Socialists in a Panic
- Thread starter china
- Start date
And the million dollar question is, 'Is this data manipulation valid?'
When people start to 'like' or 'dislike' data because of the way it has been massaged, you have to start adding a factor of scepticism to your reading.
And by the way, I am not a 'denier', I am a 'doubter' of both sides of the argument.
When CRU doesn't input any data that they don't have, that's not actually manipulating anything. GISS is, but it's a manipulation which is defensible. As are the manipulations adjusting for station moves and urban heat islands.
I like it because it doesn't leave a hole as is, and because I know that temperature is auto-correlated geographically. For researchers I'm sure there are other differences which influence which dataset they use, ie. if they are interested in Arctic trends, what size of a grid box they are looking for, if they're interested in atmospheric slabs (use the satellites), etc. Even though there is no statistical difference, it's still important to have a defensible reason for choosing one dataset and not running the same treatment over multiple datasets.
And I'll note that the so-called climate skeptics never seem to care when satellite data is chosen over station data, despite the fact that satellites are not actually measuring the surface temperature.
I don't think I've ever called you a denier...you've never gave me a reason to call you that.
With all those discredited scientists the stats they dump on us no longer means a thing
because the will be suffering a lack of credibility. I am sick to death hearing all this
stuff like the world is going to implode because we don't do this and that. The
governments have found a key button push here and they latch on. That means they
get more money from the gas tax, and so on.
Now I am not saying we should all do what we please, I farm and it only makes good
sense to be careful about what I am using and how much, it economics and environmental. These days though everyone is trying to green everything and for me
it no longer means much, because business doesn't care, they are green friendly if
there is a buck in it
because the will be suffering a lack of credibility. I am sick to death hearing all this
stuff like the world is going to implode because we don't do this and that. The
governments have found a key button push here and they latch on. That means they
get more money from the gas tax, and so on.
Now I am not saying we should all do what we please, I farm and it only makes good
sense to be careful about what I am using and how much, it economics and environmental. These days though everyone is trying to green everything and for me
it no longer means much, because business doesn't care, they are green friendly if
there is a buck in it
I didn't mean to suggest that you had called me a denier, I was staking my ground, so to speak. Sorry if it came across wrong.
I find that as soon as the rabid mouthpieces get onto an issue, it becomes ridiculous. Between the greenpeace etc who essentially call you a heretic if you don't buy into their particular prediction of doom, to the deniers who have to blame Al Gore or inventing 'global warmeing' everything they say, I find there's little credibility on either side.
I have no problem seeing climate change as a result of human activity; I don't necessarily think it's as dire as we are being told, and I'm leery of many of the 'fixes' that are being proposed...they all seem to involve either more tax, or some nefarious people trading 'credits'. In my mind, two of the people least trustworthy with the public purse are governments and wall st.
I have a number of graphs on my computer that I don't recall where I got them. If you watched the Bob Carter video (and why wouldn't you?) it also appears there about the 2 minute mark on the second video, if memory serves. The source is too blury for me to make out, perhaps you can do better.
AS it turns out, temps are "homoginized" to conform with the desired result. I'll post more on this when I have time.Umm, not even close. Hadley and NASA both make adjustments to their station data, RSS and UAH make adjustments to their satellite data. Now before you say AHA! consider that NASA has released it's data, and it resulted in insignificant changes, (not statistically significant), CRU has released what they can. Now you might say, but they haven't released it all. Well, there's no reason to believe there's anything wrong with it. Here is a graph I plotted, of the two satellite products, and CRU and GISTemp.
What you will notice is:
- UAH is the outlier. The trends measured by the other three (RSS, HADcrut, GIStemp) are identical. UAH is lower. UAH and RSS both use the same raw satellite data.
- The satellite anomalies are lower than the surface station anomalies, different base periods. But also, the lowest channel in those satellites measures the temperature of the bottom slab of troposphere, including a lot of airspace where we don't live. If you remember any physics at all, as you rise in the atmosphere you lose heat (1°C in the dry adiabat and 0.55°C in the moist adiabat) due to falling pressure and expansion of the gases to fill a greater volume.
Taking them out exposes you to more mercury than leaving them alone. That particulate doesn't all get sucked up. Similarly, removing asbestos from old schools exposed the kids to far more of the stuff than leaving it in
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ors--British-health-bosses-refuse-action.html
Check the demographic trends. A birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is required to maintain a population. Canada is about 1.75, despite the occasional woman who has more. Italy is down to 1.25, which means as a subspecies of the human race, Italians will die out soon. Here's an interesting fact: the more developed a nation (more energy consumption) the lower its birthrate. THe population explosion wasn't a feature of places like Canada, it was the poorest nations in the world who were having all the kids.
Western economics (capitalism) garrentees cultural extinction. Now that's an efficient extraction tool that leaves little residue. We don't have time to replicate in healthy numbers because it would interfere with growth which if you think about really means growth is death. We are being made to buy into global warming while our masters invest in long underwear and thick wool socks which of course they will be pushing at many many times the cost. Does everyone agree, climate changes, lets get on with it. All these warming acolytes and the usual collection of carpet bagging corporate prostitutes and celebrity babblers are chronic liars and thieves, if you hear them tell you one thing it is surely wise to believe the opposite.
Those values in that graph aren't temps, Extrafire. That is a graph of ANOMALIES of temps. They are mostly on the positive side and that means the change in temperatures are warming. :roll:
Concerning the manipulation of data, so what if there's 1 reading in 50 that's weird and says 40 C at the north pole or -40 at the equator and it's tossed into the waste bin?
Really. :roll: The things get old, cracked and shrink eventually anyway, which leaves little crevices that toothbrushes can't get into in order to remove plaque.
:roll:The last I heard is that if the asbestos is causing grief, then it's removed. Same with fillings.
That's not news and what has that have to do with what I said, anyway? What was the birthrate after the war?
Perhaps you could read and learn a little about post-war demographics.
Post-World War II baby boom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canada: Better Demographics than Many of its Developed Economic Partners - Beacon Asset Managers -- Seeking Alpha
What if they told you something obvious like winter wasn't over in Canada and you should keep your long johns on? Would you leap into your Bermuda shorts and t-shirt and go to the beach right then? Would you just leap to the ASSumption that they're full of it without checking it out?
I watched as much as I could stand in the past.
From his video it lead me to the NOAA page here:
GISP2 - Temperature Reconstruction and Accumulation Data
The FTP page has all the raw data.
The paper that data is based on is online, here:
http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/paleoseminar/pdf/alley00.pdf
If you read this paper, it reads as a warning for imposing sudden changes on the climate system. Large changes are possible, and it only highlights the fact that we've grown up (agriculture and industry) as a species during a relatively stable period climatically. We know that even the small changes we've experienced can have large impacts.
More to the point, we know that the Dansgaard-Oeschger events like the Younger Dryas are associated with transient changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Small perturbations cause massive changes. If the AMOC shifts south even slightly, this can cause huge changes in heat transport.
Hardly cause for celebration.
Is the RSS homogenized to produce the same thing? :roll:
You can't win with this guy folks. In one breath he curses the surface temperature record because cities grow around thermometers, or stations have to move, and an urban heat island exist. In the next he asserts they are homogenized for a desired result. Yes, to remove the bias of UHI.
You can go to this fellow's site and follow the details of his analysis. The conclusion is that there is no bias in the adjustments.
In fact, though not statistically relevant, the largest bar is on the negative side of zero.
Last edited:
All jokes aside, it's well known that polar bears have survived much warmer temps than the current ones, and also that as the climate has warmed, their numbers have increased. There is every reason to think they will thrive as the planet warms. They did before. As for the number of animals going extinct, I would tend not to believe speculative projections. Much of the "alarm" over species extinction is based on guesswork; we know there are species that we haven't discovered yet, therefore there must be lots of them going extinct by our actions. Hardly scientific.
No. This graph shows the rate of change, not the amount. 2.5 degrees per century rate, for example. It does not show the amount of change. Yours does. By the way, did you see that one graph of yours in the video? Did you see him explain why it was wrong, and what it looked like when corrected? By now you should know better than to trust anything coming from the alarmist camp.So did the graphs I found except they showed temperature as opposed to time.Please note that this graph doesn't show the amount of change, but rather the RATE of change.
What I said is that I read that cooling is the main culprit of all mass extinctions. Yes, if a specie goes extinct, it's as dead as it will ever be. But a mass extinction, like the event that killed of the dinosaurs (thousands of species) is multitudes of magnitude greater than anything we have done. Every specie, phyla or family bigger than a mouse was wiped out. That's an example of a major mass extinction. Then there are the minor mass extinctions, like the latest ice age that wiped out the mamoths, sabre-tooth tigers etc., less extensive but still more than we could manage.
I'm not familliar with that, but I do know that for most of it's existance, earth was considerably warmer than now, and land life flourished. As the earth and oceans warm, we're just getting back to normal. I suspect the ocean life cycle will be what it's supposed to be.
By anomalies they mean the amount of change. They establish a base line and plot the changes. All of them do it that way, including yours. That graph does indeed show cooling.
That reporter was mistaken. The fantastic mileage is attained through low wind resistance, low weight and efficient engine. Batteries and all the accompanying linkages would be far too much weight. Here's a link to the original prototype with full descriptions:
VW 1 Liter Car
Yes, they aren't temps, they're anomalies. Changes. They track the degree of change by day, or month, or year. When the graph line goes down, it is cooling, when the graph line goes up, it's warming.
And this is the kind of manipulation that's been going on:
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?
YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.
They adjust upwards to remove the bias of UHI???? 8OIs the RSS homogenized to produce the same thing? :roll:
You can't win with this guy folks. In one breath he curses the surface temperature record because cities grow around thermometers, or stations have to move, and an urban heat island exist. In the next he asserts they are homogenized for a desired result. Yes, to remove the bias of UHI.
You can go to this fellow's site and follow the details of his analysis. The conclusion is that there is no bias in the adjustments.
In fact, though not statistically relevant, the largest bar is on the negative side of zero.
Evidence?
That's just your speculation. The true part is that we don't know all the species and that we are killing them off.
And that guy was more credible? Why should I trust his word either?
I actually went back to see what you said. Apparently you didn't.
Evidence?
Again, do you have any evidence or do we just trust you? You were the one moaning about trusting alarmists. Because you oppose alarmists means you and your info can be trusted?
So you say. So far we've seen precious little from you except hearsay and opinion.