BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
A paper recently published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a "significant" exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.

According to the authors, "Our analysis shows that "data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature."

The paper corroborates the prior work of Anthony Watts, Joseph D'Aleo, et al, finding leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net "global warming" in the 20th century.

http://link.springer.com/artic...%2Fs00704-013-0894-0



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s." - IPCC AR5 Chapter 10


If the climate-based scientific community was truly functioning in a healthy manner they would be lining up to challenge their own assertions, openly debating the results and then readjusting their positions accordingly. Instead, we are fed leaks of scientists manipulating data and censure of any scientists who dare attempt their due diligence in challenging the theory. Since they openly appear to be operating more as a lobby group than scientists, I am dismayed that their dying theory still has so much traction as solid science in society.

True scientists would be questioning their own results, charts, and methods. But these media inspired clowns have nothing to do with 'true' science, they are in it for the money grants, personal 'Nobel' glories, and dictatorially control of the ignorant masses.

As with any politicized topic, serious fact-based debates are ignored in favor of rooting for a "side" and then aggressively protecting it against any challenges, especially the valid ones. Consensus by scientists has never been, and never can be, a substitute for proper scientific method. Also, until mankind understands all the intricacies of the interactions of all of the atmospheres, continents, oceans, space, volcanoes, solar, etc, etc, etc, computer models are little more than crystal balls. So far, they have proven to be about as accurate.

Healthy skepticism is all I've ever needed to see this is not real science. It is difficult to deny the parallels between having absolute "faith" in the AGW story and absolute "faith" in religious dogma or political parties. I have great hopes that both common sense and healthy skepticism will eventually win out in all of these arenas.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ronny:
I am shocked. You are quoting IPCC AR5 as an authority on global warming. From your recent posts you made it quite clear that it was just garbage.



That's Johns religion.
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Any graph that doesn't show at least 100,000 years is irrelevant and cannot be expected to, or relied upon to, show patterns but instead merely passes off measurement noise as a pseudo-pattern.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Does that mean that John Galt's recent post about the Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s is meaningless gibberish.


It is to me. Sorry John. Smile

quote:

Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper that supports your assertion.


Not just a single 1: just my accumulated opinion from observations on papers linked on 103 pages of this thread so far. I'm good at seeing the "forest" through the trees...its a skill I have.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Temperature data from the 30s show that the recent temperature anomaly in the 90s was neither unusual or catastrophic as the alarmists would like us to believe.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ronny:
That's amazing.
100,000 years is a pretty long time to wait to see what the climate is doing.
I have never seen any reliable paper that requires 100,000 years of information to determine what the climate is doing.
Does that mean that John Galt's recent post about the Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s is meaningless gibberish.

Can you point me to a peer reviewed paper that supports your assertion.



The standard time frame to establish a trend in climate is 30 years as established by the World meteorological Organization

quote:
Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 30-year period. A 30 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.


quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
Any graph that doesn't show at least 100,000 years is irrelevant and cannot be expected to, or relied upon to, show patterns but instead merely passes off measurement noise as a pseudo-pattern.


Any chance your going to tell us why it's irrelevant? how about why it "merely passes off measurement noise as a pseudo-pattern." ? or maybe just show us where you picked up this tidbit from this thread.
quote:
Not just a single 1: just my accumulated opinion from observations on papers linked on 103 pages of this thread so far. I'm good at seeing the "forest" through the trees...its a skill I have.


Not sure if I would call it a skill at least not until I can see how you came to that conclusion. there doesn't appear to be any due process there


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Exactly what WMO says;

Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 100,000-year period. A 100,000 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interdecadal variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
Exactly what WMO says;

Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 100,000-year period. A 100,000 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interdecadal variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.


exactly? almost, it reads word for word except where 1000,000 was inserted. Did you do that? or did you pick that up at some other site. the quote of 30 years isn't hard to find assuming you read from the link.

not hard to see the screw up when your talking a hundred thousand years to filter out ten year anomalies. you'll have to do better than that if your trying to muddle the accepted methods.

and the last sentence of the paragraph

quote:
The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.


do the math


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Maybe I should have said, "Exactly AS WMO states it;"

As in, anything less will not filter out short-term anomalies and show true climactic trends.

We are simply arguing over the definition of "short-term" and the number of years necessary to define a "trend".

Considering the age of the planet is thought to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.54 billion years, about 3 billion of which it is thought to be habitable, the oldest human remains from about 400,000 years ago...

I would say my insistence that a "trend" can only be assumed for showing a consistency across 0.03% of the period of the habitable planet's life is more scientifically valid that one that shows a consistence across only .000001% of it.

Or perhaps, my insistence that a "trend" can only be assumed for showing a consistency across 25% of the period of time humans have been present is more scientifically valid that one that shows a consistence across only 0.0075% of it.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
Maybe I should have said, "Exactly AS WMO states it;"



maybe you should just read the statement from the WMO


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
Maybe I should have said, "Exactly AS WMO states it;"



So did you insert the 100,000 instead of 30?


maybe you should just read the statement from the WMO


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming

Thomas Lifson February 4, 2014

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."

"These 'consensus' surveys appear to be used as a 'social proof,'" says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. "Just because a science paper includes the words 'global climate change' this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases."

The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a "remarkable lack of disagreement" by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.

Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:


The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One way or another, a fraud is being committed - either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com...g.html#ixzz2sOGaMoQt



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:

So did you insert the 100,000 instead of 30?

maybe you should just read the statement from the WMO


Yes; the point was that I am using the exact logic they are using, but with an actual appropriate time period.

quote:
The current climate normal period is calculated from 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.


The fact that they would claim to calculate a "climate normal period" of a pathetic little 30 years completely discredits them as scientists. (Hey, the last 0.0075% of known human existence, that's what's normal! Yeah!)

0.0075% is MEASUREMENT NOISE.

Though, in defense of the WMO, I did not read through their credentials; maybe they don't claim to be scientists at all. Big Grin
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post



"Home? I have no home. Hunted, despised, living like an animal. The jungle is my home. But I will show the world that I can be its master. I will perfect my own race of people, a race of atomic supermen, which will conquer the world."

Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi in "Ed Wood". 1994.
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
Yes; the point was that I am using the exact logic they are using, but with an actual appropriate time period.



As decided by you.

quote:
The fact that they would claim to calculate a "climate normal period" of a pathetic little 30 years completely discredits them as scientists. (Hey, the last 0.0075% of known human existence, that's what's normal! Yeah!)

0.0075% is MEASUREMENT NOISE.

Though, in defense of the WMO, I did not read through their credentials; maybe they don't claim to be scientists at all. Big Grin


You seem to appear to think you know more than the "scientists", without the education. Maybe you should write up a paper with your theory and submit it. You'll be famous as the person that took down the agw theory.

Or your just full of it.....ever hear of the Dunning–Kruger effect

quote:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.

David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Ronny,
quote:
for any particular area


You have a peeing-area in your swimming pool to keep the rest of the pool clean? Its GLOBAL climate change. 1 "area"; the GLOBE.

12voltdan,
quote:
Dunning–Kruger effect

You are funny! You don't know me. When the numbers don't support your position; attack the messenger. Infantile, but whatever; water off my back. Wink I know who I am and what my science background is.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
12voltdan,
quote:
Dunning–Kruger effect

You are funny! You don't know me. When the numbers don't support your position; attack the messenger. Infantile, but whatever; water off my back. Wink I know who I am and what my science background is.


It wasn't meant to be funny and no I don't know you, I have to rely on your posts to get an idea of the persona behind them.You are the one that substituted your own personal numbers to support your opinion not very scientific eh actually it's closer to fraud. So when I read comments like
quote:
The fact that they would claim to calculate a "climate normal period" of a pathetic little 30 years completely discredits them as scientists.


quote:
just my accumulated opinion from observations on papers linked on 103 pages of this thread so far. I'm good at seeing the "forest" through the trees...its a skill I have.


Or assertions made like
quote:
I would say my insistence that a "trend" can only be assumed for showing a consistency across 0.03% of the period of the habitable planet's life is more scientifically valid that one that shows a consistence across only .000001% of it.


quote:
The fact that they would claim to calculate a "climate normal period" of a pathetic little 30 years completely discredits them as scientists. (Hey, the last 0.0075% of known human existence, that's what's normal! Yeah!)


not to mention deliberately changing statements to prop up your personal view

quote:
Exactly what WMO says;
Climate “normals” are reference points used by climatologists to compare current climatological trends to that of the past or what is considered “normal”. A Normal is defined as the arithmetic average of a climate element (e.g. temperature) over a 100,000-year period. A 100,000 year period is used, as it is long enough to filter out any interdecadal variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.


Saying your a victim of the Dunning Kruger effect may be a little harsh but unless you have a better explanation of why you know more than the climatologists of the world I stand by my statement


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
(CNSNews.com) – Dr. Don Easterbrook – a climate scientist and glacier expert from Washington State who correctly predicted back in 2000 that the Earth was entering a cooling phase – says to expect colder temperatures for at least the next two decades.

Easterbrook’s predictions were “right on the money” seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a “planetary emergency.”

“When we check their projections against what actually happened in that time interval, they’re not even close. They’re off by a full degree in one decade, which is huge. That’s more than the entire amount of warming we’ve had in the past century. So their models have failed just miserably, nowhere near close. And maybe it’s luck, who knows, but mine have been right on the button,” Easterbrook told CNSNews.com.

“For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC,” said Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including “Evidence Based Climate Science,” which was published in 2011. (See http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/d...tury-predictions.pdf)

In contrast, Gore and the IPCC’s computer models predicted “a big increase” in global warming by as much as one degree per decade. But the climate models used by the IPCC have proved to be wrong, with many places in Europe and North America now experiencing record-breaking cold.

Easterbrook noted that his 20-year prediction was the “mildest” one of four possible scenarios, all of which involve lower temperatures, and added that only time will tell whether the Earth continues to cool slightly or plunges into another Little Ice Age as it did between 1650 and 1790.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...t-right/#more-102688



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: SW Oregon | Registered: December 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014