Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76

Thread: Global Climate change 2019

  1. #21
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,911
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    22975
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Who do you think controls this data, and how do they exert their control?
    Nasa. By "adjusting" the past data, er I mean "correcting" it.

    You don't have to have a lot of people in a worldwide conspiracy when the zeitgeist of society already primed to believe in "global warming" because of 40 years of the media and schools teaching it - you just need to keep tweaking the central data sources to keep up the appearance. Since it is what everyone already believes, and it is politically and financially advantageous for them, the rest of the sheep will just follow along.

  2. #22
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,436
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Nasa. By "adjusting" the past data, er I mean "correcting" it.

    You don't have to have a lot of people in a worldwide conspiracy when the zeitgeist of society already primed to believe in "global warming" because of 40 years of the media and schools teaching it - you just need to keep tweaking the central data sources to keep up the appearance. Since it is what everyone already believes, and it is politically and financially advantageous for them, the rest of the sheep will just follow along.
    Well, since you don't trust NASA, it's a good thing that NOAA, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth (Koch funded), and others have data too, and don't use NASA's corrections.

    And what in the world makes you think climate change is politically advantageous to NASA during the Bush 2 and Trump administrations?

    And, while you're at it, since you don't trust corrections, can you explain why any of the ones done are scientifically invalid?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  3. #23
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,911
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    22975
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Well, since you don't trust NASA, it's a good thing that NOAA, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth (Koch funded), and others have data too, and don't use NASA's corrections.

    And what in the world makes you think climate change is politically advantageous to NASA during the Bush 2 and Trump administrations?

    And, while you're at it, since you don't trust corrections, can you explain why any of the ones done are scientifically invalid?
    You are harshing my mellow.

  4. #24
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,436
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You are harshing my mellow.
    Didn't mean to sound aggressive, but i'm interested in how people reach the beliefs they maintain regarding science. You're suggesting a conspiracy to manipulate data by NASA, which is something straight out of the flat earth playbook. I'm wondering how that came about, so i'm trying to understand how you think about all the sub-issues that you have to navigate around in order to arrive at that belief.

    The whole thing with climate change fascinates me in general. We know the greenhouse effect exists - Venus wouldn't be Venus without it. But it seems like people somehow believe Earth is excepted from that bit of physics. It mystifies me, and so i'm interested in trying to understand it better.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  5. #25
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,911
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    22975
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Didn't mean to sound aggressive, but i'm interested in how people reach the beliefs they maintain regarding science. You're suggesting a conspiracy to manipulate data by NASA, which is something straight out of the flat earth playbook. I'm wondering how that came about, so i'm trying to understand how you think about all the sub-issues that you have to navigate around in order to arrive at that belief.

    The whole thing with climate change fascinates me in general. We know the greenhouse effect exists - Venus wouldn't be Venus without it. But it seems like people somehow believe Earth is excepted from that bit of physics. It mystifies me, and so i'm interested in trying to understand it better.
    I was kidding about the "conspiracy" but I think there is a lot of what I would call "confirmation bias" going on in the whole climate change camp. And I think it does affect the data. An example would be NASA climatologists "knowing" the earth is warming and that there "wasn't a pause" so let's "find out where we went wrong" and coming to the conclusion that the "needed to adjust the data" to bring it in line with what they know it should read. Others take that data and run with it. Now the old unadjusted data isn't even there any more to check from what I have read (that may have been a someone on tweb quoting a conspiracy site though). Thus my comment that he who controls the data controls the narrative. I don't believe there is a conscious conspiracy of people who "know it is fake" or anything like that.

    And I do believe there is climate change going on, just not to the extent the scientists and media are making it out to be, nor as dire. Seems to me every "prediction" they have made over the last few decades have been way off base. Time to readjust the data again.

    And I think the climate models are a joke. They can easily input their own biases into the models and come up with all sorts of wild predictions.

  6. #26
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,911
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    22975
    An interesting article regarding NOAA and their data:


    Yes, NOAA must adjust data — but its climate record really is quite wrong
    By S. Fred Singer

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is the official U.S. government custodian of information on weather and climate. NOAA monitors both, and keeps records of both, and also tries to predict future changes. Climate is generally defined as a time average of weather, extending over at least a few weeks.

    NOAA does a reasonable job on the weather, but has been subject to much criticism for its handling of climate and is often accused of “cooking the data” for ideological reasons, related to energy policy.

    Once it is realized that CO2 has only minor effects, if any, on climate change, some of the criticism will disappear.



    It is important for the public to gain some perspective on such changes before indulging in wild accusations. Equally important, NOAA must use more transparency and not only announce data adjustments, but explain them so that reasonable people of goodwill will understand.

    Much of the current criticism is clearly unfair. NOAA must adjust climate data for many reasons.

    When a weather station is moved, its prior values have to be adjusted and this extends at times to neighboring stations.

    Another non-ideological reason for adjusting data is the poor location of some of the stations. Meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts have documented such examples; NOAA tries to keep track of them.

    Some of the changes occur naturally. For example, trees grow up or are cut down, and the wind pattern changes at the weather station thermometer. Or, an airport opens up nearby and the traffic pattern changes in the vicinity.

    On the other hand, some of the criticism is justified. I cite two instances:

    First, there has been no change reported in surface temperatures since about the year 2000, indicating no current warming. This so-called “pause” (or hiatus) has generated much controversy. It suggests that CO2 has little influence on the planet’s climate change, and it affects energy policy in a profound way.

    In June 2015, just weeks before the Paris Conference and before the U.S. presidential election, NOAA produced a “scientific paper” that suggested the so-called temperature “pause” was an illusion. The National Climate Data Center (NCDC), part of NOAA, published a paper in Science magazine that attempted to explain away the existence of the temperature “pause.”

    Not many people really believed that NCDC’s work was correct. But, the editor of Science went to great lengths to promote the paper, issuing a press release and giving the NCDC paper special handling.

    All this is history. The Paris Climate Accord negotiated in December 2015 and signed in April 2016 had no teeth and may be considered a failure. Now the United States under President Trump has officially withdrawn from the Paris Accord.

    Science magazine had “egg on its face.” Its editor went on to another prestigious position, as president of the National Academy of Sciences. While the NCDC paper could be considered “a tempest in the teapot,” it had no lasting effect. Any criticism of NOAA was automatically transferred to criticism of President Trump.

    More serious, perhaps, is the continued failure of NOAA to recognize that its climate record is really quite wrong. This official record shows a warming at the beginning of the 20th century and also at the end. The first warming is genuine, the second warming is an artifact, based on an incomplete analysis of all of the available data.

    Second, while the warming may exist in the surface record of weather stations, it does not exist in the atmospheric record. In fact, the gap between model results based on increasing CO2 and the atmospheric observations is continuing to grow. Scientists are at a loss in trying to explain the puzzling ineffectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

    Could it be that CO2 is not warming the climate at all? It is a topic that bears investigation. NOAA has not tackled this problem, likely because of ideological reasons. NOAA probably considers CO2 as a “pollutant.” It has been slow to change, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary.

    There is still a discrepancy and disagreement between NOAA’s surface record and all other records of temperature in the last decades of the 20th century.

    NOAA’s own radiosonde network shows no warming. All other data — including proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean and lake sediments — show no warming between 1977 and 1997. NOAA does analyze the atmospheric temperature data as obtained by NASA satellites, but has taken no action to explain the deficiencies of the surface record.

    We conclude that the reported surface warming does not really exist but is an artifact of instrumentation changes. We can summarize this essay by stating that NOAA does a reasonable job on weather — although some would argue that point — but they can do a much better job on climate.

    S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of the University of Virginia and a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute. He was among the first prominent scientists speaking out against global warming alarmism. An atmospheric and space physicist, he headed the U.S. Weather Satellite Service [now part of NOAA], founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...eally-is-quite

  7. #27
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,436
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I was kidding about the "conspiracy" but I think there is a lot of what I would call "confirmation bias" going on in the whole climate change camp. And I think it does affect the data. An example would be NASA climatologists "knowing" the earth is warming and that there "wasn't a pause" so let's "find out where we went wrong" and coming to the conclusion that the "needed to adjust the data" to bring it in line with what they know it should read.
    Keep your conspiracies straight, man - that was NOAA!

    In all seriousness, it was NOAA that was accused of changing its data to get rid of the pause, not NASA. But all NOAA was doing in the end was using the latest versions of data that had gone through the peer reviewed literate a few years before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And I do believe there is climate change going on, just not to the extent the scientists and media are making it out to be, nor as dire.
    What do you base that belief on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And I think the climate models are a joke. They can easily input their own biases into the models and come up with all sorts of wild predictions.
    Do you know enough about how climate models are built and tested to understand how biases could be put in?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  8. #28
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,911
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    22975
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Keep your conspiracies straight, man - that was NOAA!
    NOAA, NASA whatever, all those secret gommint acronyms.
    In all seriousness, it was NOAA that was accused of changing its data to get rid of the pause, not NASA. But all NOAA was doing in the end was using the latest versions of data that had gone through the peer reviewed literate a few years before.
    Did you see that article I just posted?


    What do you base that belief on?
    Reality. I have been living through the entire time since before they were predicting an Ice Age was coming in the 70s. None of their predictions have come true. So they invented "a pause" but now they are trying to get rid of the pause because it makes them look bad.


    Do you know enough about how climate models are built and tested to understand how biases could be put in?
    I know enough about computer programs and computer modeling to know how they work and I know how chaotic the weather is and completely impossible to model correctly. And I know that models depend on the input variables put into them and the change rates programmed into them, which are all guesses and the people who are guessing are the same ones who already believe in global warming so of course their parameters are going to reflect what they believe. And I also know that modeling isn't actual "science" because it is not actual evidence from experimentation, it is merely guessing. And the guesses have all been wrong so far.

    Hey I am sure there is a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect going on with me, thinking I know more than I actually do. I guess I will start taking climate change seriously when the proponents actually take it seriously. But while they buy expensive mansions on the beach, or fly around in private jets, while telling us peons to recycle and conserve, I will continue to think climate change is more political gamesmanship and religion than science.

  9. #29
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,436
    Amen (Given)
    91
    Amen (Received)
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Did you see that article I just posted?
    I hadn't, but Fred Singer's been paid by think tanks to cast doubt on climate change, and the health risks of second hand smoke before that. He can't be relied on to present science accurately, as he generally hasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Reality. I have been living through the entire time since before they were predicting an Ice Age was coming in the 70s. None of their predictions have come true. So they invented "a pause" but now they are trying to get rid of the pause because it makes them look bad.
    So, i was around for that too. It was articles in the popular press, not science, that made those predictions.

    And the pause thing... that's not at all what happened.

    Look, i understand that this is hard. For every scientific study that makes a prediction, there's a dozen loudmouths who don't know what they're talking about that are also predicting things. And, because most of the media is scientifically illiterate, they amplify the wrong things. But if you're going to complain about the scientists here, you should probably do a better job of separating out the two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I know enough about computer programs and computer modeling to know how they work and I know how chaotic the weather is and completely impossible to model correctly.
    We can stop right there, because climate models aren't modeling the weather. They produce weather as a byproduct, but they're about identifying the statistics of common states in a chaotic system.

    If you want to know more about how they're put together, this is one of the more detailed descriptions i've seen:
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...imple-science/

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Hey I am sure there is a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect going on with me, thinking I know more than I actually do. I guess I will start taking climate change seriously when the proponents actually take it seriously. But while they buy expensive mansions on the beach, or fly around in private jets, while telling us peons to recycle and conserve, I will continue to think climate change is more political gamesmanship and religion than science.
    Well, for what it's worth, i recycle everything that i can and do the vast majority of my travel on public transit. Because i do understand the science, and it seriously scares me. And that's coming from someone who also knows a fair bit about the science of AI, genetic engineering, ebola, and various other things that people commonly suggest are going to destroy the world. None of those really scare me.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  10. #30
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,911
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    22975
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I hadn't, but Fred Singer's been paid by think tanks to cast doubt on climate change, and the health risks of second hand smoke before that. He can't be relied on to present science accurately, as he generally hasn't.
    maybe that is just a smear campaign put out there by THEM!

    And isn't it a bit of an ad hominem to just dismiss him like that and not even respond to anything he says?


    So, i was around for that too. It was articles in the popular press, not science, that made those predictions.
    I don't think a lot of this is "science" I think a lot of it is politics. There is also a lot of peer pressure to conform to the Climate Change theory. You will be mocked, ostracized and refused funding if you go against the grain. It is almost like a religion. The purse strings are held by the priests, I mean politicians, who basically use the information as a way to push through their agendas.


    And the pause thing... that's not at all what happened.
    right. because we can change the data to show that it didn't and we have good excuses why it needed changing.

    Look, i understand that this is hard. For every scientific study that makes a prediction, there's a dozen loudmouths who don't know what they're talking about that are also predicting things. And, because most of the media is scientifically illiterate, they amplify the wrong things. But if you're going to complain about the scientists here, you should probably do a better job of separating out the two.
    The narrative seems to be if the weather agrees with the alarmists, then it is global warming. But if it doesn't, then it is just weather or loudmouth pundits who don't know what they are talking about. When Al Gore was predicting the end of the world in his first movie, the scientists and media were happy to go along. But when his predictions (or rather, the science he was quoting) failed, throw him under the bus!

    We can stop right there, because climate models aren't modeling the weather. They produce weather as a byproduct, but they're about identifying the statistics of common states in a chaotic system.

    If you want to know more about how they're put together, this is one of the more detailed descriptions i've seen:
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...imple-science/
    I know how computer models work. The algorithms control everything and the people writing them are the ones who already believe in the conclusions they are trying to model.
    And they have all been wrong on any long term predictions. That kinda puts the knife in it for me. They are useful tools for getting funding. That's it.

    Well, for what it's worth, i recycle everything that i can and do the vast majority of my travel on public transit. Because i do understand the science, and it seriously scares me. And that's coming from someone who also knows a fair bit about the science of AI, genetic engineering, ebola, and various other things that people commonly suggest are going to destroy the world. None of those really scare me.
    I am waiting for the zombie apocalypse so I can join the winning side.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •