Every sane person in Canada is hoping Stephen Harper and his party gets defeated in next year's federal election, so do not hold him up as a model of anything positive.
Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Thread starter Greylock Crescent
- Start date
Right. Lining their pockets...
Best to depend on the "experts" in the oil and coal industries. I'm sure their motives are pure.
Nowhere did I say that's the answer either.
Right. Lining their pockets...
Best to depend on the "experts" in the oil and coal industries. I'm sure their motives are pure.
Nowhere did I say that's the answer either.
Maybe not, but I have yet to see you post a single word that is critical of the oil and coal industries. Maybe if your posts were a little more balanced, it would be easier to take you seriously.
Right. Lining their pockets...
Best to depend on the "experts" in the oil and coal industries. I'm sure their motives are pure.
Nowhere did I say that's the answer either.
Maybe not, but I have yet to see you post a single word that is critical of the oil and coal industries. Maybe if your posts were a little more balanced, it would be easier to take you seriously.
Looking for that "balanced" discussion from the Climate Change alarmists...
If you've read my comments, you understand that I think there is a problem, but I don't think the sky is falling.
I'm also waiting for a "balanced" answer to my comment about the last 20 years (no rise in temp).
Read the thread for the specifics, but the short answer is: Temperatures did not rise as quickly as expected, but they still rose. And the reasons for the reduced (though still positive) rise include lower solar output, missing data from the polar ice caps, and particulate matter in the atmosphere from volcanoes.
And that illustrates some of the mathematical sloppiness that Jones, Mann, and other members of the team introduced, leading climatology to embrace data homogenization without looking at the consequences.
For an example, suppose you have three monitoring stations (A, B, and C), with slightly different baseline temperatures, but none of which has any underlying trend, but each of which has a consistent, creeping, positive bias that gets periodically corrected as trees get cut back or as they get moved a hundred feet to stay away from encroaching structures. Each site then has a sawtooth waveform, and the wave forms are asynchronous because the cutbacks or moves aren't coordinated between sites. So you have the equivalent of three saw blades laying edge up on a flat table, and you want to know the slope of the table.
So take it as given that the actual climate at all three sites is unchanging, and the delta T should be zero across the whole time series, but due to the encroachment (UHI, etc) each site shows a sawtooth warming bias of 0.5 degrees per decade, and then the error at a site gets corrected. So over fifty years, each site will go through five cycles of a gradual up and then an almost instantaneous down, with the maximum error at each site limited to 0.5 degrees. If you go back through the paper records, you would see that the past temperatures are going to match the current temperature to plus or minus 0.25 degrees.
But then a climatologist comes along nattering about the importance of homogenization, and what he sees is three sites that each show a trend of 0.5 C per decade, but with abrupt discontinuities where the sites were somehow altered or screwed up. By comparing the three sites (A, B, and C), he can see where one site abruptly quit tracking its two neighbors, both of which were still showing the positive trend, and he will correct the "error" by removing the break-point so that the differing sites record continues along with the positive linear trend of its neighbors. First he corrects A, from fifty years ago, and then B, from 48 years ago, and then C, from 43 years ago, and round and round and round, because the three sites are asynchronous sawtooths.
What he's built mathematically is like a ratchet mechanism. Instead of treating the waveforms as periodic and taking the site observers at their word, he's taken the three site's five sawtooth cycles and created giant triangles, thinking the gentle slope is the underlying climate signal and the discontinuities are the errors. So from a real climate change of zero, he's created a "signal" from the 5 decades of 0.5C per decade drift, and created an imaginary warming of 2.5 degrees C for each site.
Since the current temperatures are still being measured, he adjusts the prior temperatures, making each site's past colder and colder and colder. Since the system is a ratchet, this process will go on forever, leading to the current state of the GHCN dataset, where the past is claimed to be much colder than the present, even where the paper records of past temperatures are the same numbers we're seeing now.
Michael Crichton actually performed a check that could've detected this for his global warming novel, which contained dozens and dozens of raw-data temperature plots from North America that showed temperatures stable or declining throughout the 20th century. It was an inconvenient truth, so it got homogenized out of existence.
It's not opinion, it's math. You can grab the code for a homongenization algorithm and feed it some sample data and see how it can screw up. What Mann, Jones, and the Team have done is figure out how to torture raw data until it will confess to anything.
None of that disproves the notion that "only by using homogenized data series can the long-term climatic trends be accurately detected" or that "the homogenized SAT data series of the stations have to be more carefully assessed and adjusted before they are to be confidently used in analyses of climate change."
So the process is valid and only needs to be refined. Furthermore, your posts have yet to demonstrate any proof that this is the result of any agenda other than trying to get the most scientifically accurate representation of the data.
So the process is valid and only needs to be refined. Furthermore, your posts have yet to demonstrate any proof that this is the result of any agenda other than trying to get the most scientifically accurate representation of the data.
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
I don't get it either.
I mean, even if you do convince him to get his head out of his ass, what does it accomplish?
I mean, even if you do convince him to get his head out of his ass, what does it accomplish?
See, there you go. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
NDT did a whole segment on how the sun WASN'T contributing to climate change, same for volcanos etc.
...and the "change" over the last 20 years is no more than an accounting or rounding error.
See, ti CAN'T be that good ole' mother earth has adjusted to all the extra co2 us evil humans are throwing up in the air.
Bask away.
But the agenda was promoted by lie in the series. Just be aware.
Who is "him"?
You're not making the distinction between short term (decade-length) variance and long term climate change. You're paying attention to the dog on the leash, not the path the man is walking.
Mister Fandango
Fleet Captain
If you can't even keep up with a simple conversation, especially when you quote the post that was immediately preceding the one you're asking the question about, why bother wasting the virtual breath trying to explain it to you?
Since the deniers have no case it would be as foolish as looking looking for balance in a discussion with a flat earther.
Temps have gone up. whoever told you they haven't was lying or misinformed.
There have been no lies in the series.
It's only in the thread title
You can't win with him, I doubt he even believes a 1/10th of what he posts. If we had a thread about how the sky was a beautiful shade of blue, he'd post a wall of text of how we were all wrong and it was really green.
