I always love a good crash and burn
I always love a good crash and burn
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:21 pm to Iosh
quote:
1955-2010 refers to the baseline period
But why set the base period for so long, when the least amount of variation appears to be between 1955-1980? Are they trying to get a period that is closest to 0?
I'm just curious why you posted this graph that only dates back to the 1870s (I'm assume they didn't have accurate measures before then), and why the reference points are set where they are, as opposed to beginning in 1870.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:25 pm to Jyrdis
For the purposes of graphing differences in temperature the choice of baseline is mostly arbitrary, the important thing is that you keep it constant between both datasets. (There's a lot of bad skeptic memes out there where someone copied and pasted lines from different graphs using different baselines.) You'd see the same pre-WW2 divergence even if the baseline was 1870-1920 or something, everything would just be shifted upward from zero on the Y-axis.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:28 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
But there is a guy in Fairbanks, Alaska that works on ice cores that says it's all true.
How dare you question him. He knows everything. Olddog told me so
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:28 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
talking points he read somewhere else?
What does this even mean? Don't we all do this?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:29 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Is this the thread where losh tries to sound smart using talking points he read somewhere else?
So are you also insulting the OP?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:30 pm to Iosh
My biggest issue with this whole debate is that science was politicized.
Science should be facts and real, honest data. It should be immune to politics. Don't get me wrong, if the data suggests a climate change and it was caused by humans, then I'd fully expect the plan of attack to fix it to be highly politicized and controversial. But not the study itself. Disheartening and very dangerous.
Science should be facts and real, honest data. It should be immune to politics. Don't get me wrong, if the data suggests a climate change and it was caused by humans, then I'd fully expect the plan of attack to fix it to be highly politicized and controversial. But not the study itself. Disheartening and very dangerous.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:31 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:I think the solution is to refocus environmentalism back onto things that are not made up, like rainforest destruction, toxic pollution. The worst part about this manufactured fraud is that it is pretty much the sole focus
I believe the biggest step forward is simply carbon sequestration. Why Leo DiCaprio and all his cronies aren't building carbon sequestration facilities is beyond me. It's not about fixing the issue, it's about punishing the other side.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:32 pm to Iosh
Ok. Fair enough. I'd have to look more into it before I made a firm opinion one way or the other.
Obligatory...losh is a stupid climate change doodiehead.
Obligatory...losh is a stupid climate change doodiehead.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:33 pm to Tiguar
quote:Nah, everyone in this thread except me is a qualified climate scientist conducting original research. I'm the only schmuck who has to "read" this stuff in "papers" and "books."
What does this even mean? Don't we all do this?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:34 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Why Leo DiCaprio and all his cronies aren't building carbon sequestration facilities is beyond me.
Probably because they are busy putting out more CO2 yearly than this entire site combined
Posted on 7/6/17 at 12:37 pm to Iosh
quote:
"Negative consequences" is a substantial goalpost move from "doom and gloom."
Another dodge...semantics.
Lets stick with my original "Doom and gloom". Are you claiming there were none made? If the predictions were not "dire"...why worry about it?
Anain...what is it you're afraid of? What do you imagine will happen if nothing changes? Paint a picture of what life may be like.
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News