- 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 1:05 pm to Lg
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:05 pm to Lg
quote:*cues Donkey Kong hammer music*
So which scientist stepped out to inform the journalistic community to slow their jets some? None.
Telegraph, 2009
quote:Politifact, 2009
Mr Gore’s speech also provoked criticism from leading members of the climate science community, who described the projection as “aggressive”.
Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Times: “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics.
“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”
Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, said: “It's possible but not likely. We're sticking with 2030."
quote:NPR, 2009
NASA climate researcher Gavin Schmidt wrote in an e-mail to us that Maslowski's prediction isn't necessarily a communitywide opinion.
"A fair statement would be that some scientists have predicted summer ice free Arctic Ocean as soon as 2013, but others expect it to happen a little slower — say 2040-2060," Schmidt wrote.
quote:
"Maslowski's work is very well respected, but he's a bit out on a limb," said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 1:07 pm
1
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:09 pm to narddogg81
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
Yeah. I mean I think there is something to be said about CO2 levels being over 400 ppm, and I honestly don't mind some tax dollars going to carbon sequestration, but overall I'd agree. I think rainforest destruction and toxic pollution are much more pressing issues.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:10 pm to RobbBobb
Why do these people keep fudging the numbers? The data should speak for itself, no?
And how many of these scientist-warmer types are NOT getting caught? How many peer-reviews are giving these frauds a pass because they are like-minded frauds eager to perpetuate this crap?
And how many of these scientist-warmer types are NOT getting caught? How many peer-reviews are giving these frauds a pass because they are like-minded frauds eager to perpetuate this crap?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:15 pm to Iosh
I appreciate your response but all your linked articles are from 2009? That is a long 8 years ago. And your responses are just like any other, where someone picks out a few scientists and quotes them. Where is the 99% consensus of all scientist that say the same as Prof Overland? I could do the same and quote our local weather geek (James Spann) who would say AGW is bunk.
You seem to know a lot about the subject. What is the earth's optimal temperature? Have we surpassed it? Are we still on the way up to it coming out of an Ice Age?
You seem to know a lot about the subject. What is the earth's optimal temperature? Have we surpassed it? Are we still on the way up to it coming out of an Ice Age?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Perhaps something to do with recent inclusion of engine intake (physically much warmer) measurements on freighters vs exclusive past use of ocean buoys?
Bingo!!
The buoys weren't showing warming, so they adjusted that too
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:24 pm to Lg
quote:considering that earth has only had polar ice caps during 5 relatively brief ice ages, and if by optimal you mean normal, then we are too cold right now. You wonder why ice cores can only go back about 1.5 million years?, Because the current Antarctic ice sheet didn't exist before that, not since the next previous ice age.
You seem to know a lot about the subject. What is the earth's optimal temperature? Have we surpassed it? Are we still on the way up to it coming out of an Ice Age?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:31 pm to Sev09
quote:
Well I'll be. I guess there IS man-made global warming.
ISWYDT
Quality work
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:31 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:read an article that the first carbon sequestration plant had been built at a cost of like $4million. It fixes the same amount of carbon as 2 trees.
and I honestly don't mind some tax dollars going to carbon sequestration, but overall I'd agree
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:33 pm to RobbBobb
If the previously published data is incorrect, shouldn't corrections be made to validate the data?
The corrections were made to adjust for the US average temperatures taken from urbanized areas which exhibit a strong bias towards higher temperatures compared to the US average.
From the report itself.
Even with the old reported data there is still a warming trend.
The corrections were made to adjust for the US average temperatures taken from urbanized areas which exhibit a strong bias towards higher temperatures compared to the US average.
From the report itself.
quote:
Moreover, accurately measuring Global Average Surface Temperature involves avoiding, and when that is not possible overcoming, numerous challenges. After the raw data with all its issues are collected, adjustments are made. Such adjustments are necessary not only for current period raw data but also possibly for previously reported historical data.
Even with the old reported data there is still a warming trend.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:35 pm to Lg
quote:You made a very strong claim, which is that "none" of the scientists attempted to rebut Maslowski's research in the press. If your claim is "none" then me quoting a few scientists is sufficient to disprove that claim. I chose articles from 2009 because (a) that's when Maslowski's claim was in the news and journalists were writing about it (b) I wanted to show he was criticized at the time and not just in hindsight.
I appreciate your response but all your linked articles are from 2009? That is a long 8 years ago. And your responses are just like any other, where someone picks out a few scientists and quotes them. Where is the 99% consensus of all scientist that say the same as Prof Overland? I could do the same and quote our local weather geek (James Spann) who would say AGW is bunk.
For the consensus of scientists your best source is the IPCC. Their sea ice projections look like this (upper right for Arctic summer):
Note that the sea ice observations are already steeper than the projections. Good evidence against the notion that scientists are always biased towards alarmism.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:35 pm to tarzana
quote:
There are three truisms in life:
1) The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
2) Mankind is the cause of such warming.
3) The science is settled.
Those who refuse to subscribe to the above facts are not worth my attention.
What a moron
That peer-revieded study said, there would be NO WARMING, if they hadn't fudged the numbers. So to parrot the line
quote:
1) The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
is a joke. And if there is no warming, without data adjustments, your next statement borders on the hysterical
quote:
2) Mankind is the cause of such warming.
How can mankind cause something that isn't even happening? But as usual, this you on most topics
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:42 pm to Xenophon
quote:
I'll be honest, I have no idea what to believe about this topic. And that's sad.
It's a no brainer that we should take care of the planet through some simple sustainable measures.
It's ridiculous that data is fudged to create fear and waste money on things that have no impact.
I completely agree. I have no idea what the truth is. There's no doubt we're fed a bunch of bullshite. But just because people on the left have this agenda, doesn't mean all of their claims are completely false. And we can all just go find a study that corroborates what we want to believe.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:52 pm to narddogg81
quote:
read an article that the first carbon sequestration plant had been built at a cost of like $4million. It fixes the same amount of carbon as 2 trees.
And you believed that? Obviously current technologies are not going to be amazing, but you think it would sequester the amount of 2 trees? If I Google this and find out that a single tree only sequesters like 200 lbs of carbon a year, I probably won't go any further on that smell test.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:55 pm to TeLeFaWx
Carbon sequestration is just way too expensive. The Kemper coal plant in Mississippi is a gigantic boondoggle that's been under construction for 7 years, wasted about 10x as much money as Solyndra, and still isn't operational. For that money they could've just built a natural gas turbine and halved emissions instead of trying to chase the clean coal unicorn.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 1:59 pm to Iosh
quote:
Carbon sequestration is just way too expensive. The Kemper coal plant in Mississippi is a gigantic boondoggle that's been under construction for 7 years, wasted about 10x as much money as Solyndra, and still isn't operational. For that money they could've just built a natural gas turbine and halved emissions instead of trying to chase the clean coal unicorn.
I don't disagree with this assessment. I absolutely think that natural gas is the better choice, but I'm not opposed to developing sequestration technology just because people in Mississippi couldn't figure it out. If we held ourselves back from everything too difficult for Mississippi, we'd be fricked.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 2:00 pm to Iosh
quote:
For that money they could've just built a natural gas turbine and halved emissions instead of trying to chase the clean coal unicorn
That's what they're doing. They came out a few months ago and said they were going to use natural gas
Posted on 7/6/17 at 2:08 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:did you even read the paper? That's the first graph in the report, showing the massaged data after removing the temperature spike in the 30s. The whole thing is about taking apart the adjustments they made to historical data to remove the cyclical pattern of warming and cooling the raw data shows into a straight warming trend
Even with the old reported data there is still a warming trend
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 2:08 pm to RobbBobb
Has anyone pointed out that the "Dr's" who wrote this report have PhD's in economics and other areas not related to climate science?
If this skeptic nonsense is so compelling, why is it always the same handful of crackpots involved?
If this skeptic nonsense is so compelling, why is it always the same handful of crackpots involved?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 2:12 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Look I can't point out every flaw in the paper I'll be here all day. I'm still wondering where OP got the notion that this was a published, peer-reviewed study; the OP quotes a news article but doesn't link it, opting instead to directly link a janky PDF file that doesn't identify a journal.
Has anyone pointed out that the "Dr's" who wrote this report have PhD's in economics and other areas not related to climate science?
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News