- 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 3:01 pm to narddogg81
Posted on 7/6/17 at 3:01 pm to narddogg81
quote:
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
Yes, I did read the paper. And I found no convincing arguments to sway me into believing that the data should not have been corrected.
quote:
The notion that some adjustments to historical data may have been needed is not challenged here. The basic question addressed is whether or not the current depictions of the trend cycle patterns of GAST data by NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are valid in light of other highly credible counter indications.
They don't "take apart the adjustments." They barely even acknowledge why the adjustments were performed. They show old data/charts for the US, and make the assumption that Global trends needs to match US trends for temperature anomalies rather than the other way around.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 3:05 pm
0
Posted on 7/6/17 at 3:45 pm to Iosh
quote:You seem to project the impression the ice free hysteria was isolated to a single prediction by Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski.
You're actually going to just sit there and pretend that even NASA didn't put out the Ice Free Arctic meme?
I don't think NASA put out anything about an ice free arctic by Maslowski's date
You are far too well read on the topic to believe that.
For example, Dr. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge predicted an Ice-Free Arctic in 2016.
Many, many others (e.g., Hawkins, et al) offer equally dire forecasts, but are critical of associated dating because ofcourse when those predictions fail their benchmark --- badly --- it exposes them for what they are.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 3:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I'm not sure where you got this sentence from that sentence, other than a deep-seated urge to engage arguments I'm not actually making. Unless Wadhams worked for NASA as well as Cambridge.quote:You seem under the impression the ice free hysteria was isolated to a single prediction.
I don't think NASA put out anything about an ice free arctic by Maslowski's date
EDIT: Also this article further underscores my point because it includes quotes from two other scientists who are skeptical. Gleick warns about the danger of exaggerating predictions and Francis offers the consensus estimate of mid-21st-century. If your point is that "more than one scientist believed the 2016 date" then sure, that was already implicitly conceded because I'm sure Maslowski had co-authors. Doesn't affect my point that these were not consensus predictions, other scientists pushed back publicly (and in the literature), and therefore their wrongness doesn't affect the consensus AGW position.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 4:20 pm to Iosh
Just so we're clear (per your graph) - climate change gurus are flipping out about a 0.7 degree Fahrenheit change over 137 years. That is assuming that the data from 1880 is 100% reliable.
THINK OF THE POLAR BEARS FOLKS
THINK OF THE POLAR BEARS FOLKS
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:00 pm to The Pirate King
quote:It's Celsius (and clearly labeled as such), but 0.7°C probably doesn't still sound like much.
Just so we're clear (per your graph) - climate change gurus are flipping out about a 0.7 degree Fahrenheit change over 137 years
And that's the sea record; land warms faster than water so it's more like 1.1°C from pre-industrial. Probably still doesn't sound like much.
And that's just the warming we've already got; slow earth system feedbacks and lack of action on our part means that 2°C warming is probably locked by now. Probably still doesn't sound like much.
And polar amplification means that difference is concentrated at the poles, so in areas like Antarctica you're looking at a difference of 4°C. Probably still doesn't sound like much. But here we have some data to scale to, since according to the ice core records, 8°C was the difference between the difference between the last glacial maximum and the Holocene. (The last time temps were 4-8°C higher than present day was the P-E thermal maximum, where the entire earth was basically ice-free.) So if you think there are some pretty major differences between those environments, it should be a little concerning that we're halfway to that magnitude of change already. To the extent your position is based on looking at small numbers and going "doesn't sound like much" it could use a rethink.
Or you could just put "muh" in front of it and laugh. Muh ice cores!
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 5:03 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:09 pm to Iosh
quote:Oh for goodness sakes!
I'm not sure where you got this sentence from that sentence
Get off it.
Reference was to theme.
You want a specific link to your specific comments in this thread specifically indicative of your specifically expressed POV as described?
Really?
Happy to provide it if you've somehow forgotten your posts.
quote:FALSE!
it includes quotes from two other scientists who are skeptical.
That is the point!
The other scientists are NOT SKEPTICAL.
They are fully supportive of hysterical claims.
They are completely, fully supportive.
They simply object to assigning proximal dates to their own predictions allowing those hysterical claims to be specifically measured.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:This is a debate about science, not composition and rhetoric. If you want to make a factual point about statements that were actually made, go ahead. I don't deal in "theme."
Oh for goodness sakes!
Get off it.
Reference was to theme.
quote:"The Arctic will be ice-free by 2016" and "The Arctic will be ice-free sometime between 2040 and 2060" are not equally hysterical claims because they imply a substantial difference in magnitude. Treating them as such means that you believe there is no daylight between exaggerators like Maslowski and Wadhams and lukewarmers like Spencer and Curry (who are considered skeptics in most contexts). All four of them believe the Earth is warming, after all, they just disagree on the speed and magnitude. You, on the other hand, seem to think that any prediction of warming, regardless of timeline, equals hysterics. At that point you're sailing straight past the C and the A and just straight-up denying GW itself.
The other scientists are NOT SKEPTICAL.
They are fully supportive of hysterical claims.
They are completely, fully supportive.
They simply object to assigning proximal dates to their own predictions allowing those hysterical claims to be specifically measured.
Usually I don't see you on the "thermometers are cucks" beat but maybe you've decided it's a more fertile bailey than Henry's Law.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:26 pm to Iosh
quote:
Iosh
You probably know the drill on here by now.
1. Post biased, obscure paper or "study" with no credibility
2. Bask in the limelight of fellow PT experts for a few responses
3. Eventually get called out for #1
4. Name call, try to divert attention off OP, and resort to nonsensical "counterpoints"
Such is the life of a PT climate change thread...
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:27 pm to TejasHorn
Usually the OPs bounce pretty fast when I show up and I end up arguing with the same 4-5 people.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:33 pm to TejasHorn
quote:
1. Post biased, obscure paper or "study" with no credibility
LOL
You didn't even read the study. It shows specifically, if you don't adjust ANY historical data, and you use the actual recorded satellite data, then there is literally no warming trend.
The only warming trend that occurs is when NOAA/NASA/OK Met adjust both the historical data, and then compare it to the recently adjusted satellite data
Its a farce
And the reason EVERY computer model has been wrong about the rate of warming. Its also why we see a 'pause' in warming. Its as if these scientists never expected people to look at the raw data, and see that the planet want warming. Of course its paused, too many people are now eyeballing the raw data
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:35 pm to League Champs
quote:There is no "actual recorded satellite data" without adjustments, because satellites don't measure temperature. They measure microwave radiance, and temperature is inferred from that through adjustments and *gasp* models.
You didn't even read the study. It shows specifically, if you don't adjust ANY historical data, and you use the actual recorded satellite data, then there is literally no warming trend.
quote:
And the reason EVERY computer model has been wrong about the rate of warming. Its also why we see a 'pause' in warming.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:36 pm to League Champs
quote:
League Champs
Exhibit A.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 5:37 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
before you get your panties in a wad
quote:
before you pee in your pants about its origins
Posted on 7/6/17 at 6:03 pm to RobbBobb
Well...no shite.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 6:15 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
Maybe because of how math works
Posted on 7/6/17 at 6:26 pm to TejasHorn
quote:
You probably know the drill on here by now. 1. Post biased, obscure paper or "study" with no credibility 2. Bask in the limelight of fellow PT experts for a few responses 3. Eventually get called out for #1 4. Name call, try to divert attention off OP, and resort to nonsensical "counterpoints" Such is the life of a PT climate change thread...
You forgot to mention the obligatory "Muh Al Gore" or the lesser but often used "Muh Leo."
Posted on 7/6/17 at 6:28 pm to RobbBobb
This is part of the comment on the study by The Daily Caller.
So the study doesn't do any real hard work, like figuring if the bias adjustments are warranted or accurate -- it only showed the the adjustments increased the warming trend. A TOTALLY USELESS STUDY.
The three individuals credited on the study are Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, and Dr. James P. Wallace.
Dr. Craig D. Idso is a long term climate denier. In fact his father was a well known climate denier before him. He is a paid stooge for the Heartland Institute, which not only supports Climate Denial but also backs studies to show that increased levels of CO2 are actually beneficial to the Planet. He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy, the largest private-sector coal company in the world.
Dr. Joseph D’Aleo is a Certified Consultant meteorologist and the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel. D'Aleo has been a contributing meteorologist to the Old Farmer's Almanac in which he predicted in 2008 that the earth had entered a period of global cooling.
D'Aleo is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming". The declaration states:
Dr. James P. Wallace, who doesn't have a wikipedia page and was listed in an Amicus Curiae brief recently filed to the Supreme Court as "an engineer".
This "study" is a low grade study by low grade/no grade scientists.
Typical of the quality that are posted on this board on Climate Change.
But you guys just keep whooping and hollering it up. Don't take the blinders off, because you might see something that doesn't fit your narrative.
quote:
Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend.
So the study doesn't do any real hard work, like figuring if the bias adjustments are warranted or accurate -- it only showed the the adjustments increased the warming trend. A TOTALLY USELESS STUDY.
The three individuals credited on the study are Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, and Dr. James P. Wallace.
Dr. Craig D. Idso is a long term climate denier. In fact his father was a well known climate denier before him. He is a paid stooge for the Heartland Institute, which not only supports Climate Denial but also backs studies to show that increased levels of CO2 are actually beneficial to the Planet. He is the former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy, the largest private-sector coal company in the world.
Dr. Joseph D’Aleo is a Certified Consultant meteorologist and the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel. D'Aleo has been a contributing meteorologist to the Old Farmer's Almanac in which he predicted in 2008 that the earth had entered a period of global cooling.
D'Aleo is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming". The declaration states:
quote:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
Dr. James P. Wallace, who doesn't have a wikipedia page and was listed in an Amicus Curiae brief recently filed to the Supreme Court as "an engineer".
This "study" is a low grade study by low grade/no grade scientists.
Typical of the quality that are posted on this board on Climate Change.
But you guys just keep whooping and hollering it up. Don't take the blinders off, because you might see something that doesn't fit your narrative.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 6:28 pm to RobbBobb
Can't believe anything anymore. Every damn thing is being manipulated by the left... news, polls, climate data. What next?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 7:42 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.
And we'll just pretend that you cited authority for that blind supposition.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 7:45 pm to Bullethead88
I would be very concerned if climate scientists didn't update their models as additional data was gathered. Otherwise we'd all still be using the original model Arrhenius wrote out on paper 100+ years ago.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 7:46 pm
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News