PDA

View Full Version : The Global Warming Conspiracy



SpidermanTUba
08-09-2007, 12:36 PM
FACT: Politicians in the federal government have been conspiring with scientists for years to produce political unpopular theories.

FACT: Scientific journals only allow papers with certain conclusions to be published.

FACT: For profit corporations, like Exxon, and Phillip Morris, produce much more unbiased science than publicly funded science

FACT: Economists are more qualified to talk about the climate that climatologists.


All of these are true. I have no evidence. I just know its true. I think the freemasons, the mob, and the Knights of Columbus are in on this to. Apparently, the idea is to find an excuse to tax gasoline and put the oil companies out of business, because all the politicians are being paid huge bribes by environmental groups - massive compared to the bribes the measly oil companies could afford.

Hagbard Celine
08-09-2007, 12:40 PM
You forgot the "libs." This is just one facet of their far-reaching, "Vast Liberal Conspiracy." Or "Operation VLC" as I like to call it.

LiberalNation
08-09-2007, 03:27 PM
Don't forget the liberal education system. That teach global warming in school. I'm doing a power point on it or supposed to be right now.

theHawk
08-09-2007, 03:47 PM
Don't forget the liberal education system. That teach global warming in school. I'm doing a power point on it or supposed to be right now.

Don't forget to include a graph of the average global temperatures for the last million years. Showing that we periodically go through natural global warming and cooling phases. :cool:

LiberalNation
08-09-2007, 03:50 PM
Nah it only has 2 question on Global Warming. One a def, and the others what changes have occured as a result of it. The rest is supposed to be about atmosphere, ozone and such.

LiberalNation
08-09-2007, 07:49 PM
Hey anybody wana do my homework for me. I'll let ya deny glabal warming and it's gona be presented to a class of highschool kids who are tought it as fact.

glockmail
08-09-2007, 07:50 PM
What a :lame2: thread. :pee:

SpidermanTUba
07-07-2008, 05:37 PM
Don't forget to include a graph of the average global temperatures for the last million years. Showing that we periodically go through natural global warming and cooling phases. :cool:

Ahh! You appear to be using the 4th law of thermodynamics, the one the scientists don't want you to know about:

It's called Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics:

"If the temperature of a system can be affected by natural means, it is physically impossible for it to be affected by artificial means."

The scientists have kept this law a secret for years now.


But that's not the half of it. There's more. Relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution - in fact all scientific theories developed since 1800 - are false. We developed them in order to subjugate the population. For example - did you know that faster than light speed really is possible? It is, and we scientists have been travelling at faster than light speed since 1905. That's right - since 1905, when Einstein came out with his Special Relativity, which says that its impossible to travel faster than light. Einstein and his co-conspirators concocted the theory as a mean to convince the masses that they couldn't travel faster than the speed of light, so that we evil scientists would have the one up on you.


Its all true. Darwin actually discovered scientific proof of God's existence. But he didn't think the ordinary people were worthy of such knowledge, so he concocted evolution as a means to distract them.

This is why scientists are always driving the fancy cars and stashing huge sums of money in offshore accounts, while oil company executive wear rags and are in perpetual debt to the bank.


Anyway, I would definitely point out Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics to the kids.

5stringJeff
07-07-2008, 05:40 PM
Ahh! You appear to be using the 4th law of thermodynamics, the one the scientists don't want you to know about:

It's called Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics:

"If the temperature of a system can be affected by natural means, it is physically impossible for it to be affected by artificial means."

The scientists have kept this law a secret for years now.

And you appear to believe that, in a geologic blink of an eye, human activity can throw the 4-billion-year-old earth's climate out of whack.

SpidermanTUba
07-08-2008, 12:22 AM
And you appear to believe that, in a geologic blink of an eye, human activity can throw the 4-billion-year-old earth's climate out of whack.

I don't think the phrase "4 billion year old" climate really has any meaning.

But we've successfully increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30-40% in a geologic "blink of an eye". So yes, I do believe we can influence the environment in a "geologic blink of an eye", because, we have.

Psychoblues
07-08-2008, 03:02 AM
And you would be absolutely correct, ST, and all the others can do is wish it weren't so if they recognize it at all.




I don't think the phrase "4 billion year old" climate really has any meaning.

But we've successfully increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30-40% in a geologic "blink of an eye". So yes, I do believe we can influence the environment in a "geologic blink of an eye", because, we have.

The past 150 years has been brutal on the planet. It doesn't take a scientist or a priest to figure that out.

glockmail
07-08-2008, 08:33 AM
…But we've successfully increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30-40% in a geologic "blink of an eye". So yes, I do believe we can influence the environment in a "geologic blink of an eye", because, we have.

Those pesky facts:

The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

377 parts per million is less than 0.04%, so at these low concentrations it doesn't take much to come up with a significant percent change; a number that can be used by alarmists on an unsuspecting populace. Likewise, at these low percentages, these small increases are unlikely to have any significant atmospheric effect.

SpidermanTUba
07-08-2008, 11:05 AM
Those pesky facts:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

377 parts per million is less than 0.04%, so at these low concentrations it doesn't take much to come up with a significant percent change; a number that can be used by alarmists on an unsuspecting populace. Likewise, at these low percentages, these small increases are unlikely to have any significant atmospheric effect.


Less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere? So what? The major constituents of the atmosphere - oxygen and nitrogen - are not greenhouse gasses. What's your point? From what I can tell, you're making a meaningless comparison. Small quantities of one kind of gas mixed with another kind can cause huge changes in radiative absorptivity. This is basic scientific fact, you can't just declare it out of existence.

glockmail
07-08-2008, 11:20 AM
..... Small quantities of one kind of gas mixed with another kind can cause huge changes in radiative absorptivity. This is basic scientific fact, you can't just declare it out of existence.
Prove it.

SpidermanTUba
07-08-2008, 01:53 PM
Prove it.


How do you think the greenhouse effect works? You are aware that it would be about 70 degrees farenheit cooler on the Earth's surface if there were no greenhouse gasses?

And like I said before, the vast majority of gas in the atmosphere - O2 and N2 do not absorb in the infrared bands. Its the small amount of CO2, water vapor, methane, and other gasses that cause the entire greenhouse effect. CO2 causes about 12% of the total effect. This means without CO2, the Earth would be 0.12 * 70 = 8.4 degrees F cooler. So obviously - an increase or decrease of 35% in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have an effect of a few degrees F.

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/H20-CO2-contributions-GHG.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v016/i004/RG016i004p00465/RG016i004p00465.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=res-loc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1175%2F1520-0469%281964%29021%3C0361%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2

glockmail
07-08-2008, 02:07 PM
.....This means without CO2, the Earth would be 0.12 * 70 = 8.4 degrees F cooler. So obviously - an increase or decrease of 35% in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have an effect of a few degrees F..... Obviously? You mean "simplistically", don't you? First of all, that’s a bullshit calculation, secondly, your extrapolation has no scientific basis.

Have you figured out why we should be exploiting natural gas reserves to fight global warming yet? As I recall that was the reason why you pussied out of this discussion a few months back.

SpidermanTUba
07-08-2008, 02:17 PM
Obviously? You mean "simplistically", don't you? First of all, that’s a bullshit calculation, secondly, your extrapolation has no scientific basis.


How is it bullshit? What's wrong with the scientific basis I provided? Did you check out the sources? No. Of course not. You just declare it untrue and move on. You aren't terribly interested in factual reality, are you?

glockmail
07-08-2008, 04:36 PM
How is it bullshit? What's wrong with the scientific basis I provided? Did you check out the sources? No. Of course not. You just declare it untrue and move on. You aren't terribly interested in factual reality, are you? As I said earlier- too simplistic. Your "sources" couldn't predict last winter's record cold, and you expect them to predict global warming.

Still confused about natural gas? :laugh2:

theHawk
07-09-2008, 09:25 AM
Ahh! You appear to be using the 4th law of thermodynamics, the one the scientists don't want you to know about:

It's called Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics:

"If the temperature of a system can be affected by natural means, it is physically impossible for it to be affected by artificial means."


I never said its impossible for it to be affected by artificial means. I guess the only way you can debate anything is by putting words in other people's mouths.

The FACT is global temperatures have been rising since the last ice age. We are near the peak that the planet has reached many times in the past naturally. This is a FACT that global warmining alarmists fail to mention. There is a good chance all the shit we put up into the atmosphere is causing problems, but its probably small compared to what is already naturally happening.

SpidermanTUba
07-31-2008, 10:55 AM
As I said earlier- too simplistic. Your "sources" couldn't predict last winter's record cold, and you expect them to predict global warming.

Still confused about natural gas? :laugh2:


"Predict" that winter will be cold? Yeah, we really need someone to do that for us.

SpidermanTUba
07-31-2008, 11:00 AM
I never said its impossible for it to be affected by artificial means. I guess the only way you can debate anything is by putting words in other people's mouths.

The FACT is global temperatures have been rising since the last ice age. We are near the peak that the planet has reached many times in the past naturally.

Temperatures haven't risen this quickly on Earth in the past several hundred thousand years at least.



This is a FACT that global warmining alarmists fail to mention.

I use scientists as my sources, not "alarmists", and its hardly a fact they've failed to mention.




There is a good chance all the shit we put up into the atmosphere is causing problems, but its probably small compared to what is already naturally happening.

Oh, well we'll just accept your bullshit guesswork as the "true science" and ignore the professionals with all the data.

red states rule
07-31-2008, 11:02 AM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/b/d/1/gw_dunes.jpg

SpidermanTUba
07-31-2008, 04:06 PM
Better chance it ends up underwater.

red states rule
07-31-2008, 04:08 PM
Better chance it ends up underwater.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/V/d/1/gw_liberty.jpg

emmett
08-01-2008, 12:04 AM
Temperatures haven't risen this quickly on Earth in the past several hundred thousand years at least.

Ah...........how fast is that? :link:



I use scientists as my sources, not "alarmists", and its hardly a fact they've failed to mention. :link:





Oh, well we'll just accept your bullshit guesswork as the "true science" and ignore the professionals with all the data.

Like Al Gore?

emmett
08-01-2008, 12:08 AM
[QUOTE=SpidermanTUba;268451]How do you think the greenhouse effect works? You are aware that it would be about 70 degrees farenheit cooler on the Earth's surface if there were no greenhouse gasses?

And like I said before, the vast majority of gas in the atmosphere - O2 and N2 do not absorb in the infrared bands. Its the small amount of CO2, water vapor, methane, and other gasses that cause the entire greenhouse effect. CO2 causes about 12% of the total effect. This means without CO2, the Earth would be 0.12 * 70 = 8.4 degrees F cooler. So obviously - an increase or decrease of 35% in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have an effect of a few degrees F.

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/H20-CO2-contributions-GHG.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v016/i004/RG016i004p00465/RG016i004p00465.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=res-loc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1175%2F1520-0469%281964%29021%3C0361%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2[/QUOTE



]

Here are my calculations!


90 degrees outside - relative humidity 74% = R134 in my AC X HIGH + ice cold coke in thick glass mug = comfortable x 1

SpidermanTUba
08-01-2008, 01:12 AM
Like Al Gore?


No.

Psychoblues
08-01-2008, 03:32 PM
Global warming is a fact, not a conspiracy. And it has exponentially risen in the industrial age. All credible information verifies that FACT. The debate is whether or not mankind is in some way responsible for at least part of the environmental equation. That also is a fact and not a conspiracy.

Even an elementary observation of the FACTS reveal the advent of the industrial age is somehow involved. Questions?

Can I get another mint julep: :salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

glockmail
08-03-2008, 10:00 PM
"Predict" that winter will be cold? Yeah, we really need someone to do that for us.
One of the coldest- your heros' models never predicted that.

I can see that you are still avoiding the natural gas issue. Eco-marxists don't want us to drill for that either. Why?

Dilloduck
08-03-2008, 10:24 PM
Better chance it ends up underwater.

You paid up on your carbon credits ? If not I'm blaming you for New York drowning :laugh2:

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 10:52 AM
"Predict" that winter will be cold? Yeah, we really need someone to do that for us.



One of the coldest- your heros' models never predicted that.


Which winter are you talking about? Because last year's was the 14th warmest on record since 1881, according to surface temperature measurements. I constructed the following rankings using the data set available here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

1 2007
2 2005
3 2002
4 2004
5 1998
6 2006
7 1999
8 2003
9 1995
10 1882
11 1988
12 1991
13 2001
14 2008
15 1981
16 1996
17 1983
18 1997
19 1980
20 2000
21 1990
22 1992
23 1987
24 1926
25 1958


Here's a similar ranking using this dataset, which measures both land and ocean temperatures: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

1 2007
2 2002
3 2004
4 1998
5 2005
6 2006
7 1999
8 2003
9 1995
10 1988
11 1991
12 1983
13 2008
14 2000
15 1992
16 1996
17 2001
18 1981
19 1944
20 1997
21 1990
22 1980
23 1958
24 1973
25 1993


If you're referring to last winter, what data set are you using? I'm having trouble finding one that would rank last winter any lower than in the top 15 warmest winters since 1881.

glockmail
08-06-2008, 11:17 AM
Your data doesn't show a consistent trend towards warming. Thanks for proving my point!

Now about that natural gas issue. Google's not likely to help you on that. You actually have to use original scientific thought, so I can see why you've been avoiding it for months now.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 11:57 AM
Your data doesn't show a consistent trend towards warming. Thanks for proving my point!

Now about that natural gas issue. Google's not likely to help you on that. You actually have to use original scientific thought, so I can see why you've been avoiding it for months now.

The Earth's temp has not changed in the last 10 years. Glocbal wamring is a scam to take more of our money from us

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 12:42 PM
Your data doesn't show a consistent trend towards warming.

Actually, yes, it does show a warming trend. I don't think you know what the word "trend" means. Or maybe you don't know what the word "warming" means, but if you can't see the warming trend in the attached graph, you might need glasses.






Thanks for proving my point!

Your point was that last winter was "one of the coldest". I just proved that it wasn't. This is called "disproving" your point. I don't think you know what the words "prove" and "disprove" mean either.

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 12:44 PM
The Earth's temp has not changed in the last 10 years.

No, actually, it has. See above links to real data.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 12:48 PM
No, actually, it has. See above links to real data.

Sorry, the enviro wackos are full of it on this one


Next decade 'may see no warming'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.

See how modelled temperatures may develop

The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 12:57 PM
red states rule: The Earth's temp has not changed in the last 10 years.
SpidermanTUba: No, actually, it has. See above links to real data.

red states rule: Sorry, the enviro wackos are full of it on this one

Next decade 'may see no warming'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website




You seem to be confused. Your claim was "The Earth's temp has not changed in the last 10 years." As proof of your claim, you have submitted an article written by a journalist in which it is claimed the Earth's temperature might not change for the NEXT ten years. Do you understand the difference between the words "next" and "last" ? If not, I suggest you look them up and familiarize yourself with their usage. "next ten years" and "last ten years" refers to two different sets of ten years.

On the other hand, I supplied real data collected by real scientists over the LAST 10 years to disprove your claim that the Earth's temp has not changed for the LAST ten years.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:01 PM
You seem to be confused. Your claim was "The Earth's temp has not changed in the last 10 years." As proof of your claim, you have submitted an article written by a journalist in which it is claimed the Earth's temperature might not change for the NEXT ten years. Do you understand the difference between the words "next" and "last" ?

On the other hand, I supplied real data collected by real scientists over the LAST 10 years to disprove your claim that the Earth's temp has not changed for the LAST ten years.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/132444.jpg

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:03 PM
If you simply don't trust science as a method of gaining knowledge about the world around you, I'd recommend you stop getting involved with arguments over science, and go attend one of your Flat Earth Society meetings. But as long as you wish to engage yourself in arguments over science, its going to be real scientific observations that are the relevant observations, not things that you make up in your head and wish were true. The Earth's global temperature has been in a rising trend for the last ten years. You were wrong. The data proves it. Get over it.

Another tip when engaging in scientific discussion: when trying to prove your point, use evidence that actually proves your point, instead of evidence that proves another point. Your claim was that the Earth's temperature has not changed for last 10 years. You submit evidence that it might not change for the next 10 years as proof of it. That doesn't make any fucking sense.

glockmail
08-06-2008, 01:06 PM
Actually, yes, it does show a warming trend. I don't think you know what the word "trend" means. Or maybe you don't know what the word "warming" means, but if you can't see the warming trend in the attached graph, you might need glasses.





Your point was that last winter was "one of the coldest". I just proved that it wasn't. This is called "disproving" your point. I don't think you know what the words "prove" and "disprove" mean either.
All you're showing is a magnified version of a tiny portion of this:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Now about that methane thing....

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:08 PM
If you simply don't trust science as a method of gaining knowledge about the world around you, I'd recommend you stop getting involved with arguments over science, and go attend one of your Flat Earth Society meetings. But as long as you wish to engage yourself in arguments over science, its going to be real scientific observations that are the relevant observations, not things that you make up in your head and wish were true. The Earth's global temperature has been in a rising trend for the last ten years. You were wrong. The data proves it. Get over it.

Another tip when engaging in scientific discussion: when trying to prove your point, use evidence that actually proves your point, instead of evidence that proves another point. Your claim was that the Earth's temperature has not changed for last 10 years. You submit evidence that it might not change for the next 10 years as prove of it. That doesn't make any fucking sense.



You chicken little rants have been disproved


Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse

Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'.

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:09 PM
All you're showing is a magnified version of a tiny portion of this:


OK. How does that change the fact the Earth has been in a steep warming trend for the past 40 or so years?




Now about that methane thing....

What about it? Its a positive feedback mechanism for global warming.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:11 PM
OK. How does that change the fact the Earth has been in a steep warming trend for the past 40 or so years?




What about it? Its a positive feedback mechanism for global warming.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/136812.jpg

Sitarro
08-06-2008, 01:13 PM
Hey, anybody wana want to do my homework for me.? I'll let ya you deny glabal global warming. and It's it's gona going to be presented to a class of highschool high school kids who are tought taught it, as fact.

How could you possibly be in High School with so many spelling and grammatical errors? What is even more ridiculous, is the fact that you typed this on a computer that surely has a spell checker!!!

glockmail
08-06-2008, 01:16 PM
OK. How does that change the fact the Earth has been in a steep warming trend for the past 40 or so years?




What about it? Its a positive feedback mechanism for global warming.

1. You are relying on weather data from the past 100 years to try and prove that the climate is changing. In reality the environs around the weather stations have changed.
2. You are confused yet again, Mr. all-knowing scientist, so I'll rephrase a third time. Why do enviro-Marxists fight exploitation of natural gas deposits?

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:24 PM
You chicken little rants have been disproved


Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse


David Whitehouse uses flawed logic in his analysis. He arbitrarily uses 1998 as his starting year. If he has used 1997, his results would have been completely different. The fact is that for the past decade, for any year you pick in that decade, the 8 year trend has been upward.
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2008/998/20080114_graph.jpg

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:26 PM
David Whitehouse uses flawed logic in his analysis. He arbitrarily uses 1998 as his starting year. If he has used 1997, his results would have been completely different. The fact is that for the past decade, for any year you pick in that decade, the 8 year trend has been upward.
http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2008/998/20080114_graph.jpg

Yea, since he does not buy into the global wamring crap - you dismiss him

Not ONE of the doom and gloom perdictions the enviro wckos have made have happened

Going back to the 70's when this BS started, everything you clowns have said was going to happen, never happened

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:29 PM
1. You are relying on weather data from the past 100 years to try and prove that the climate is changing.


No, I'm using temperature data from the past 127 years to show that the trend has been upward for the past 40 or so.


In reality the environs around the weather stations have changed.

Since you haven't stated what you're talking about here, I'm going to assume its the urban heat island effect. This effect has been adjusted for in the data I presented by comparing data from urban temperature measurements to data from rural temperature measurements in the same region.


2. You are confused yet again, Mr. all-knowing scientist, so I'll rephrase a third time. Why do enviro-Marxists fight exploitation of natural gas deposits? I have no idea, maybe you should ask them.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:31 PM
No, I'm using temperature data from the past 127 years to show that the trend has been upward for the past 40 or so.



Since you haven't stated what you're talking about here, I'm going to assume its the urban heat island effect. This effect has been adjusted for in the data I presented by comparing data from urban temperature measurements to data from rural temperature measurements in the same region.

I have no idea, maybe you should ask them.

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/136814.gif

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:34 PM
Yea, since he does not buy into the global wamring crap - you dismiss him


No, I'm dismissing him because his analysis is blatantly flawed, and I've explained why its flawed. Instead of attacking my reasoning, you just declare me to be wrong and move on.



Going back to the 70's when this BS started, everything you clowns have said was going to happen, never happened

No, actually, the climatologists predicted the Earth would warm. And it did. So you're wrong.

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:36 PM
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/136814.gif

Is that all the evidence you have? A stupid cartoon? Go figure.


Listen, let me know when you want to talk about real facts.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:36 PM
No, I'm dismissing him because his analysis is blatantly flawed, and I've explained why its flawed. Instead of attacking my reasoning, you just declare me to be wrong and move on.



No, actually, the climatologists predicted the Earth would warm. And it did. So you're wrong.

Ever heard of the idiot Paul Erlich? One of the all time great liberal moonbat enviro wackos?

Like I said all the doom and gloom forcasts have never happened

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 01:42 PM
Ever heard of the idiot Paul Erlich? One of the all time great liberal moonbat enviro wackos?

Like I said all the doom and gloom forcasts have never happened

You mean Paul Erhlich the zoologist who wrote a book about overpopulation? What the fuck does that have to do with global warming? (Hint: NOTHING)


Your entire argument style is one of non sequitors. You claim the Earth hasn't warmed for the last 10 years, and use evidence that it might not warm for the next ten years as proof. Then you randomly spout off a bunch of crap about a guy who wrote a book about overpopulation.

Can you do us a favor, and make sense from now on?

red states rule
08-06-2008, 01:43 PM
You mean Paul Erhlich the zoologist who wrote a book about overpopulation? What the fuck does that have to do with global warming? (Hint: NOTHING)


Your entire argument style is one of non sequitors. You claim the Earth hasn't warmed for the last 10 years, and use evidence that it might not warm for the next ten years as proof. Then you randomly spout off a bunch of crap about a guy who wrote a book about overpopulation.

Can you do us a favor, and make sense from now on?

He was talking about environmental disasters like NY residents wearing gas masks; or the mid west becoming deserts

More hot air from the enviro wackos


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/133863.jpg

glockmail
08-06-2008, 01:54 PM
No, I'm using temperature data from the past 127 years to show that the trend has been upward for the past 40 or so.



Since you haven't stated what you're talking about here, I'm going to assume its the urban heat island effect. This effect has been adjusted for in the data I presented by comparing data from urban temperature measurements to data from rural temperature measurements in the same region.

I have no idea, maybe you should ask them.

1. Again, you are using a microscope to look at a very large object.
2. "Adjustments" can be adjusted to suit the opinion of the adjuster.
3. It has been my conclusion that you, and they, have no clue what you are talking about. Thanks for finally confirming that!

red states rule
08-06-2008, 02:09 PM
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/124673.gif

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 02:19 PM
He was talking about environmental disasters like NY residents wearing gas masks; or the mid west becoming deserts



Yeah, but he wasn't talking about global warming, and his background is in zoology, so what does it have to do with this discussion?

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 02:23 PM
1. Again, you are using a microscope to look at a very large object.


No, I'm using temperature data from the past 127 years to show that the trend has been upward for the past 40 or so. There's no microscopes involved here, nor are there large objects.




2. "Adjustments" can be adjusted to suit the opinion of the adjuster.


They could. Or they could be made to adjust for the effects of urban heating, as in this case.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 02:23 PM
Yeah, but he wasn't talking about global warming, and his background is in zoology, so what does it have to do with this discussion?

All of the enviro wacko perdictions also have not happened

First it was global cooling and the next ice age

Then it was global warming and the Earth was burning up

Now it is climate change and both the next ice age,a nd the Earth burning up wil now happen

Get a life

glockmail
08-06-2008, 02:30 PM
No, I'm using temperature data from the past 127 years to show that the trend has been upward for the past 40 or so. There's no microscopes involved here, nor are there large objects.
..... I am not surprised that my subtlety escaped you yet again. The “large object” is climate change, or using the contemporary vernacular: “global warming”, which is the subject of this thread. Looking at a 40 year (or 127 year) record that may or may not show a trend and concluding that man is warming the earth is like looking at an elephant hair and coming to the conclusion that you are looking at a mouse.

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 02:31 PM
All of the enviro wacko perdictions also have not happened

How does showing that one prediction by one guy that has nothing to do with global warming relate to that claim?



First it was global cooling and the next ice age

There was never a consensus on global cooling. In fact, there isn't a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that impending global cooling is more than likely. A least none that I've seen, and repeated attempts to get those who claim such references exist to provide them, have failed.

red states rule
08-06-2008, 02:32 PM
How does showing that one prediction by one guy that has nothing to do with global warming relate to that claim?


There was never a consensus on global cooling. In fact, there isn't a single peer reviewed scientific paper which claims that impending global cooling is more than likely. A least none that I've seen, and repeated attempts to get those who claim such references exist to provide them, have failed.

There is not a consensus because global wamring is a myth and does not exist

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 02:34 PM
I am not surprised that my subtlety escaped you yet again. The “large object” is climate change, or using the contemporary vernacular: “global warming”, which is the subject of this thread. Looking at a 40 year (or 127 year) record that may or may not show a trend and concluding that man is warming the earth is like looking at an elephant hair and coming to the conclusion that you are looking at a mouse.

I'm not making any conclusions based solely on the temperature record. I am merely claiming that the temperature has shown an upward trend for the past 40 years. And it has. It doesn't "may or may not show a trend" - it does show a trend, for at least the past 40 years. I'm sorry, but you can't wish this fact away and this has nothing to do with elephant hair and mice. If you plot the past 40 years of global temp data on a graph, and then do a regression analysis, there will be a definitive upward trend. That is my claim - and it is true, as supported by the data I have provided.

SpidermanTUba
08-06-2008, 02:35 PM
There is not a consensus because global wamring is a myth and does not exist

So there was not a consensus on global cooling because there isn't a consensus on global warming? WTF are you talking about?

MtnBiker
08-06-2008, 02:36 PM
A well maintained surface station;

http://surfacestations.org/images/OrlandCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg

A not so well maintained surface station;

http://surfacestations.org/images/MarysvilleCA_USHCN_Site_small.jpg

This site in Marysville, CA has been around for about the same amount of time, but
has been encroached upon by growth in a most serious way by micro-site effects.

http://surfacestations.org/

Without a doubt all surface temperatures have been recorded accurately and consistently for the past 127 years.

glockmail
08-06-2008, 02:47 PM
I'm not making any conclusions based solely on the temperature record. I am merely claiming that the temperature has shown an upward trend for the past 40 years. And it has. It doesn't "may or may not show a trend" - it does show a trend, for at least the past 40 years. I'm sorry, but you can't wish this fact away and this has nothing to do with elephant hair and mice. If you plot the past 40 years of global temp data on a graph, and then do a regression analysis, there will be a definitive upward trend. That is my claim - and it is true, as supported by the data I have provided.

As MB so nicely demonstrated, you can’t rely on that data even for that. I first discovered that obvious flaw in the historical records when researching data records for Syracuse, NY, where they had moved the recording station from somewhere near the newspaper building, to the top of one of the tallest buildings, then to the airport 15 miles north.

Sitarro
08-06-2008, 06:28 PM
As MB so nicely demonstrated, you can’t rely on that data even for that. I first discovered that obvious flaw in the historical records when researching data records for Syracuse, NY, where they had moved the recording station from somewhere near the newspaper building, to the top of one of the tallest buildings, then to the airport 15 miles north.

It's kind of a waste of time to argue with someone that thinks living in a bowl 29 ' below sea level, surrounded by three huge bodies of water at sea level, in a hurricane corridor with an idiot for a Mayor is a good idea.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 12:14 AM
As MB so nicely demonstrated, you can’t rely on that data even for that. I first discovered that obvious flaw in the historical records when researching data records for Syracuse, NY, where they had moved the recording station from somewhere near the newspaper building, to the top of one of the tallest buildings, then to the airport 15 miles north.

That's a single station. Global temperature involve a lot more than a single station. That's why they remove outliers and adjust for urban heating using the measurements of rural stations in the same area.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 12:16 AM
It's kind of a waste of time to argue with someone that thinks living in a bowl 29 ' below sea level, surrounded by three huge bodies of water at sea level, in a hurricane corridor with an idiot for a Mayor is a good idea.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Do you have anything to share other than your hatred?

MtnBiker
08-07-2008, 12:17 AM
That's a single station. Global temperature involve a lot more than a single station. That's why they remove outliers and adjust for urban heating using the measurements of rural stations in the same area.

Are you suggesting there are no other stations improperly maintained?

If so how can you be certain?

What method of temperature gathering occurred in the past 127 years? What instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

What if the suface stations where painted with different paint material from one station to the next, would that have a potential effect?

Sitarro
08-07-2008, 01:16 AM
Are you suggesting there are no other stations improperly maintained?

If so how can you be certain?

What method of temperature gathering occurred in the past 127 years? What instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

What if the suface stations where painted with different paint material from one station to the next, would that have a potential effect?

Exactly, with the constant improvements to equipment, even the most heavily funded organizations get behind....... NASA would be a great example, look at the computer equipment onboard the shuttle. Anything measured in the early seventies was done at a time when cutting edge car audio consisted of 4 track tape decks. What type of equipment was used in WW2 where they still weren't using jets, WW1 where aircraft had fabric covering..... etc.

glockmail
08-07-2008, 10:21 AM
That's a single station. Global temperature involve a lot more than a single station. That's why they remove outliers and adjust for urban heating using the measurements of rural stations in the same area. The various locations of the Syracuse station throughout the general geographical area were not part of the NOAA data record. It was only due to the fact that I had lived in the area for 11 years and became interested in local history that I establish the fact that the station had been moved. It would have taken much more research, again at the local level, to pinpoint exact locations, as well as merely the general nature of the surrounding buildings at annual increments in the historical record. And again, as MB so nicely demonstrated, effects of minor site changes, none which are researchable over a 127 year record, can make a significant factor in the data over time.

So these “adjustments” that your cited research relies heavily on are entirely subjective at best.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 11:06 AM
Are you suggesting there are no other stations improperly maintained?

No. That's why they eliminate outliers.




What method of temperature gathering occurred in the past 127 years? What instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

Answers to these questions can be found in these places:

Free, M., J.K. Angell, I. Durre, J. Lanzante, T.C. Peterson and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Using first differences to reduce inhomogeneity in radiosonde temperature datasets, J. Climate, 21, 4171-4179.

Peterson, Thomas C. and Russell S. Vose, 1997: An overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network temperature data base, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 2837-2849.

Peterson, T.C., T.R. Karl, P.F. Jamason, R. Knight, and D.R. Easterling, 1998: The first difference method: maximizing station density for the calculation of long-term global temperature change. Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 103 (D20), 25967-25974.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 11:07 AM
Exactly, with the constant improvements to equipment, even the most heavily funded organizations get behind....... NASA would be a great example, look at the computer equipment onboard the shuttle. Anything measured in the early seventies was done at a time when cutting edge car audio consisted of 4 track tape decks. What type of equipment was used in WW2 where they still weren't using jets, WW1 where aircraft had fabric covering..... etc.


You are aware that the instrument for measuring temperature is a fairly simple device that's been around for hundreds of years, right?

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 11:24 AM
And again, as MB so nicely demonstrated, effects of minor site changes, none which are researchable over a 127 year record, can make a significant factor in the data over time.

Fortunately, inhomogeneity in the record can be measured - and adjusted for - without knowing its causes.


So these “adjustments” that your cited research relies heavily on are entirely subjective at best.

Specifically, what do you think is wrong with the Karl and Williams approach?

Sitarro
08-07-2008, 12:41 PM
Out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and look what President Bush's policies have caused........ :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/506834.html?nav=10

Trade winds pick up; fire threat increases
By EDWIN TANJI, City Editor
POSTED: August 6, 2008 Sa
The Maui News / AMANDA COWAN photo

KAHULUI - The return of the trade winds should temper the temperature extremes that occurred around the state over the weekend, but it will be increasing the wildfire threat, Maui weather analyst Glenn James said Tuesday.

Even as a brush fire broke out at Pulehu on Tuesday (see related story below), a fire- weather watch was issued giving notice of an increased fire hazard.

"The National Weather Service issued a watch, which means we all have to be very, very careful about not lighting any fires right now," he said.

It may appear to be an abrupt change in conditions, after Maui County experienced a record low 64 degrees on Sunday that combined with steady afternoon showers to provide another near record 65 degrees on Monday, before the daytime temperature zipped up to a high of 91 degrees that afternoon.

It was all brought on by a low-pressure trough that was sliding north of Kauai, cutting off the normal trade wind flows, said James, senior weather analyst with the Pacific Disaster Center.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 12:51 PM
Out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and look what President Bush's policies have caused........ :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/506834.html?nav=10

Trade winds pick up; fire threat increases
By EDWIN TANJI, City Editor
POSTED: August 6, 2008 Sa
The Maui News / AMANDA COWAN photo

KAHULUI - The return of the trade winds should temper the temperature extremes that occurred around the state over the weekend, but it will be increasing the wildfire threat, Maui weather analyst Glenn James said Tuesday.

Even as a brush fire broke out at Pulehu on Tuesday (see related story below), a fire- weather watch was issued giving notice of an increased fire hazard.

"The National Weather Service issued a watch, which means we all have to be very, very careful about not lighting any fires right now," he said.

It may appear to be an abrupt change in conditions, after Maui County experienced a record low 64 degrees on Sunday that combined with steady afternoon showers to provide another near record 65 degrees on Monday, before the daytime temperature zipped up to a high of 91 degrees that afternoon.

It was all brought on by a low-pressure trough that was sliding north of Kauai, cutting off the normal trade wind flows, said James, senior weather analyst with the Pacific Disaster Center.


Do you understand the term "global" ?

glockmail
08-07-2008, 01:23 PM
Fortunately, inhomogeneity in the record can be measured - and adjusted for - without knowing its causes.



Specifically, what do you think is wrong with the Karl and Williams approach?

1. Not really, since adjusting for unknown, statistically significant variables can only skew the data.
2. Aside from what I've already written and you have failed to factually dispute, not much for now.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 01:57 PM
1. Not really, since adjusting for unknown, statistically significant variables can only skew the data.


Define "unknown statistically significant variable"



2. Aside from what I've already written and you have failed to factually dispute, not much for now.

You haven't specifically stated what your problem with the method is, you've only made general remarks. I sort of have the feeling you aren't at all even familiar with the method. Can you state in a paragraph or less how the method works? Probably not. Yet you dismiss it as flawed. This is because you have decided the method must be wrong since it does not lead to the conclusions you'd like it to, without having even investigating how the method works.

Do I have it right?

Nukeman
08-07-2008, 02:06 PM
Define "unknown statistically significant variable"



You haven't specifically stated what your problem with the method is, you've only made general remarks. I sort of have the feeling you aren't at all even familiar with the method. Can you state in a paragraph or less how the method works? Probably not. Yet you dismiss it as flawed. This is because you have decided the method must be wrong since it does not lead to the conclusions you'd like it to, without having even investigating how the method works.
Do I have it right?
My God Man can you say.

POT MEET KETTLE

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 02:07 PM
My God Man can you say.

POT MEET KETTLE

Please name the specific scientific method I have dismissed as flawed without investigating how the method works.

Nukeman
08-07-2008, 02:11 PM
Please name the specific scientific method I have dismissed as flawed without investigating how the method works.

Basic observation.........

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 02:13 PM
Basic observation.........

Which basic observation?

Nukeman
08-07-2008, 02:16 PM
Which basic observation?

You have done nothing but ridicule someones personal "visual" observation in another thread...

The most basic scientific priciple is OBSERVATION. Or do you not think so....

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 02:38 PM
You have done nothing but ridicule someones personal "visual" observation in another thread...

The most basic scientific priciple is OBSERVATION. Or do you not think so....

I've explained ad nauseum why tidal gauges are more accurate for measuring tide levels than picnic tables. I'll try again, and maybe you can tell me which part you don't get.

1) To measure the level of water with something, you have to put that something IN the water. You can't measure the water level with something that is sitting on land. At least not without lasers or radio waves, neither of which applies to a picnic table.

2) Rulers are better for measuring length than picnic tables.


3) Observations that are written down and recorded are better than observations that someone just recalls from 30 years of memory.



Seriously, what is the flaw in my explanation of why tidal gauges are better for measuring tide levels than picnic tables? Can you point it out to me?


So far 100% of respondents disagree with your assertion that picnic tables are better for recording length than rulers. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16619

Nukeman
08-07-2008, 02:49 PM
I've explained ad nauseum why tidal gauges are more accurate for measuring tide levels than picnic tables. I'll try again, and maybe you can tell me which part you don't get.

1) To measure the level of water with something, you have to put that something IN the water. You can't measure the water level with something that is sitting on land. At least not without lasers or radio waves, neither of which applies to a picnic table.]
and if the gruond has shifted in any way or the observation point has been moved in any way? How acurate can it be. YOU must be able to reproduce your exact same perameters..


2) Rulers are better for measuring length than picnic tables.Nothing was said about length. i am sure you know that this has not always been true due to the fact that an inch used to be b ased on the length of the monarchs thumb..



3) Observations that are written down and recorded are better than observations that someone just recalls from 30 years of memory.
this is very true but how do YOU know this has not been a yearly observation and not "just a 30 year old memory". Who's jumping to conclusions now??


Seriously, what is the flaw in my explanation of why tidal gauges are better for measuring tide levels than picnic tables? Can you point it out to me?There realy is no flaw but you are so quick to dismiss the basic observations of others!!!

S
o far 100% of respondents disagree with your assertion that picnic tables are better for recording length than rulers.

You are such an ass this is not about what is better, it is about observation!!! and a micrometer is better than a ruler.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16619

Sitarro
08-07-2008, 02:49 PM
Do you understand the term "global" ?

I do, do you understand federal grant money for "scientist" that raise alarm over something that man has no control over?

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 03:00 PM
and if the gruond has shifted in any way or the observation point has been moved in any way? How acurate can it be. YOU must be able to reproduce your exact same perameters..


If the ground shifts lower, then the level rises, and if it shifts higher, then it falls, yes.



Nothing was said about length. i am sure you know that this has not always been true due to the fact that an inch used to be b ased on the length of the monarchs thumb..
We have standardized inches today that are much more standardized than the lengths of picnic tables. What do you mean nothing was said about length? The measurement of a tidal level is a measure given in units of length. Typically its the length in feet and inches from a reference point to the level of the water.




this is very true but how do YOU know this has not been a yearly observation and not "just a 30 year old memory". Who's jumping to conclusions now??


Because you can't use picnic tables to measure water levels, especially when the picnic table isn't in the water. What is he going to write down every time he makes an observation? Zero?



There realy is no flaw but you are so quick to dismiss the basic observations of others!!!

I didn't dismiss his observation. I believe that the picnic tables are not submerged. I dismissed his conclusion, which is that the water level hasn't risen an inch. Unless they have 1 inch short picnic tables in Maryland, I don't see how he could have used a picnic table to come to that conclusion.


You are such an ass this is not about what is better, it is about observation!!! and a micrometer is better than a ruler.

You couldn't use a micrometer to measure water levels. So its would be useless.



But since you agree that tidal gauges are better than picnic tables for measuring tide levels, the actual measurement using tidal gauges over the years sort of calls into question the conclusions reached by observing picnic tables. Especially considering the fact that its physically impossible to measure tide levels using a picnic table that's sitting on land.




The current rate of sea-level rise at the mouth of the Chesapeake is about 4 millimeters per year (about 1.3 feet per century) and decreases northward. Tide gauges with longer periods of record, like that at Solomons Island, Md., midway along the length of the bay, record mean sea level since 1937 and illustrate a 3-millimeter-per-year rate of rise (about 1 foot per century) (fig. 6).



http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs102-98/



Do you think that
a) since we both agree tidal gauges are better for measuring water levels than picnic tables, and
b) the observations from tidal gauges conflicts with the observations glockmail made using a picnic table, and
c) Considering the fact that its physically impossible to measure tide levels using a picnic table that's sitting on land.
d) maybe, just MAYBE, glockmail's conclusions are wrong?

crin63
08-07-2008, 03:21 PM
My response is still the same:
http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=281268&postcount=57

No matter what happens the global warming alarmists are going to claim its caused by global warming. If the ice is melting its global warming, if the ice grows its global warming, if it stays the same its global warming, if it rains more its global warming, if theres a drought its global warming.......

No matter what happens it will be caused by global warming because they have already invested to much personal credibility into it for them to admit they're wrong, just like evolution. No amount of evidence is going to change their minds because it will be to costly to retreat now.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 04:57 PM
No matter what happens the global warming alarmists are going to claim its caused by global warming.

Of course they will, that's the definition of "alarmist"

What does this have to do with the science?

glockmail
08-07-2008, 06:41 PM
Define "unknown statistically significant variable"

You haven't specifically stated what your problem with the method is, you've only made general remarks. I sort of have the feeling you aren't at all even familiar with the method. Can you state in a paragraph or less how the method works? Probably not. Yet you dismiss it as flawed. This is because you have decided the method must be wrong since it does not lead to the conclusions you'd like it to, without having even investigating how the method works.

Do I have it right?

1. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. Take a course and ask your prof.
2. As you’ve described it. As I’ve described it, it takes a lot of research to analyze a single station, and again, and was so clearly demonstrated to you, day by day unknown statistically significant variables can affect the data.

SpidermanTUba
08-07-2008, 09:58 PM
1. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics. Take a course and ask your prof.


Oh, I see, you don't know the definition. You'd think if it were an actual phrase used by statisticians, it would show up in a google search. But it doesn't.



2. As you’ve described it. As I’ve described it, it takes a lot of research to analyze a single station, and again, and was so clearly demonstrated to you, day by day unknown statistically significant variables can affect the data.

Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

Said1
08-07-2008, 10:27 PM
Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?


Are you? Please define and name - no need for cut and paste, your own words will do fine as I'm sort of familiar with the gist and terminology.

SpidermanTUba
08-08-2008, 09:34 AM
Are you? Please define and name - no need for cut and paste, your own words will do fine as I'm sort of familiar with the gist and terminology.
Karl, T.R., and C.W. Williams, Jr., 1987: An approach to adjusting climatological time series for discontinuous inhomogeneities, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26, 1744-1763.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/26/12/pdf/i1520-0450-26-12-1744.pdf

glockmail is apparently unable to tell me what's wrong with the method, except that he knows its wrong.

The method, in brief, involves taking pairs of stations in the same region and differencing their sychronous measurements. If the resulting series of differences make up a random set of numbers, the two stations are relatively homogenous. If the set of differences is not entirely random (say one station always registers a temperature higher than the other, plus some random distribution on top of it) - then the stations are not relatively homogenous. By taking every possible pair in the region, its possible to determine what the errors are for each station without having to know their cause.

glockmail
08-08-2008, 10:02 AM
Oh, I see, you don't know the definition. You'd think if it were an actual phrase used by statisticians, it would show up in a google search. But it doesn't.



Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

I sse that you're a "google scientist". That explains why you don't understand my own original words.

I'm interested in a your response from Said1 as well, in your own words.

SpidermanTUba
08-08-2008, 10:20 AM
I sse that you're a "google scientist".

Pretty much every scientist uses google or some internet service to track down references. I'm sorry I don't go to the library and use a card catalogue to find the physical journal so I can take it to the copy machine and copy 20 pages one at a time any more, I like to do research quicker than that.




That explains why you don't understand my own original words.
You don't understand your original words. You make up phrases like "unknown statistically significant variable" and then you're incapable of defining it.




I'm interested in a your response from Said1 as well, in your own words.
Ok. Then READ the above post.


Now you can answer my question:
Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

Until you respond, i'll just assume the answer is "no" and that you did in fact dismiss a method that you know nothing about because you don't like the conclusions it leads to.

glockmail
08-08-2008, 10:57 AM
Pretty much every scientist uses google or some internet service to track down references. I'm sorry I don't go to the library and use a card catalogue to find the physical journal so I can take it to the copy machine and copy 20 pages one at a time any more, I like to do research quicker than that.

You don't understand your original words. You make up phrases like "unknown statistically significant variable" and then you're incapable of defining it.

Ok. Then READ the above post.

Now you can answer my question:
Are you or are you not familiar with the methods used to correct for inhomogeneity in temperature data?

Until you respond, i'll just assume the answer is "no" and that you did in fact dismiss a method that you know nothing about because you don't like the conclusions it leads to.
1. Thanks for verifying my assumptions about your capabilities. Before google we had card files, but they are basically the same thing.
2. If you can’t understand how “unknown” and “statistically significant” modify “variable” then I can’t help you.
3. Oh lookie here, it appears that the scientist who wrote the paper that you cited agrees with me:
1) Accurate and complete station history information is essential to this method. Unfortunately, even with the detailed station histories compiled for the HCN, some stations do not have complete station histories as shown in section 4;
2) station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station;

SpidermanTUba
08-08-2008, 11:53 AM
1. Thanks for verifying my assumptions about your capabilities. Before google we had card files, but they are basically the same thing.

You can safely assume that everyone knows how to use google now. As for card catalogues, I'm old enough I actually know how to use one - but barely. By the time I finished high school they were obsolete.
I use http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html for my research usually.

What do you use to track down papers?


2. If you can’t understand how “unknown” and “statistically significant” modify “variable” then I can’t help you.
I understand what all those words mean individually. You used them in a phrase. Please define precisely what it means. If you don't want to define it, then don't - but don't use it in your arguments. One of the very basic rules of debate is to not use terms you are incapable of defining.



3. Oh lookie here, it appears that the scientist who wrote the paper that you cited agrees with me:[/QUOTE]

1) Only "some stations do not have complete station histories". As described in Hansel et al 1999 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf), stations with insufficient completeness of historical data are eliminated from the survey.

2) This is true, but these stations can also be eliminated by quality control. Stations which experience sudden changes in the monthly mean compared to the long term mean for that month in the area are eliminated. (if they are over a certain number of variances from the mean, I think its 5). Also, the predominant cause of environmental bias - urbanization - is adjusted for as described in the Hansen paper.

glockmail
08-08-2008, 12:21 PM
I'll give you the opportunity to fix your messed up quotations. Your last post is as confused as you obviously are! :laugh2:

SpidermanTUba
08-08-2008, 03:05 PM
You seriously can't figure out which words are your own? Wow. OK.



1. Thanks for verifying my assumptions about your capabilities. Before google we had card files, but they are basically the same thing.

You can safely assume that everyone knows how to use google now. As for card catalogues, I'm old enough I actually know how to use one - but barely. By the time I finished high school they were obsolete.
I use http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html for my research usually.

What do you use to track down papers?

EDIT: Google and card catalogues are not basically the same thing.



Quote:
2. If you can’t understand how “unknown” and “statistically significant” modify “variable” then I can’t help you.
I understand what all those words mean individually. You used them in a phrase. Please define precisely what it means. If you don't want to define it, then don't - but don't use it in your arguments. One of the very basic rules of debate is to not use terms you are incapable of defining.




3. Oh lookie here, it appears that the scientist who wrote the paper that you cited agrees with me:

1) Only "some stations do not have complete station histories". As described in Hansel et al 1999 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/...ansen_etal.pdf), stations with insufficient completeness of historical data are eliminated from the survey.

2) This is true, but these stations can also be eliminated by quality control. Stations which experience sudden changes in the monthly mean compared to the long term mean for that month in the area are eliminated. (if they are over a certain number of variances from the mean, I think its 5). Also, the predominant cause of environmental bias - urbanization - is adjusted for as described in the Hansen paper.

glockmail
08-08-2008, 03:18 PM
Again, according to your citation: "Accurate and complete station history information is essential to this method. Unfortunately, even with the detailed station histories compiled for the HCN, some stations do not have complete station historie... station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station."

SpidermanTUba
08-08-2008, 03:21 PM
Again, according to your citation: "Accurate and complete station history information is essential to this method. Unfortunately, even with the detailed station histories compiled for the HCN, some stations do not have complete station historie... station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station."

Here, in case you missed it the first two times:

1) Only "some stations do not have complete station histories". As described in Hansel et al 1999 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/...ansen_etal.pdf), stations with insufficient completeness of historical data are eliminated from the survey.

2) This is true (station histories rarely include information on environmental changes around the station), but problem stations can also be eliminated by quality control. Stations which experience sudden changes in the monthly mean compared to the long term mean for that month in the area are eliminated. (if they are over a certain number of variances from the mean, I think its 5). Also, the predominant cause of environmental bias - urbanization - is adjusted for as described in the Hansen paper.



And



What do you use to track down papers?




And



Please define "unknown statistically significant variable"

glockmail
08-08-2008, 03:28 PM
I don't need to track down papers, TU-bee. I have actual knowledge.

I can see that you are upset about that, with the repetitive nature of your posts and all.

SpidermanTUba
08-08-2008, 03:31 PM
I don't need to track down papers, TU-bee. I have actual knowledge.

I can see that you are upset about that, with the repetitive nature of your posts and all.




Here, I'll fix your quote for you:


I don't need to track down papers, TU-bee, because I don't read any. I simply decide what is scientific truth and what isn't from reading conservative blogs and watching FOX News. I have no idea how modern scientists do research, I just thought I'd make fun of you for using Google because I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about.

I can see that you are confused, because I've been pretending to be so smart, yet have yet to demonstrate knowledge of anything. But I'm smarter than all the world scientists because I watch FOX News and think sometimes about stuff. Their specialized knowledge and experimental results are nothing compared to my brilliant mind's ability to simply divine what the truth is by thinking hard enough and reading conservative blogs. I'm so smart! So much smarter than you, I don't even have to demonstrate evidence of my intelligence!


Is that about right?

Seriously, you know everything? Its all in your head, every piece of knowledge possible to know? You really think anyone will believe that? Are you as stupid as you think everyone else is?


OK, you've already answered my question about what you use to find papers (you apparently believe NOT finding papers is the best way to find papers, pretty stupid if you ask me.)

There's still this one:



Please define "unknown statistically significant variable"

Said1
08-08-2008, 08:01 PM
I'm interested in a your response from Said1 as well, in your own words.

I know he's banned, but I'd like to comment anyway. Firstly, he did give a brief, accurate blurb in his own words and provided a decent link for those who might be interested. Thankfully, because I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it. :laugh2:

I was going to offer this http://www.met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=seminars&pri=11&mpx=1&sm0=0&tfi=boroneant if anyone cares to take a look at it.

Secondly, anyone who needs to do research uses google or some internet data base or another, get over it.

SpidermanTUba
08-09-2008, 03:16 PM
I know he's banned, but I'd like to comment anyway. Firstly, he did give a brief, accurate blurb in his own words and provided a decent link for those who might be interested. Thankfully, because I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it. :laugh2:

I was going to offer this http://www.met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=seminars&pri=11&mpx=1&sm0=0&tfi=boroneant if anyone cares to take a look at it.

Secondly, anyone who needs to do research uses google or some internet data base or another, get over it.

glockmail doesn't need to use google - he already knows everything.

Said1
08-09-2008, 03:56 PM
glockmail doesn't need to use google - he already knows everything.

DOH!

glockmail
08-10-2008, 09:56 PM
Almost everything, anyway. :laugh2:

SpidermanTUba
08-11-2008, 12:54 PM
Almost everything, anyway. :laugh2:

Here, let me fix that:


I think I know almost everything, but I know nothing.

emmett
08-12-2008, 12:23 AM
glockmail doesn't need to use google - he already knows everything.

Glock is a pretty smart guy!