- 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 7:48 pm to Bullethead88
Posted on 7/6/17 at 7:48 pm to Bullethead88
I'll never understand why some people so want it not to be real that they feel the need to lie about Climate Change.
2
Posted on 7/6/17 at 7:51 pm to mmcgrath
I'll never understand why some people so want it to be real that they feel the need to lie about Climate Change.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 8:46 pm to tarzana
quote:
Those who refuse to subscribe to the above facts are not worth my attention.
And yet you took the time to give me your attention.
So tell me, what do you personally do to combat this climate change that I've been hearing about for 30 years?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 8:47 pm to RobbBobb
Welp, there's your hockey stick....
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:16 pm to Bullethead88
quote:
So the study doesn't do any real hard work, like figuring if the bias adjustments are warranted or accurate
The depth of the idiocy in this thread is amazing
All the study did was to remove the adjustments. Track the raw numbers back to when they began, and guess what. THERE WAS NO WARMING TREND
You freaks bend over backwards to accept that adjustments are the reality. They are not. They are also the reason the hockey stick got laughed at. And the reason every climate model has been wrong. You simply cant feed manipulated data into a computer program, and expect valid results.
And this is the reason they give
quote:
To calculate a trend over such a long period, it is necessary to merge the raw temperature data from different sites.
And this study proved that in almost every case where the data was merged, a higher temp was recorded. Every single time
Its bullshite. And you idiots fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Relying on you to doubt their manipulations of data, is like relying on CNN to do accurate reporting
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:17 pm to RobbBobb
By the way, Mr. OP, the subject line of your post is not true.
The Study itself never concluded that "Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data."
Coincidentally though, that was the exact wording of the title of a Daily Caller article "discussing" the Study.
You said you read the Study. If you did read it, and you think the subject line of the OP is what the study concluded, you either didn't comprehend what you read, or you just outright lied.
The Study itself never concluded that "Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data."
Coincidentally though, that was the exact wording of the title of a Daily Caller article "discussing" the Study.
You said you read the Study. If you did read it, and you think the subject line of the OP is what the study concluded, you either didn't comprehend what you read, or you just outright lied.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:18 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
They have hi-jacked the scientific method and turned it into a faith-based dogma.
fricking progressives have zero shame.
Bunch of liberal arts wannabe engineering grads!
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:24 pm to tarzana
quote:
Those who refuse to subscribe to the above facts are not worth my attention.
Those people ain't missing a thing, Jack.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:41 pm to bamarep
quote:
Somewhere, SpideyTuba
I kinda miss his "the world will end next week in a fire ball" threads
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:53 pm to Iosh
quote:
Because the earth system feedbacks operate on long time scales. If we went to zero emissions tomorrow, for instance, the Earth's warming wouldn't tail off for several decades because it takes a while for the carbon cycle to reach a new equilibrium. Other feedbacks like sea level rise are even longer, on the scale of centuries. It's neither economically nor physically feasible to wait until the effects reach "doom and gloom" level and then suddenly flip a switch, stop emitting carbon, and everything goes back to normal.
Does this work in both directions? In other words, is the "global warming" or "climate change" we are supposed to be experiencing today due to events in decades and centuries past?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:53 pm to DevilDogTiger
I'm still waiting for the Acid rain from the 80's that was going to devestate us.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:58 pm to Bullethead88
quote:
You said you read the Study. If you did read it, and you think the subject line of the OP is what the study concluded, you either didn't comprehend what you read, or you just outright lied.
Wanna know, how I know, you didn't read the study?
quote:
VII. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical GAST data are quantified. While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.
You are reaching a staggering level of stupidity, because the study says exactly that each new data set increases the level of warming, than was previously reported
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:10 pm to Iosh
quote:
Iosh
C'mon maaaaan...the GW gig is up already!
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:11 pm to RobbBobb
quote:*grabs ur nose and rubs it in the ICOADS vs ERSST graph from page 1*
You are reaching a staggering level of stupidity, because the study says exactly that each new data set increases the level of warming, than was previously reported
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:20 pm to Iosh
Kemper has been a disaster and word is they are now turning it into a nat gas plant, but NRG recently pulled one off in TX. Of course, the sequestered carbon is being used for EOR, so the greenies will still be pissed regardless.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:25 pm to RedStickBR
That sounds neat but kind of implausible that it would use up 100% of that CO2. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what quantities of CO2 are used in EOR, but I do know a coal plant emits literal millions of tons per year.)
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:32 pm to Iosh
quote:
I have no idea what quantities of CO2 are used in EOR
Best estimates are that 0.3 to 0.7 tons of emissions are avoided (net reduction) per barrel of oil in CO2->EOR.
So, that's pretty good, I think. The sequestration occurs because they have to prime the oil pocket for about a year. Has to be cleaner than fracking.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:35 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
You are reaching a staggering level of stupidity, because the study says exactly that each new data set increases the level of warming, than was previously reported
Are you dense. What I said in my post was that the subject line of your post was a lie. It said:
Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data.
Show me where the Study concluded that. If not GTFO. (and don't quote the B.S. Daily Caller article where that quote came from).
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:40 pm to Iosh
quote:
It's Celsius (and clearly labeled as such), but 0.7°C probably doesn't still sound like much.
quote:
it's more like 1.1°C
quote:
2°C warming is probably locked by now.
quote:
you're looking at a difference of 4°C.
I think I've found the source of the temp adjustments.
quote:
we're halfway to that magnitude of change already
If this post had gone on another paragraph, we'd have made it all the way.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News