Australian Politics Forum - Temperature data manipulation exposed

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #135 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:48pm

I'm not interested in what it sounds like. You asked me for my position and I gave it to you. I can't think of a single natural forcing that can explain the current rise in global temperatures. We know the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and our satellites can measure their effect. We can see that CO2, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4) are having a warming effect. We also have a very good handle on the other usual suspects and they simply are not in play at the moment.

As I stated I'm virtually certain it's us. If you think that sounds weird, it's more a reflection of your understating of the science than mine.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #136 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:52pm

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

What happens if you drop a station from Alaska? If you remove all the data from that station you are going to end up with a higher average temperature

Would it matter?

'Gavin Schmidt

Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly anomalies over the United States, for example, you’d just need a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. Individual stations do get old and break down, since they’re exposed to the elements, but this is just one of things that the NOAA has to deal with. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale—and they haven’t found any yet.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Interviews/schmidt_20100122.php

The key word in your quote is anomalies.

USHCN is endeavouring to come up with an absolute value. If you lose a number of stations in either hot or cold climates this will impact on absolute values.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137785
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #137 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:58pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

I'm not interested in what it sounds like.

Just repeating your lines, once again.

"You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter."

Considering I have an open mind on the subject and you, on the other hand, are "virtually certain" that you're right, I find your statement quite ironic.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17673
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #138 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:59pm

'Ozone's impact on climate consists primarily of changes in temperature. The more ozone in a given parcel of air, the more heat it retains. Ozone generates heat in the stratosphere, both by absorbing the sun's ultraviolet radiation and by absorbing upwelling infrared radiation from the lower atmosphere (troposphere). '

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/

So far so good. But isn't ozone recovering from depletion - or was the hole merely a construct to frighten?

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #139 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:06pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

I'm not interested in what it sounds like.

Just repeating your lines, once again.

"You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter."

Considering I have an open mind on the subject and you, on the other hand, are "virtually certain" that you're right, I find your statement quite ironic.

Having an open mind and being virtually certain about something is not a contradiction.

Are you saying the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report don't have an open mind.

Quote:

The draft report, which was still undergoing a peer review process, said that “there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”

“It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137785
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #140 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:22pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

I'm not interested in what it sounds like.

Just repeating your lines, once again.

"You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter."

Considering I have an open mind on the subject and you, on the other hand, are "virtually certain" that you're right, I find your statement quite ironic.

Having an open mind and being virtually certain about something is not a contradiction.

Are you saying the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report don't have an open mind.

I'm saying you don't have an open mind on the subject.

It's more than 99% closed.

Calling me "an ideological nutter" is quite laughable, considering you are the one blinded by ideology.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #141 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:39pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:48pm:

I'm not interested in what it sounds like.

Just repeating your lines, once again.

"You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter."

Considering I have an open mind on the subject and you, on the other hand, are "virtually certain" that you're right, I find your statement quite ironic.

Having an open mind and being virtually certain about something is not a contradiction.

Are you saying the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report don't have an open mind.

I'm saying you don't have an open mind on the subject.

It's more than 99% closed.

Calling me "an ideological nutter" is quite laughable, considering you are the one blinded by ideology.

I'm convinced by the science. Science is not an ideology. If you have evidence that contradicts my position I will reassess my degree of certainty. The notion that being virtually certain about something excludes you from having an open mind is ridiculous.

To date you haven't provided anything that has forced me to reconsider my position. However, I will continue to look.

Now seeing this thread is about temperature data manipulation, do you have any reason to believe the data adjustments are fabrications rather than legitimate adjustments used to remove non-climate biases, such as a change in the time of observation, a loss of data, or a change in a measurement device.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17673 Gender:	Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed Reply #142 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:12pm What is the science in ECS?
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137785
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #143 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:45pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

The notion that being virtually certain about something excludes you from having an open mind is ridiculous.

You are virtually certain, despite there only being records available from 1880.

That, my friend, is ridiculous.

In fact, you couldn't get more ridiculous if you tried.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #144 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:51pm

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

What happens if you drop a station from Alaska? If you remove all the data from that station you are going to end up with a higher average temperature

Would it matter?

'Gavin Schmidt

Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly anomalies over the United States, for example, you’d just need a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. Individual stations do get old and break down, since they’re exposed to the elements, but this is just one of things that the NOAA has to deal with. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale—and they haven’t found any yet.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Interviews/schmidt_20100122.php

Careful what you wish for. They have already gotten rid of some stations. The stations that show cooling or no change. The ministry of truth is at work in many ways.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344392462/122#122

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #145 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:59pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

What happens if you drop a station from Alaska? If you remove all the data from that station you are going to end up with a higher average temperature

Would it matter?

'Gavin Schmidt

Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly anomalies over the United States, for example, you’d just need a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. Individual stations do get old and break down, since they’re exposed to the elements, but this is just one of things that the NOAA has to deal with. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale—and they haven’t found any yet.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Interviews/schmidt_20100122.php

Careful what you wish for. They have already gotten rid of some stations. The stations that show cooling or no change. The ministry of truth is at work in many ways.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1344392462/122#122

Again, where is your evidence, progs. If you are going to throw about accusations such as this, how about you provide some details.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

austranger

Gold Member

Offline

Opinionated Sod

Posts: 1506
adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #146 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:08pm

This is pointless really.
There are two schools of thought, with minor exceptions.
Those who believe, and those who don't accept the science, the evidence and all the results of scientific method and experimentation/research.
If those unbelievers aren't willing to accept all that then no amount of logic will dissuade them, it's become a religious faith with them that brooks no contradiction.

Back to top

Any day with a smile in it is a good day

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137785
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #147 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:12pm

austranger wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

This is pointless really.
There are two schools of thought, with minor exceptions.
Those who believe, and those who don't accept the science, the evidence and all the results of scientific method and experimentation/research.
If those unbelievers aren't willing to accept all that then no amount of logic will dissuade them, it's become a religious faith with them that brooks no contradiction.

Correct!

AGW is basically a faith based religion/cult.

I've been saying that for years.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #148 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 4:09am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

RATES OF CHANGE-HERE WE GO AGAIN...

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17673
Gender: male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #149 - Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:44pm

austranger wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:08pm:

Those who believe, and those who don't accept the science, the evidence and all the results of scientific method and experimentation/research.

The ECS is NOT science
The models are NOT science.
The models have a plethora of underlying assumptions. Unless all of those assumptions are correct the models are GIGO. Averaging a bunch of wrong models is not magically going to produce a correct outcome. It may come close if the split is about 50:50, but then the average may be correct for the wrong reasons.

Back to top

IP Logged