Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | Next > | Last >
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: TheCow]
    #8094748 - 03/02/08 06:48 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

TheCow said:
straaaaaaaawwwwwww man
:smilingpuppy:




If he puts up a pdf in defense of Hansen that doesn't identify the author in any way wouldn't you want to know who the author was?  Do you think it wouldn't matter?  The whole piece was a tirade against the ankle biters who dared to question the "Great Man".  Who do you think wrote it?  No straw there, man.  Some old socks, maybe, but no straw.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8094755 - 03/02/08 06:51 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

supernovasky said:
I can care less about Hansen.

I care about demonizing good science and the substitution of junk science for it. I care when the general public, who cannot use their limited amount of time to properly research the issue and gain the training necessary to understand the complexities, are mislead by people who deceive and push junk science.

In your case, you attempted to post outright erroneous data in the form of saying that 1930s were the hottest. This has been disproven (not just by Hansen, but the entire GISS dataset and the body of research in climatology). Your only rationale for saying that 1930 was hotter was a temperature record of the 48 contiguous states. You were wrong.

The earth is still heating. Anyone can view the data.




Your own data show a decline over the last ten years. CO2 still rising. Causality falling.
Now, who wrote that piece?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8094818 - 03/02/08 07:03 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

You seem to think I know nothing of science. You are dead wrong, my friend. The problem is that the science of climatology has been politicized. Here are some facts --

-- In a test of 22 different computer modeling programs, not a single one of them was able retroactively to even roughly predict the climate change we know occurred. By this I mean the programs were fed all the appropriate data from 1980, 1985, 1990, then told to extrapolate. None of them cut the mustard. So much for computer modeling.

-- The earth has gone through far greater temperature swings in far shorter periods of time long before man started burning any significant amount of fossil fuels.

-- There are many, MANY scientists of every bit as noble stature as the Warmenist scientists who insist that CO2 increases follow warming periods, not precede them.

-- There are more and more scientists every year who are becoming convinced solar variance is far more likely the main driver than greenhouse gases.

-- In the last decade, the annual average global temperature has decreased. We've already seen the HadCRUT graph, but you for some reason reject it. Climatologists don't, but you do. Okay then, let's look at three other graphs from three other organizations and see if they support or undercut the HadCRUT data.

First up, Remote Sensing Systems http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/rss-msu-monthly-anom.png --



Click to expand -- I have never figured out how to get these damn things to appear at their full size.

Next, University of Alabama, Huntsville http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/uah-monthly-anomaly.png



Next, your beloved GISS - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif



And finally, the dreaded and not-to-be-trusted HadCRUT http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hadcrut-jan08.png



Now, an objective viewer presented with these four graphs and told they represented something other than global temperature readings (let's say popularity ratings for a political figure, or maybe demand for tractors or something) would first of all note the remarkable similarity among the four charts, with the GISS chart being a bit of an outlier with the high land-based station spike around 2007 (but NOT at 2005, as you claimed) although the land-ocean temperature index is substantially less spikey.

The second thing our objective observer would notice is that the trend from 1998 to 2008 is a downward one, although most of the middle period of the decade is essentially flat. Would it be a downward trend if we were measuring from 1995 to 2005? Or from 1993 to 2003? The observer can decide for himself by examining the four graphs. But that's not what Fireworks dude asked. He specifically asked what the trend had been for the most recent ten year period, from 1998 to 2008, and I correctly answered that it is a downward trend. If you want to continue insisting to the audience that those four graphs show an upward trend for the last decade, I need say not another word -- your own words will show the prejudice you bring to this issue, and I am confident the intelligent viewers of the thread will recognize that fact.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8094890 - 03/02/08 07:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

The data of Hansen et al in the US have been corrected downward.




By .15 degrees C in the US since 2000, and .003 degrees C in the world since 2000. Anyone who is interested can see exactly how much it has been corrected downward by looking at my earlier post. Data in the US only represents 2% of the earths surface. The US can have a particularly cool year, or a particularly warm year, without affecting the global climate all that much.

Quote:

The data from the US stations are more reliable than from elsewhere.




The correction only applied to 48 contiguous US states, since the year 2000. Anything from before 2000 was absolutely unaffected by the error. There are US stations in many bases around the world, in the oceans and seas of the world, and in Antarctica. Futhermore, the scientific stations in other countries are just as reliable as the ones in America. Both NASA and the NOAA independently verify temperature data at the stations. Lastly, despite your ethnocentricity, people in Europe CAN read thermometers.


Quote:

Hansen has been shown to be unreliable ( http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=50 ).




This is a straw man argument. The point of debate was that the 1930s

The link you show has not passed through the peer review process. For all we know, the shit could be made up. It needs to go through independent verification, especially since it includes error analysis. The error has already been analyzed in the following papers:

Peterson, T.C., R.S. Vose, R. Schmoyer, and V. Razuvaev, 1998: Global historical climatology network (GHCN) quality control of monthly temperature data. Int. J. Climatol. 18, 1169-1179.

Peterson, T.C., and R.S. Vose 1997. An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature database. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 78, 2837-2849.

National Research Council 2000. Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 85 pp.

and being that the urban heat island affect will not affect sea surface temperature data, which measured by itself, shows a very similar heat increase to the surface temperature increase, your non-peer reviewed source is laughable at best in this debate.

I would also like to say that Hansen created a system of analyzing global temperature, but the system has evolved since Hansen, and corrected for any errors in may encounter. To this point, no error has been significant enough to reverse or change the trend.

Those responsible for measuring the temperature of the earth are not limited to Hansen, but include...
The British HadISST group
The NOAA satellite analysis group
The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
The United States Historical Climatology Network
The Global Historical Climate Network

Quote:

Even if it IS currently warmer now than in the, say, eighties there is NOTHING UNIQUE about it or even, in many scientist's opinions, particularly remarkable. It has been warmer in the past.




No. The 5 year average (and each individual temperature) from 1998 to today, has been higher than than any average temperature from 1880-1990. The yearly average temperatures are hotter than ever before, and the 5 year average shows a clear trend. You are wrong on this.

Quote:

It can ENTIRELY be explained by solar activity, if you should be so inclined, although that probably isn't the only cause.




No, it cannot be entirely explained by Solar activity. I direct you to many earlier posts in the past few pages of this thread, where I showed you this, and you evidently ignored it.

Quote:

There is no proof whatsoever that CO2 concentration CAUSES an increase in global temperature, it is a miniscule portion of the atmosphere, the ocean is a huge CO2 sink, and the absorption value of CO2 maxes out rather rapidly. There is a decade long temperature trend DOWN, which you seem to poopoo.




A thin sheet of paper can block many times the ammount of light that a 10-foot deep pool can block. Just because it represents a miniscule portion of the atmosphere does not exclude it from increasing temperature. The research has already been done on this. I direct you to the writings of Tyndall, Plass, Arrhenius, and Calender for the mechanism that CO2 use to trap infrared radiation.











And now for the important part, the part you've been quite honestly LYING about

Quote:

There is a decade long temperature trend DOWN, which you seem to poopoo.




You are wrong. The data says you are wrong. The scientists say you are wrong. The charts and graphs say you are wrong. The very facts of the planet itself say you are wrong. You are wrong, because you tried to misrepresent a graph of temperature in the continental US to read that the entire world is cooling down.

And furthermore, from your statements, you seem to have known that you were peddling this misinformation. You offer no proof to your statements that the warmest years in the history of the EARTH (read the EARTH, not the contiguous 48 states) was in the 1930s rather than in the 2000s. You try to ignore plenty of data that points to the contrary, and use data that represent 2% of the earths surface, and apply that to the other 98% of the earths surface.

No matter how "reliable" the measurements in the US are, they do not represent the temperature measurements of the world itself. You are very, very wrong for peddling this misinformation.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8094912 - 03/02/08 07:18 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Phred just posted 4 graphs, one of them your own, that show just what you deny quite clearly.

Are you going to identify the author of that article defending Hansen or am I going to have to do it? Man up.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8094945 - 03/02/08 07:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Well yes, Phred (I think it was Phred) posted it and your graphs show a peak in 1998. It is now 10 years later. The temperature has gone down since.




No, he did not. He posted hadCrut, but hadCrut is only one of the models of temperature that is used in climatology, that does not extrapolate over the poles.

I direct you to Climate change (Communication arising): Recent temperature trends in the Antarctic. John Turner1, John C. King1, Tom A. Lachlan-Cope1 & Phil D. Jones. Nature 418, 291-292 (18 July 2002).

"We argue that this result has arisen because of an inappropriate extrapolation of station data across large, data-sparse areas of the Antarctic." -- (speaking of the hadcrut data).

GISS is much more efficient and does not use said extrapolation. HadCrut is good for mid-latitude bands, but for global trends, it simply does not work.


Furthermore, from our own graphs:



See a peak in 1998 and then cooling for 10 years? I see the opposite. I see a peak in 1998 caused by el-nino, and then warming, especially with 5 year averages.



Yup.. still increasing, using both of these charts.

But you would rather use this one, that only uses 2% of the data on the surface of the earth:



Funny thing is, even that one has a positive correlation.

But most respectable climatologists use global data.

Quote:


0.6C is very small. Since you have utterly failed to provide a causal connection, as has everyone else, there probably are some other causes. Like solar, ocean currents, urbanization.




.6C is not "very small" .6C will eliminate an entire sector of ice, moving back the border for where ice can form miles.

Quote:

Nope. CO2 has gone up almost 5% since 1998 (see my link) but temperature has declined slightly. Neither of those are made up.




Temperature has not declined slightly. That second part IS made up. Its a flat out lie. Global temperatures have gone up since 1998:

Check this one out, another one using only meteorological stations:




Further more, I demand to know why you tried to represent the data for the US as the data for the globe.

It is flat-out lying when you do that.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8094956 - 03/02/08 07:31 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Your own data show a decline over the last ten years. CO2 still rising. Causality falling.
Now, who wrote that piece?






Hansen wrote it. Anyone who reads the article can easily find that out, as it is blaringly obvious by his name in large letters right bellow the title. Who better than to explain the data than the scientist who discovered the data?

Your turn...

WHY did you mislead people here by presenting a chart of the data in the united states, stating that 1930s were the warmest on record, and use that as a way to say that GLOBALLY, the 1930s were the warmest on record?


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/02/08 07:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8094998 - 03/02/08 07:41 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

It was in regard to the unreliability of the data, GISS data in particular, as I have said before. They had to restate after they got caught out. By ankle biters.



Now, who wrote that defense of Hansen? Whose data you seem to be strangely restricted to. Such flagrant hatred of corporations of all kinds and an impressive love for Native American folklore (!?). I wonder what dispassionate and uninterested person could have felt so stirred to defend Mr Hansen, the censored scientist with a giant megaphone. Please, please tell us who wrote that?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8095050 - 03/02/08 07:54 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Oh fuck it. I have to go to bed. It was HANSEN himself who wrote that florid defense of Hansen. What a surprise.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! *DELETED* [Re: Phred]
    #8095371 - 03/02/08 09:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Post deleted by AnonymousRabbit


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/02/08 11:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8095447 - 03/02/08 09:52 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

It was in regard to the unreliability of the data, GISS data in particular, as I have said before. They had to restate after they got caught out. By ankle biters.



Now, who wrote that defense of Hansen? Whose data you seem to be strangely restricted to. Such flagrant hatred of corporations of all kinds and an impressive love for Native American folklore (!?). I wonder what dispassionate and uninterested person could have felt so stirred to defend Mr Hansen, the censored scientist with a giant megaphone. Please, please tell us who wrote that?




I am not going to stop asking you. Why did you and Phred lie and say that 1934 was warmer than 2005-2006-2007? Or even warmer than 1998? Why did you push the lie that a temperare revision of .15 deg C in the 48 contiguous states, and a temperature revision of .003 degrees C in the world, meant that 1934 was the hottest on record? Why did you act like a change to US-based observation stations was actually a change to global observation stations?

Certainly, your beloved hadCrut graph doesn't even support that:



source: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/ (the Hadley center itself)

Conclusion:

1934 was NOT the warmest year on record by a long shot.


Update:

Also, in response to Phred and you, even according to hadCrut, the trend has been positive, even since 1998.

What you are seeing in 1998 is an anomolous year caused by a spike in an El-nino event.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/02/08 09:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8096362 - 03/03/08 03:55 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

> I can care less about Hansen.

Then why don't you? I never understood why people declare that they can care less about something. Obviously, if you can care less, then you currently care about the topic (as you have less care to give, should you desire).

More importantly, all of this talk about the last decade or even the last hundred years is pointless. Dynamic climate trends are long, in the range of hundreds of thousands of years. You guys are arguing over noise in the data trying to justify a trend.

If you want to convince me that global warming is being caused by man, then you need to show that the last 15,000 years coming out of the last ice age is somehow different than the 15,000 years coming out of all previous ice ages.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8096800 - 03/03/08 09:47 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

First of all, Phred, you were in on this whole "the data was wrong, new data shows 1934 was the hottest on record" so I demand an explanation from you as well on why you misrepresented charts and data, knowing that the data only applied to US contiguous states, kind of like you are doing right now. I mean, if you are willing to outright lie to get your viewpoint across, what else are you willing to do?




I merely pointed out, correctly, that Hansen's original data was wrong, and that you were linking to the pre-corrected data.

I didn't "misrepresent" charts and data, I posted four charts -- one of them from your beloved GISS -- and invited the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions from them. It is clear to anyone with an objective set of eyeballs that the trendline on all four charts over the last decade is downward. For some reason I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the evidence your own eyes show you.

Now, it may be that 1998 was an exceptionally high spike, and that looking at Jan 1997 to Jan 2007 would give a different trendline. And it may be that a year from now, looking at Jan 1999 to Jan 2009 will give yet another trendline. No objective person can look at those four graphs and say the trendline is upwards, because it isn't. I find it astonishing you can write with a straight face that this data shows anything other than a downward trend, but hey... if you want to tell the readers "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" be my guest. The readers will draw their own conclusions about your credibility.

Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.

Quote:

Source? Show me a peer reviewed source where this is the case, I want to see the data itself. Direct me to the journal article that tested 22 different computer modeling systems, and which systems were tested.




The Royal Meteorological Society publishes a peer-reviewed journal called the International Journal of Climatology.
In their October 2007 issue we find an article titled

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer

Read it and weep.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejoker_man
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/14/05
Posts: 217
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #8096994 - 03/03/08 10:52 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Phred:
Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.




I still don't see how you see a downward trend from 1998 to 2008 unless you are directly comparing data from the year 1998 to the year 2008. That's not how you do it. That's called comparing the year 1998 to the year 2008. It means nothing.

So, using your methodology, comparing 1997 to 2007 produces an upward trend. Just about any other recent decade gives us the same results. Big fucking whoop. Doesn't mean anything either. It's the overall trend we care about. Instead, you have a desired conclusion so you prefer to choose 1998 and 2008 and compare the two years directly to get the result that you want. You are constructing your own effect to "disprove" a cause.

It's laughable that you act like you don't have your own agenda. Here you are, polarizing the debate using terms like "global warmenists" when we are only talking about specific issues related to global temperature and C02 levels. You obviously harbor a deep hatred towards everyone that doesn't think exactly like you do.

I gotta hand it to ya, though. You really know how to pick apart an argument and reword it to sound weak. You really know how to piss people off. I guess this is the kind of thing that you learn from posting on the shroomery for eight years.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
    #8097355 - 03/03/08 12:28 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Here is an exercise in Phred and Zappa's lies. First, I will post what he just posted:

Quote:


Phred:
I merely pointed out, correctly, that Hansen's original data was wrong, and that you were linking to the pre-corrected data.

I didn't "misrepresent" charts and data, I posted four charts -- one of them from your beloved GISS -- and invited the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions from them.




Now I will go back to what I said originally:

Quote:

Temperature HAS been increasing according to NASA and all major records since 1998. In fact, 1998 was not the warmest year on record, 2005 was. You can use graphs and charts that are meant for general month-by-month climate prediction and inefficient extrapolation if you want, but if you look at any major institution of science, such as NASA, the NOAA, and the journal of climatology, GISS is the way that the temperature of the Earth is measured. Even Hadcrut shows an increase in the averages (not montly, yearly and 5-year), with a spike in 1998 due to the El-nino warming of the century.

Look at my previous post though for independent verification. What is striking is that solar irradiance has gone down while temperature has gone up.




And here is what he and Zappa said directly after:

Quote:

Phred: Wrong.

I'm on a borrowed computer, so don't have access to my bookmarks, but maybe zappisgod will reprint the corrected GISS numbers. You are still linking to the faulty ones.

NOAA/GISS was forced a few months ago to shamefacedly admit they'd fucked up the numbers for the "ten hottest years of the century". There wasn't much publicity about this, of course, since it doesn't fit the Global Warmenist agenda, but the corrected numbers are out there somewhere now. As I say, I have them bookmarked on my own computer which is awaiting a part. Maybe zappaisgod still has the link, or can remember which thread the corrected numbers were posted in and can bump it, because that thread has the links in it.



Phred




Quote:

Zappa:

Yes, I've mentioned this in other threads most notably about the bullshit artist Hansen who got caught with his thumb on the scale. A quick Google search of "Nasa restates temperature data 1930 hottest" turns up lots of hits but the most succinct is this Washington Times article.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004

Quote:
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.




I can't remember who it was who caught Hansen's error. I'll look through my bookmarks. This will do for now.




Quote:

Zappa: In reference to the global record: it was not as extensively challenged nor does it have the reliability of the US only data due to the questionable nature of the stations.

The charts you posted show an unreadable overlay of dots. I went to the actual site and was still unable to make a reading on the overlay of lines and points when I blew it up as big as it would allow. What is a fact is that we are not currently experiencing any particular temperature anomaly (see other hot years in 30s and 20s) and there is not one fucking thing I have seen presented that establishes the causality arrow. There is NOTHING at all unique about the current global temperature to elicit this panicked nonsense. Unless you like panic. Then, bash away.




I highlighted all of the bullshit for those who don't want to read through their entire posts. Here is a summation and repudiation of the logical fallacies, misquotes, lies, and misunderstandings of the data by Phred and Zappa:

1) Nasa did not "Shamefacedly have to repudiate their own facts" or anything of that matter. They did a routine adjustment that affected temperatures in the contiguous US by .15 degrees C, and temperatures globally by .003 degrees C. This is what you call an "Adjustment." In fact, it didnt even affect any data before the year 2000. I posted the graphs and charts showing exactly how much a difference this "error" (that you say they "shamefacedly had to admit") actually made:




Source: NASA




2) 1934 was NOT the hottest year, as Zappa seems to think. Not by ANY of the models, not even his beloved hadCrut model, not by the GISS, not by NASA scientists. Not only can you look at the global temperature anomaly chart up there, but go directly to NASA's website:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Quote:

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.




3) 1998 was not the hottest year on record, as both Zappa and Phred seem to think, according to the average of surface-station models. If you average the GISS, hadCrut, and the NCDC, which all measure temperature at the SURFACE, then, as Nasa says, 2005 was the warmest year on record.

4) The temperature trend, using 5 year averages, has been increasing. There is noise in the data if you just look at a "temperature by month" chart(which will show SEVERAL fluctuations, due to significantly hot or significantly cold months), that they seem to be happy to give you. However, when the noise is smoothed out and you take 5 year averages, which are the best way to determine LONG TERM TRENDS, here is what their own graphs show... (the hadCrut, NCDC, and the GISS):



5) They tried to say that the corrections to a single set of stations covering only 2% of the world (the United States) somehow applies to temperature records globally, by more than .003 degrees C.

6) I will end by repeating this lie... Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.. Zappa posted an article and quoted this, a gross misrepresentation of the truth, because even as per NASA, 1934 was NOT the hottest year on earth. Not by a long shot.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/03/08 07:50 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
    #8097561 - 03/03/08 01:13 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

I still don't see how you see a downward trend from 1998 to 2008 unless you are directly comparing data from the year 1998 to the year 2008.




Look at the lines luvdemshrooms drew. And note that he was being VERY generous -- his lines didn't even take into consideration the low point in 2008.

It's obvious all four graphs show a strong peak in 1998, then a dip for a couple-three years, then a short rise to a lengthy plateau which neither rises nor falls by much at all until the radical drop at the end. The overall trend is of course a decrease. It certainly isn't an increase.

Quote:

It's the overall trend we care about. Instead, you have a desired conclusion so you prefer to choose 1998 and 2008 and compare the two years directly to get the result that you want. You are constructing your own effect to "disprove" a cause.




No, I just know how to read graphs. And please note again, for the umpteenth time, that I was not the one who wanted to know what the trend has been from early 1998 to early 2008. That was Fireworks dude. I wasn't going to say another damn thing in that thread -- since Global Warmening has nothing to do with politics -- until I saw his question and realized I had just a day earlier seen the four graphs which would answer his question perfectly. Like it or not, the very most recent data we have stretching back over 120 months shows a downward trend. That can't be disputed. We can argue till the cows come home about how significant the downward trend might be, or about the likelihood that it will be less or more when we compare from February of 1998 to February of 2008, or if we should be using a 108 month or 132 month moving window instead of a 120 month moving window. What we can't argue about is the direction of the trend for the last 120 months. Our own eyes tell us it's downward.

What I find so hilarious is the warmenists in this thread doing everything they can to get the rest of us to ignore the 1998 peak and instead choose some other starting point. Yet when the 1998 peak was reported, it was (according to the warmenists) the worst possible news the Earth could receive. Apocalyptic, even -- the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Temperature spiking even more radically than ever! When more rational folks pointed out it was just a brief and anomalous spike, they were labeled "deniers" and accused of being in the pockets of oil companies. Now these same folks are crying that it's not fair to include this brief and anomalous spike in a review and analysis of recent temperature trends, because it's a brief and anomalous spike. Can't have it both ways, yo.

Quote:

It's laughable that you act like you don't have your own agenda. Here you are, polarizing the debate using terms like "global warmenists" when we are only talking about specific issues related to global temperature and C02 levels.




I use it because it's an amusing term. But I didn't start using it until the warmenists starting referring to those of us with an open mind about the topic as "deniers" (with the implicit Nazi holocaust comparison). You think that's not polarizing?

Quote:

You obviously harbor a deep hatred towards everyone that doesn't think exactly like you do.




Nope. I harbor a vast amusement at how easily people are led around by the nose by partisans with an agenda perverting science for their own ends.

Quote:

I gotta hand it to ya, though. You really know how to pick apart an argument and reword it to sound weak. You really know how to piss people off. I guess this is the kind of thing that you learn from posting on the shroomery for eight years.




I had no need to pick apart any argument. None has been presented to pick apart. All I did was provide four graphs, with links to their sources for those who wanted more background on the subject. I am perfectly content to let every reader examine those four graphs to their heart's content and decide for themselves whether they show an upward trend or a downward trend. And if a month from now or six months from now or a year from now we see another upwards spike, I'll be perfectly happy to let people draw their conclusions about that, too.

Does the burning of stuff by humans increase global surface temperatures? Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I don't much care either way, since the difference in temperature is such a tiny one anyway, and since if we had to choose between an Earth slightly warmer or slightly colder, it's a no-brainer decision. Warmer wins by a mile.

What concerns me is the incredible stupidity of shooting ourselves in the foot by hobbling our economies on the off chance that our burning stuff really is the main culprit in the warmening this time, even though every single other past warmening episode going back billions of years was caused by something other than humans burning stuff. That's not science, that's policy, and a more idiotic policy has yet to be devised, especially considering that even the warmenists themselves admit when pinned to the wall that these radical (and impossible to achieve short of returning to a Medieval lifestyle) reductions in the burning of stuff they call for will result in -- at best -- something like 0.07 of a degree less warmening than if we carry on as we are.

But you are of course free to believe otherwise. It takes all kinds to make a world.




Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #8097608 - 03/03/08 01:24 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

It is clear to anyone with an objective set of eyeballs that the trendline on all four charts over the last decade is downward. For some reason I cannot fathom, you refuse to accept the evidence your own eyes show you.




I addressed each graph in particular. Sure, if you want to believe that satellite readings of temperatures are good substitutes for surface readings, be my guest. However, those graphs that you posted (save for the last two) were all from satellite readings, which only measure broad swaths of the earths atmosphere, which correct quicker than surface temperatures. They are not temperatures as observed by anyone on the ground, only thermal readings of portions of the troposphere. Furthermore, they exclude the north and south poles, the places where warming happens the fastest. This is also a problem with hadCrut, which omits the North and South poles.

GISS and NCDC are the ONLY temperature records that also take into account polar temperatures

So the real debate is not whether or not those graphs show downward trends, but again, is a debate as to whether or not those graphs are out of context. I say they are. They are meant to intentionally be misleading.


Quote:

Phred:
Now, it may be that 1998 was an exceptionally high spike, and that looking at Jan 1997 to Jan 2007 would give a different trendline. And it may be that a year from now, looking at Jan 1999 to Jan 2009 will give yet another trendline. But that's not what Fireworks dude asked. He asked what had happened in the last decade -- since 1998. He specifically mentioned 1998. So I correctly informed him that the trend from Jan 1998 to Jan 2008 is downwards. And it is. No objective person can look at those four graphs and say the trendline is upwards, because it isn't. I find it astonishing you can write with a straight face that this data shows anything other than a downward trend, but hey... if you want to tell the readers "Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?" be my guest. The readers will draw their own conclusions about your credibility.




If you do as you say you are doing, measuring Jan 1998 and comparing it to Jan 2008, that does not mean that the average temperature has cooled over the last decade. That means that the average temperature of 1998 is higher than the average temperature of 2008. That does not mean that the earth was not heating up on average from 1998 to 2008. The trendline is clearly positive, even according to hadCrut, whose website I posted. When you post monthly raw hadcrut readings, you do not inform people that there is a measure of uncertainty in each of the monthly readings, and that true results are best obtained (according to hadCrut, NASA, and the GISS) by 5 year averages.

5 year averages prevent things like the "el-nino of the century" in 1998 from contaminating the data. El-nino was a global weather event, not representative of the climate trend. So sure, you can measure temp during the el-nino of the cenutry and compare it to today, but even on two of three surface observation records, the GISS an NCDC, you'd STILL be wrong, because they both show warming.

So sometimes the simplicity of "eyeball it and tell me what you think" quite honestly is VERY misleading. Here are the actual trends from hadCrut and GISS, which are from their DIRECT sites, not from any blog or anything like that. I ask readers to eyeball these trends and tell me what they think is happening... has the AVERAGE temperature of the earth heated up since the climate situation in 1998 (not the weather situation, referring to el-nino, but the CLIMATE situation), or has it cooled down?



Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov



Source: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3

How about you invite users to look at THESE charts, which are more accepted as representative of the surface temperature record of the earth, instead of the temperature of various swaths of the troposphere (which correct much faster)? (by the way, if you'd like an explanation of this, it's because the atmospheric CO2 does not allow IR to escape the atmosphere, and directs it back to the ground, causing most warming to happen in the lowest layer of the air.

Quote:

Phred:
Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.





They can draw their own conclusions about my objectivity, but I will explain to you and several others out there, I am NOT comparing a single temperature reading, or even a single year at one time, to a single temperature reading (or a single year) at another time. I am ESPECIALLY not comparing a single monthly temperature to another single monthly temperature, like one of your charts does. That is disingenuous. That isnt even how NASA, the Hadley center, or any of the major climatology centers work. They compare averages, long term trends, and the long term trend is... STILL HEATING!

Quote:


Phil:

The Royal Meteorological Society publishes a peer-reviewed journal called the International Journal of Climatology.
In their October 2007 issue we find an article titled

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer

Read it and weep.





You are very emotionally involved in this, huh? With words like warmenist, warmist, however you like to call us. And then you say "read it and weep" as if you just discovered the equivalent of Luther's theses.

Anyhow, a plethora of scientists quickly posted a rebuttal, directly after it was submitted to the international journal of climatology put out by the British Royal Society.

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, R. Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, N. Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang 2006. Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE. Climate Dynam., 29, 661-696, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0255-8.


Here is what they found:



--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #8097690 - 03/03/08 01:38 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Look at the lines luvdemshrooms drew. And note that he was being VERY generous -- his lines didn't even take into consideration the low point in 2008.

It's obvious all four graphs show a strong peak in 1998, then a dip for a couple-three years, then a short rise to a lengthy plateau which neither rises nor falls by much at all until the radical drop at the end. The overall trend is of course a decrease. It certainly isn't an increase.




Lol. So we are supposed to look at lines someone draws in mspaint, rather than actual trendlines and averages that were computed from the data? Should I post them again? It would be the 10th time I've posted them in this thread... the AVERAGE temperatures (taking into account 5 year averages, not single month averages) has been increasing. These averages allow us to see long term trends, not short spikes or dips due to weather effects. The years 2002-2007 on average, were hotter than the years 1993-1998. 1998 was a very hot year indeed, but I've already posted long term versions of all of the graphs where you can see that, removal of that year, the trend is still going upward. There is a very easy explanation for that year, one that you dont seem to understand... and that explanation is, the el-nino of the century.

Quote:

No, I just know how to read graphs. And please note again, for the umpteenth time, that I was not the one who wanted to know what the trend has been from early 1998 to early 2008. That was Fireworks dude. I wasn't going to say another damn thing in that thread -- since Global Warmening has nothing to do with politics -- until I saw his question and realized I had just a day earlier seen the four graphs which would answer his question perfectly. Like it or not, the very most recent data we have stretching back over 120 months shows a downward trend. That can't be disputed. We can argue till the cows come home about how significant the downward trend might be, or about the likelihood that it will be less or more when we compare from February of 1998 to February of 2008, or if we should be using a 108 month or 132 month moving window instead of a 120 month moving window. What we can't argue about is the direction of the trend for the last 120 months. Our own eyes tell us it's downward.

What I find so hilarious is the warmenists in this thread doing everything they can to get the rest of us to ignore the 1998 peak and instead choose some other starting point. Yet when the 1998 peak was reported, it was (according to the warmenists) the worst possible news the Earth could receive. Apocalyptic, even -- the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Temperature spiking even more radically than ever! When more rational folks pointed out it was just a brief and anomalous spike, they were labeled "deniers" and accused of being in the pockets of oil companies. Now these same folks are crying that it's not fair to include this brief and anomalous spike in a review and analysis of recent temperature trends, because it's a brief and anomalous spike. Can't have it both ways, yo.




GOOD JOB! You know how to read graphs. Too bad that does NOT cut you out to be a climatologist. You need to understand what the graph is in the first place. You posting monthly, NOISY graphs, and comparing the most anomolous month in one year to the most anomolous month in another year is disingenuous. It's pretty much disingenuous to compare one YEARLY average temperature to another YEARLY average temperature, when you are talking about long term trends. By the way, lets look at hadCrut's graph itself, from the hadley center itself, which COMPUTES the averages based off of a method different from "pick one month in one year, compare it to another month in another year 10 years later, and get a trend"



Look at the long term trends. A minor dip at the very end of the graph, has happened before other times, but the general trend is still increasing temperatures. As you can see, the AVERAGE temperatures have gone up.

You can check the source out for yourself:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3

You can also look at the GISS, which you seem to be ignoring:



Furthermore, as I posted in the last post, hadCrut is the only surface temperature model of the 3 surface temperature models that shows 1998 was hotter. NCDC and GISS both show that 2005 was hotter. If you average all the models
together, 2005 was indeed hotter.

I would also like to direct everybody to this post here where I show how not only are Phred and Zappa being disingenuous, but they have outright lied about the data and misrepresented scientific conclusions.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/03/08 02:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: joker_man]
    #8097750 - 03/03/08 01:52 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Poster: joker_man
Subject: Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Quote:

Phred:
Now, you may have your own reasons for preferring to talk about the decade from 1996 to 2006, or 1997 to 2007 or whatever. If you feel carefully selecting a ten year period to bolster your pet theory instead of going with the most recent ten years worth of data we have available is a valid scientific approach.... well.... again, I will allow the readers of the thread to draw their own conclusions about your objectivity.



I still don't see how you see a downward trend from 1998 to 2008 unless you are directly comparing data from the year 1998 to the year 2008. That's not how you do it. That's called comparing the year 1998 to the year 2008. It means nothing.

So, using your methodology, comparing 1997 to 2007 produces an upward trend. Just about any other recent decade gives us the same results. Big fucking whoop. Doesn't mean anything either. It's the overall trend we care about. Instead, you have a desired conclusion so you prefer to choose 1998 and 2008 and compare the two years directly to get the result that you want. You are constructing your own effect to "disprove" a cause.

It's laughable that you act like you don't have your own agenda. Here you are, polarizing the debate using terms like "global warmenists" when we are only talking about specific issues related to global temperature and C02 levels. You obviously harbor a deep hatred towards everyone that doesn't think exactly like you do.

I gotta hand it to ya, though. You really know how to pick apart an argument and reword it to sound weak. You really know how to piss people off. I guess this is the kind of thing that you learn from posting on the shroomery for eight years.




They really do not know how to pick apart an argument. They know how to take graphs and charts out of context and make it SEEM like they can pick apart an argument. Its easy to LIE to "prove your point," but that in no way means that their information is accurate or considered true by climatologists around the world. According to NASA, the NCDC, the most recent reports in the journal of climatology, and just about any CREDIBLE scientific organization, the earth has certainly not stopped warming. I've shown charts and graphs and sources out of the wazoo, along with explanations of EACH and EVERY thing that I present from those sources, what they are, and how they work. They post data out of context, intentionally mislead the public by peddling "massive, shameful corrections to the GISS", and prefer the mspaint "best fit method" to true statistical analysis.

Shameless.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery
Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8097758 - 03/03/08 01:54 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

By the way, I want to point out how many of my graphs have margins of error. This is another reason you cant compare individual years, much less individual months. You have to reduce the margin of error through central data analysis and trend lines of averages.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.