- 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 10:44 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:44 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Oh I'm sure it's real efficient on a per barrel basis I'm just not sure about the actual overall amount. If that makes sense.
Best estimates are that 0.3 to 0.7 tons of emissions are avoided (net reduction) per barrel of oil in CO2->EOR.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:46 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:I can source every step of that in scientific journals. But considering the audience I might be better off laundering them as fake 4chan screenshots.
If this post had gone on another paragraph, we'd have made it all the way.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:47 pm to Iosh
quote:
*grabs ur nose and rubs it in the ICOADS vs ERSST graph from page 1*
You did not just direct me to a graph that shows OCEAN temps? Really? Did you even read the study, or did you just jump right into web surfing news of the adjusted data as canon?
quote:
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land
Its adjusted data. Based on some dudes assessment, for crying out loud. And when you input those adjustments into models, THEY ARE ALWAYS WRONG. Always!!
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:48 pm to RobbBobb
quote:"Especially" means they think it's true of the ocean too. Their support for that is *bemused shrug*
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:53 pm to Iosh
quote:I'm sure you can.
I can source every step of that in scientific journals
As an aside, I find it interesting that you are clearly In agreement with those who contend that the global climate is warming significantly, potentially leading to catastrophic effects for humanity.
What do you think we should do about it? And is the resulting effects of doing nothing such an existential threat that you would be willing to suspend your stated libertarian beliefs in hopes of forestalling the crisis?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:00 pm to Iosh
quote:
"Especially" means they think it's true of the ocean too. Their support for that is *bemused shrug*
WOW! You really didn't read the study, because that quote wasn't from its authors. They were quoting Ross McKittrick from 2010, who was being very critical of the ICOADS archive. And the reason they were conducting this study
Not a good look for you. Here ya go sport
quote:
A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products”.
ABSTRACT
There are three main global temperature histories: the combined CRU-Hadley record (HADCRU), the NASA-GISS (GISTEMP) record, and the NOAA record. All three global averages depend on the same underlying land data archive, the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). Because of this reliance on GHCN, its quality deficiencies will constrain the quality of all derived products. The number of weather stations providing data to GHCN plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919. The collapse in sample size has increased the relative fraction of data coming from airports to about 50 percent (up from about 30 percent in the 1970s). It has also reduced the average latitude of source data and removed relatively more high-altitude monitoring sites.
Oceanic data are based on sea surface temperature (SST) rather than marine air temperature (MAT).
All three global products rely on SST series derived from the ICOADS archive. ICOADS observations were primarily obtained from ships that voluntarily monitored SST. Prior to the post-war era, coverage of the southern oceans and polar regions was very thin. Coverage has improved partly due to deployment of buoys, as well as use of satellites to support extrapolation. Ship-based readings changed over the 20th century from bucket-and-thermometer to engine-intake methods, leading to a warm bias as the new readings displaced the old. Until recently it was assumed that bucket methods disappeared after 1941, but this is now believed not to be the case, which may necessitate a major revision to the 20th century ocean record. There is evidence that SST trends overstate nearby MAT trends.
The quality of data over land, namely the raw temperature data in GHCN, depends on the validity of adjustments for known problems due to urbanization and land-use change. The adequacy of these adjustments has been tested in three different ways, with two of the three finding evidence that they do not suffice to remove warming biases.
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.
LINK
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:04 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Which the HadSST and ERSST records adjust for. Therefore disproving the conclusion that temperatures are always adjusted up.
All three global products rely on SST series derived from the ICOADS archive. ICOADS observations were primarily obtained from ships that voluntarily monitored SST. Prior to the post-war era, coverage of the southern oceans and polar regions was very thin. Coverage has improved partly due to deployment of buoys, as well as use of satellites to support extrapolation. Ship-based readings changed over the 20th century from bucket-and-thermometer to engine-intake methods, leading to a warm bias as the new readings displaced the old.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:06 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:COSMOTARIAN POWERS ACTIVATE LINK
What do you think we should do about it? And is the resulting effects of doing nothing such an existential threat that you would be willing to suspend your stated libertarian beliefs in hopes of forestalling the crisis?
(This is largely an economic argument so you can mentally substitute "libertarian" for "conservative")
I would especially direct your attention to pages 11-13.
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:08 pm to RobbBobb
quote:why do you think this? and im not trying to be combative, its an honest question. because its just baffling to me.
Its all bullshite. A contrived hoax
the normal answer i see is that the earth and nature are too big and powerful for us to ever frick up. but that's obviously not the case, examples of humans directly changing the natural world are all around us.
we cause earthquakes...
"Wastewater disposal is the primary cause of the recent increase in earthquakes in the central United States."
"Most wastewater currently disposed of across the nation is generated and produced in the process of oil and gas extraction."
we poison rivers...
"...3000 million litres of untreated sewage from these towns along the Ganges are pumped into the river every day."
this is smog in China from burning coal
we're doing things that frick with nature. i hope everyone here can at least agree on that. This is a thread, from here, with posters saying the flooding in Houston is because of people, because of the way they're developing.
so with all this and more in mind, why is it impossible to believe that were effecting temperature as well?
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 11:24 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:13 pm to MastrShake
quote:
this is smog in china from burning coal
You know the Paris Accord lets them increase emissions from coal right?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:18 pm to texag7
quote:with everything i just asked, that's your response? how is that even relevant to my question?
You know the Paris Accord lets them increase emissions from coal right?
but as far as your post, China also stopped planned construction of 103 new coal plants this year and has banned all new construction of coal plants starting next year.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:21 pm to MastrShake
And their neighbor Japan just said yesterday that they will be unable to meet their promises to the Paris Accord over the next decade.
And you really think China is not going to produce coal with the demand that have in their country?
And you really think China is not going to produce coal with the demand that have in their country?
This post was edited on 7/6/17 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:23 pm to MastrShake
Nice. New York Times January 2017
I'll raise you New York Times July 2017
LINK
Checkmate.
I'll raise you New York Times July 2017
LINK
quote:
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
Checkmate.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:24 pm to texag7
quote:
The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
But Trump is the bad one for dropping out of it! Hurrrrrrr
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:28 pm to texag7
quote:i have no idea what you're doing. here's a picture of smog in LA...
Checkmate.
is that better? will you stop talking about China now and answer the question...
"so with all this and more in mind, why is it impossible to believe that were effecting temperature as well?"
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:32 pm to MastrShake
Because this thing has become politicized; it's detrimental for the truth and that is what science seeks.
So, here's a big fat truth sandwich for you.
None of these 20 pages on the issue matter anymore. Our president made up HIS mind. We can discuss it maybe in 7 years; IF it's still getting the funding.
So, here's a big fat truth sandwich for you.
None of these 20 pages on the issue matter anymore. Our president made up HIS mind. We can discuss it maybe in 7 years; IF it's still getting the funding.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:32 pm to MastrShake
You posted a January article and got slapped down with new information. Now you're deflecting.
Embarrassing
Embarrassing
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:33 pm to texag7
Of course he is. You will be a closeted homosexual that is a homophobe in three minutes.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 11:34 pm to Errerrerrwere
Professionally, I've had the opportunity to work closely with the Chinese over the past several years. Both large business interests and government (practically synonymous there).
They almost never do what they say they are going to do.
They almost never do what they say they are going to do.
Popular
Back to top



0






