Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.

More evidence that we are messing up the climate

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by no fat chicks, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 AM.

  1. no fat chicks Worlds greatest poster

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,156
    Likes Received:
    199
    Location:
    TBC
    What does that data tell you?
    Co2 is a greenhouse gas, releasing large amounts of it should have a greenhouse effect?
     
  2. SanchoMF Equally Useless

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    La France Glorieuse!
    Overpopulation..?
     
    laz0001 likes this.
  3. Mean Farmer The next size up.

    Joined:
    Sunday
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    The edge of the valley.
  4. Voodoo_Child906 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,564
    Likes Received:
    433
  5. ocean size Red Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    8,280
    Likes Received:
    860
    It is discussed throughout the thread.
     
  6. SammyJar88 MAGA!!!

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,513
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    USA
  7. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    I am having a scientific discussion, and you are not. I will remind you again what science is. Scientific assertions are supported by empirical evidence, also known as observation. In the scientific method we observe nature, hypothesize, test the hypothesis, observe results and draw conclusions. Other scientists are convinced when they replicate the method and make the same observations.

    I have given you all the evidence you need to observe the tampering with historical thermometer data in post #145. But I will try to make it even clearer for you.

    Here is a map of where you have a continuous thermometer record extending one hundred years or more.
    [​IMG]
    As you can see (should you choose to look), the best data is in the USA. Coastal Australia is okay, and Europe is a checkerboard of okay. Those are the places where one could get a meaningful historical temperature record by thermometer.

    Here is the USA thermometer record as reported by NASA in 1999 (Figure 6: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf) and again in 2019 (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png). If you chose to use your eyes and look, you would see that NASA reported in 1999 that the 30s were hotter than the 80s, but in 2019 NASA reported that the 80s were hotter than the 30s.
    [​IMG]
    I added a helpful picture for you to see why I call the discrepant NASA graphs communist historical revisionism. The heat of the 30s, relative to the 80s, has been disappeared.

    But the old 1999 NASA graph is corroborated by the North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation) and by Briffa’s tree proxy data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem).
    North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
    [​IMG]

    The Divergence Problem from Briffa's tree proxy data
    [​IMG]
    There is no divergence problem for the older NASA record but there is a divergence problem for the newer NASA record. And the advantage of Briffa’s data is that they are replicable by any interested scientist who cares to collect tree cores, whereas the thermometer record is not replicable without a time machine.

    Here are an older (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=620040300000&dt=1&ds=1) and a newer (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IC000004030&dt=1&ds=14) version of NASA thermometer data graphs for Reykjavik, Iceland.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    Should you care to look, you will observe a change in which the temperature of the early 2000s is increased above the temperature of the 1940s.

    Again, this is communist historical revisionism. In communist Russia, the past is unpredictable and the future is certain, and this is the wisdom that has replaced science in your head.

    I’ve asked you before, and I will ask you again. When was it hotter in Reykjavik, in the 1940s or in the early 2000s? Is it hard to predict for you? Will it be hotter this year in Reykjavik?

    In the 1999 NASA USA temperature graph, is it hotter in the 30s than in the 80s? In the 2019 NASA USA temperature graph, is it hotter in the 80s than in the 30s? Does this constitute a change (revisionism) to you?

    Just as I will not hold my breath for an apples-to-apples comparison of distant past and recent temperature data, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to tell me what you see in the NASA graphs. But if you want to have a discussion about the science then I would like you to do so.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020 at 6:43 PM
  8. Voodoo_Child906 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,564
    Likes Received:
    433
    Revisionism? Do you understand why temperature adjustments are made?

    Edit: And you've brought up Reykjavik in every thread before you leave and stop replying so I'll answer that generally the latest revision-adjustment is the most reliable. So whatever the latest record states is my tentative choice.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020 at 7:17 PM
  9. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    Of course I understand.

    In science, I change the conclusion to fit the observed data.

    But in Soviet Russia, you change observed data to fit conclusion.

    It's what makes the past so hard to predict under communism.
     
  10. Voodoo_Child906 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,564
    Likes Received:
    433
    So you don't understand the data set. That's what I suspected all along.

    You're a fan of Judith Curry right? Well from a contributor on her page:

    https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

    "Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done."
     
  11. Bargey Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,276
    Likes Received:
    617
    People en masse can choose to stop or at least limit to a minimum what they consume and the energy they use. That’s a start. I’ll hear from War Roomers first how they are doing cycling to work, using recycled water to shower with and using their back yard plants to sustain their diets.

    If the hardcore ‘earth is doomed’ folks can’t even do that, then I can’t be bothered with engaging in another so called ‘scientific revelation’. Didn’t Al Gore tell us all that if we didn’t act within 5 years then it would be irreversibly doomed back in 2003? Well, we didn’t do much so you cant keep crying wolf.
     
  12. MaxMMA Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,054
    Likes Received:
    400
    I literally no none of the facts... or supposed facts of this man made climate change stuff. What I do know however is that the earths climate has never remained stable throughout known time. It's heated and cooled who knows how many times even before apes climbed down out of trees and started walking around.

    I do find it funny how everyone on the climate change tip keeps saying we are destroying the earth. Uhhh no, we are just killing ourselves if the man made climate change is real. The earth will be fine, you could nuke this rock 10 times over and it would still eventually make a comeback.
     
  13. Misfit23 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    6,886
    Likes Received:
    600
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    China is actually making moves to reduce single use plastic... Every nation needs to get onboard with this.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51171491

    Non-degradable bags will be banned in major cities by the end of 2020 and in all cities and towns by 2022.

    The restaurant industry will also be banned from using single-use straws by the end of 2020.

    China has for years been struggling to deal with the rubbish its 1.4 billion citizens generate.

    The country's largest rubbish dump - the size of around 100 football fields - is already full, 25 years ahead of schedule.
     
    laz0001 likes this.
  14. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    I like my explanation better, but perhaps you will sell me on communist discussion being superior to scientific discussion.

    What is being discussed here comrade?
    From: Tom Wigley <[email protected]>
    To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer <[email protected]>

    <x-flowed>
    Phil,

    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
    explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
    we'd still have to explain the land blip.

    I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
    ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
    ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
    forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
    these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
    1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
    plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
    consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

    Removing ENSO does not affect this.

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
    but we are still left with "why the blip".

    Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
    effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
    ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
    in the NH -- just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

    The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note -- from
    MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
    get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
    solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
    (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
    makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
    currently is not) -- but not really enough.

    So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
    (SH/NH data also attached.)

    This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
    appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

    Tom.
    What does, "So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip ...It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"." mean?

    It looks to me (by empirical observation) like Tom Wigley is emailing to Phil Jones under email subject "1940s" to adjust observations to fit conclusion, da?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020 at 8:07 PM
  15. Voodoo_Child906 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,564
    Likes Received:
    433
    Or he was talking about using the type of correction outlined in in my post above where pre 1950's adjustments are made due to how temperatures were previously measured.

    You understand that they do publish their work and other scientists can review their adjustments and their data right?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020 at 9:08 PM
  16. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    In Soviet Russia, I want USA thermometer record to look less like sinusoidal curve of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and more like exponential growth curve of Law Dome/Mauna Loa CO2 curve, so I can claim dose-response relationship between CO2 and temperature.
    [​IMG]

    So, “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip”.
    [​IMG]

    "part of the blip"
    [​IMG]

    When questioned about how the change is exactly at the point needed to fit the desired conclusion, in Soviet Russia, it isn't called a "historical revisionism"; it's called an "adjustment". The change at 1940 is just a coincidence, that's all a coincidence.
    Quite a coincidence.

    Also, gatchaman is a bad conspiracy theorist for pointing out that there is an email about making exactly that change at exactly that date.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020 at 10:29 PM
  17. Voodoo_Child906 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,564
    Likes Received:
    433
    Their data and adjustment methodology have been available for over a decade and has stood ever since. In fact the adjustment impact is much smaller globally, and once you include the oceans you actually get slightly lower trends post-adjustments.

    [​IMG]


    Also since Berkeley Earth uses different averaging techniques, quality control procedures, homogenization techniques, and datasets. How does their graph compare?

    And look at that, world wide they are pretty close in the 40s

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020 at 10:57 PM
    ocean size likes this.
  18. gatchaman Black Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    107
    You know, it is hard to predict the past in Soviet Russia. Maybe graph that gatchaman provided and linked to NASA site did not exist at all.

    USA1880-1999 in 1999 (NASA): Figure 6 https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf

    USA1880-1999 in 2019 (NASA): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png

    [​IMG]

    And even though gatchaman told me there isn't a hundred years of thermometer data for the whole globe but just for USA and parts of Australia and Europe (and linked that too), maybe there was.

    NOAA thermometer stations 1891-1920: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png


    [​IMG]
     
  19. Voodoo_Child906 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,564
    Likes Received:
    433
    So how did the graph compare with Berkeley Earth's graph, especially in the 40s?
     
  20. laz0001 Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    UK
    And if he is? He’s one person, a cheat who will get his reputation trashed.

    The raw data is there for anyone and everyone to check and corroborate - which has been for DECADES now.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.