Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
This cherry picking has taken place on BOTH sides. I’ve seen now how anyone can take the same raw data and fit it to the story they want to tell.
Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level
- Status
I would be interested in knowing more about this tech used to measure global temperature to within a tenth of a degree back in the 19th century.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
No, the science side is very careful to not cherry-pick in order to achieve a desired end. They do sometimes tweak the data to more accurately reflect reality. That’s what they and many other scientists in other areas of research do.
M
Michael68
Guest
I believe what we have here is just a theory. No consensus as to whether this is real!
Z
zz912
Guest
Agreed.
Always be wary of those who’s “solution” to global warming/climate change is socialism, more government and more taxes.
Z
zz912
Guest
Yep, they are absolutely pure angels with zero temptation to keep the federal money flowing in that funds their research. No temptation whatsoever to manipulate data to project a catastrophe that needs increased funding of their research. None at all.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Just because you can envision a possible temptation to corruption does not mean there is corruption, especially since it would be so difficult and risky to engage in that corruption, and the payback would be so questionable. In other words, they have a lot to lose, and only a little chance of gain. Not a very big temptation, it seems to me.Yep, they are absolutely pure angels with zero temptation to keep the federal money flowing in that funds their research. No temptation whatsoever to manipulate data to project a catastrophe that needs increased funding of their research. None at all.
T
Theo520
Guest
My chart also used NASA data but compared the change in anomolies, if there was a correlation with increasing CO2 with temp, it would have shown such.
Your chart excluded CO2 from the comparison completely.
here’s a comparison since we’ve had accurate CO2 measurements. Again it becomes clear that other factors are driving climate, such as natural variation.
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
who is saying natural variability isn’t happening? why does your chart end in May of 2013? We have three more years of data available.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually the tweaking quite often is in the direction of less evidence for warming. You really need to keep up with what they’re doing. Their methods are discussed in their articles.Yep, they are absolutely pure angels with zero temptation to keep the federal money flowing in that funds their research. No temptation whatsoever to manipulate data to project a catastrophe that needs increased funding of their research. None at all.
No one, but no one wants global warming. Most scientists have children and are very concerned about the life-hostile environment we are leaving them and their progeny. They wouldn’t wish global warming on the dogs.
It is just crazy to think they would want this to happen. They are just hoping for the sake of their children that people will pay attention to their arduous studies and do something about the problem.
Many have suffered harassment and death threats, even to their small children. And it looks like this will only increase as denialists become more strident as the problem of GW worsens.
Climate scientists are the unsung heroes of the world, and we owe them utmost respect. But what do they get harassment, legal cases against them, death threats.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Just as I said – there are other factors driving climate, which is why there is not an exact association between CO2 and CC. Plus there are other GHGs (tho CO2 is the biggy in terms of forcings).
No climate scientist denies that.
Not sure what your point is.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That’s a good point. I’m thinking that since it is an average from all the sources around the world, those sources were probably not in the tenth of degrees, but full degrees – the same is probably true for today. However, when they do an average it often comes out to some number with fractions. I think that would be the answer.
Until one considers significant digits.
You cannot average in more accuracy.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Not sure what you mean.
What is needed for comparison of means to see if they are significantly different is the means, the number of cases, and the standard deviations. What can make them different at the p<.05 (95% confidence) level is a large difference in the means, and/or a large number of cases, and/or small standard deviations. It is irrelevant whether the means are whole numbers or not. Perhaps what you are referring to is the raw data – and yes I think it would be absurd to use fractions for particular temps at particular times and locations. I’d just say round it off, that it won’t make that much difference in a huge dataset.
Now having said that re “difference in means test,” climate science actually uses more sophisticated methods above my knowledge level to figure out if the trend in global average temps is significant or not – which they finally achieved in some studies in 1995…decades after figuring the warming would become significant based on the GH effect and laws of physics its based on. One of the methods they mention is Bayesian probabilities (google it and have fun figuring it out
).Now you have intrigued me, bec I started out as a math major and was good at it, then changed to anthropology, which I felt was more interesting to me. At the time I told some friends that when I retire I’d get back into math. Well I’m retired now, so maybe I’ll do that. However, I find myself nearly as busy as when I was working and the project my husband and I are working on now is very important (intercaste relations and untouchability within the Catholic Church in India), so I’ll just have to wait and see if I do get back into math and statistics.
T
Theo520
Guest
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century
NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Sure. Less evidence for warming before 1990 so that one can show more evidence for overall trend of warming to 2016. Another display of tweaking data to fit the favored hypothesis.
Doesn’t help when they cheat at the data analysis. Project that cheating onto the other side much?
Want to know what my climate related fear is? It is global cooling.
When everyone finds out first hand when it gets cooler just how hard it is to grow enough food to feed everyone, how much energy is required just to remain in place, how expensive both food and energy will become in such an environment, there will be chaos, riots, regime change, wars over resources, etc. The period of European history during the Maunder Minimum offers us some perspectives on this.
T
Tony_Micelli
Guest
but science says we have pushed our climate to a prolonged interglacial period which prevents us for the foreseeable future going into a glacial period. If it weren’t for man made climate change, we likely would be back into an ice age already.
of course we could see temporary servere cold snaps in the future given the amount of glacial meltdown occurring in greenland which will stop the gulf stream current.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
That is at best an assumption.
We’ve experienced these severe cold snaps off and on for several years now. I don’t think they are that temporary. It’s been interesting watching the MMGW’ers contort these episodes as facts supporting their thesis.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
And not only just recently. I remember as a child skating on the creek below our house during a particularly bad weather cycle that brought drought and blistering temperatures in the summer and bitter cold in the winter. It takes a lot of cold to do that to a spring-fed creek in this part of the country.
That period lasted only a few years; perhaps three, and it has never frozen over even once since then. Not even in still backwaters.
I remember my grandmother telling me there was a similar period in the early part of the 20th Century.
- Status