Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I know I can't. I think that blog just shot down AGW theory. WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I know I can't. I think that blog just shot down AGW theory. WOW. Love the sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Why would you think I was being sarcastic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Hey AGW believers out there explain this to me http://www.c3headlin...efacts-against/ In normally distributed populations, one needs a minimum sample of 30 before the sample distribution resembles the population distribution. The posted graph merely reflects interannual variability (between a super El Niño and the end of a La Niña). The trend for the most recent 30-year period is still positive (U.S. and globally). Should the emerging El Niño rival the 2002-03 or 2009-10 El Niños, the 2013 temperature could approach or exceed the 2010 record (global temperature). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaJohn Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Hey AGW believers out there explain this to me http://www.c3headlin...efacts-against/ Does US temperatures = global temperatures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Why would you think I was being sarcastic? Because of how you put it and being that you believe in AGW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Does US temperatures = global temperatures? Keep scrolling down to read the whole thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Keep scrolling down to read the whole thing No sense of embarrassment when linking to another site without a thought of your own? Amazing Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Ya whatever man. Go to the icecap.us website and theres an article that you may want to read. edit: here it is Read here. The NCDC, a NOAA climate research unit, recently published a new dataset compiling U.S. weather records, including the maximum temperature record for each state. (Interestingly, the NCDC refers to these as ‘Enlarged You do understand, don't you, that icecap.us is a denialist advocacy site, not a climate science site, and it doesn't even pretend to provide accurate info? That chart you posted doesn't even show data for years after 2000. The hottest decade of global temps has occurred since 2000 and no amount of denialist crap will refute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh be quiet would you. Again the NCDC climate data cannot be taken seriously as it has been manipulated to be biased warmer than it should be. End of story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh be quiet would you. Again the NCDC climate data cannot be taken seriously as it has been manipulated to be biased warmer than it should be. End of story You need to acquaint yourself withthe Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The ultra-rightwing Koch brothers provided much of the funding, a team of experts was assembled (including noted lukewarmer Dr Judith Curry), and all of their methodology was posted on-line before the study so that anyone could review it and comment. Now that the study is complete all of their 1.6 billion data records are available on-line, as are their draft reports (currently in peer-review. The BEST project is a model of scientific rigor and openness. If you think they are wrong then you need to point out where their methodology is flawed. Guess what their analysis showed? It doesn't matter whther you look at raw data or adjusted data, whether you include urban weather stations or use only rural station - the temperature trends are essentially the same. GISS, NCDC and HADCRUT temperature records are all reliable. We undertand that the fact that the Earth is warming makes you cranky - get over it. Can you seriously think that your posting stale, debunked denialsit crap is impressing anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Why do people with zero respect or interest in the actual scientific process sign up to be members on science forums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Why do people with zero respect or interest in the actual scientific process sign up to be members on science forums? Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? I think it explains a lot of what we see from the pseudo-skeptical side. From the article: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning 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" Which of our regular posters does that remind you of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You need to acquaint yourself withthe Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The ultra-rightwing Koch brothers provided much of the funding, a team of experts was assembled (including noted lukewarmer Dr Judith Curry), and all of their methodology was posted on-line before the study so that anyone could review it and comment. Now that the study is complete all of their 1.6 billion data records are available on-line, as are their draft reports(currently in peer-review. The BEST project is a model of scientific rigor and openness. If you think they are wrong then you need to point out where their methodology is flawed. Guess what their analysis showed? It doesn't matter whther you look at raw data or adjusted data, whether you include urban weather stations or use only rural station - the temperature trends are essentially the same. GISS, NCDC and HADCRUT temperature records are all reliable. We undertand that the fact that the Earth is warming makes you cranky - get over it. Can you seriously think that your posting stale, debunked denialsit crap is impressing anybody? Last time I heard was that the NCDC adjusted the temperature to make it look like alot of warming has occured when really that hasn't been the case. You need to accept the fact that other factors besides CO2 cause GW and those natural factors are stronger than AGW. Evidence to support my claim you ask? I believe Snowlover123 has posted many papers that support this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Last time I heard was that the NCDC adjusted the temperature to make it look like alot of warming has occured when really that hasn't been the case. You need to accept the fact that other factors besides CO2 cause GW and those natural factors are stronger than AGW. Evidence to support my claim you ask? I believe Snowlover123 has posted many papers that support this. He most certainly has. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? I think it explains a lot of what we see from the pseudo-skeptical side. From the article: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning 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" Which of our regular posters does that remind you of? Good post. It appears that this Dunning-Kruger effect facilitates uninformed individuals to visit this forum and pollute useful scientific discourse with ideological rants and taunts of, "The data is manipulated". Gallileo was heckled 400 years ago, surely we've learned something about scientific integrity since then. I really like NASA's approach. Are people here paranoid about NASA? Really? They have this wonderful climate interface: http://climate.nasa.gov/ and I think we shouldn't be scoffing at the importance of this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Good post. It appears that this Dunning-Kruger effect facilitates uninformed individuals to visit this forum and pollute useful scientific discourse with ideological rants and taunts of, "The data is manipulated". Gallileo was heckled 400 years ago, surely we've learned something about scientific integrity since then. I really like NASA's approach. Are people here paranoid about NASA? Really? They have this wonderful climate interface: http://climate.nasa.gov/ and I think we shouldn't be scoffing at the importance of this: What a shock to see the CO2 graph that was used in Al Gores documentry being posted by a AGW supporter. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. The fact that CO2 has been at it's highest levels in 650,000 years doesn't mean for one second that it is responsible for the GW that has been observed. Also are you trying to ignore the fact that NASA has been caught manipulating data? because are you damn wrong about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 What a shock to see the CO2 graph that was used in Al Gores documentry being posted by a AGW supporter. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. The fact that CO2 has been at it's highest levels in 650,000 years doesn't mean for one second that it is responsible for the GW that has been observed. Also are you trying to ignore the fact that NASA has been caught manipulating data? because are you damn wrong about that. You are in the wrong forum. We are not discussing politics here. The moderators are committed to keeping politics off the Forum except the in the political sub-forum. Now that you know to keep politics out, here is some non-political reading for you: ...in its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Well, with that logic I'm not sure why the consensus of scientists is that AGW is very real and that CO2 is the driver of the temperature change. They all probably just want the extreme amount of money available through climate change funding (obviously coming from the scam that is cap and trade) and thus have set out to manipulate every piece of data available. NASA should be ashamed. Thanks for bringing the conspiracy to light. Carbon Schmarbon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 NASA should be ashamed. I know you are being sarcastic. NASA has a wonderful collection of websites on climate and climate change. Maybe people forget that much of the scientific writing comes out of places such as JHU-Applied Physics Laboratories. On the other hand, it is quickly becoming apparent that blogs are like fast food. Good for a quick fix but do not make it a lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Well, with that logic I'm not sure why the consensus of scientists is that AGW is very real and that CO2 is the driver of the temperature change. They all probably just want the extreme amount of money available through climate change funding (obviously coming from the scam that is cap and trade) and thus have set out to manipulate every piece of data available. NASA should be ashamed. Thanks for bringing the conspiracy to light. Carbon Schmarbon! What consensus? I've never heard of all the scientists who study AGW have a consensus. There is no consensus in the Global Warming debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 What a shock to see the CO2 graph that was used in Al Gores documentry being posted by a AGW supporter. I don't know what you are trying to prove here. The fact that CO2 has been at it's highest levels in 650,000 years doesn't mean for one second that it is responsible for the GW that has been observed. Also are you trying to ignore the fact that NASA has been caught manipulating data? because are you damn wrong about that. I love conspiracy theories - Have you heard the latest about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? The Da Vinci Code explained so much. Thanks for the heads up about NASA, but we've got to come up with a catchy title. Don't let anyone know we're on to them, and watch out for black helicopters. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I know you are being sarcastic. NASA has a wonderful collection of websites on climate and climate change. Maybe people forget that much of the scientific writing comes out of places such as JHU-Applied Physics Laboratories. On the other hand, it is quickly becoming apparent that blogs are like fast food. Good for a quick fix but do not make it a lifestyle. Do you not understand what I am saying here? They have been caught using the data that they have and changing it so that it looks warmer than it really should be. If snowlover123 was on right now he'd be ripping you apart as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 What consensus? I've never heard of all the scientists who study AGW have a consensus. There is no consensus in the Global Warming debate. You are uninformed about the efforts of your government. http://climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=e18c8f2d-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You are uninformed about the efforts of your government. http://climatechange...en&n=e18c8f2d-1 Hmmm I'm pretty sure that you said a couple of posts ago not to bring politics up? And besides the government is biased towards AGW anyways which is no surprise which is why Stephen Harper (our Prime Minister) doesn't really think much of Global Warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I know you are being sarcastic. NASA has a wonderful collection of websites on climate and climate change. Maybe people forget that much of the scientific writing comes out of places such as JHU-Applied Physics Laboratories. On the other hand, it is quickly becoming apparent that blogs are like fast food. Good for a quick fix but do not make it a lifestyle. Blogs are like Home and Garden TV. There are a lot of people out there who watch HG TV and then think they are capable home re modelers and can do better than a contractor who's been doing it for decades. Well, they try and then they end up having to call that contractor to come by and fix the mess they made. There are a lot of people who are reading them and thinking they are becoming experts in the field because they can pull out some scientific papers and point to them and say that they support their viewpoint. But they are doing so in an absence of the overall scientific knowledge that comes with getting a PhD and conducting the necessary research. There have been so many huge errors on basic thermodynamics and the overall fundamental physics in this thread that at some point you simply realize there is no reason to argue with people who are willfully ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Do you not understand what I am saying here? They have been caught using the data that they have and changing it so that it looks warmer than it really should be. If snowlover123 was on right now he'd be ripping you apart as well. I am pretty sure everyone understands that you're accusing NASA and others of data manipulation with an agenda. We also understand you are simply incorrect. You can lead a horse to statistical analysis but you cannot make him drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterymix Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Hmmm I'm pretty sure that you said a couple of posts ago not to bring politics up? I didn't know that national environmental policy is politics. If you look at the NASA climate change portals, do you see politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I am pretty sure everyone understands that you're accusing NASA and others of data manipulation with an agenda. We also understand you are simply incorrect. You can lead a horse to statistical analysis but you cannot make him drink. I think it's you guys with the agenda and why do you say I'm incorrect. This has been proven that they have changed that Data arouind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I think it's you guys with the agenda and why do you say I'm incorrect. This has been proven that they have changed that Data arouind. Well then, if its proven its proven. I say you are incorrect, because you are incorrect. You've already been directed to the BEST results. They are at odds with what you claim, but if you say its proven then it must be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.