President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

Previous Thread Next Thread
eznutz

eznutz

Active member
Jul 17, 2007
2,394
0
36
Deceptive temperature record claims: Warmest month announcements have no scientific basis
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that according to their calculations, July 2015 was the hottest month since instrumental records began in 1880. NOAA says that the record was set by eight one-hundredths of a degree Celsius over that set in July 1998. NASA calculates that July 2015 beat what they assert was the previous warmest month (July 2011) by two one-hundredths of a degree.

But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.

So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.
Click to expand...
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
basketcase said:
What it means is you are completely clueless about science. Maybe you think rock and roll attained perfection in 1974 and there is no need for change but science is about EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...
I still think it's hilarious that you think it's OK that the IPCC misrepresented the science on global warming because it was 20 years ago.

It's even funnier that you assert that anyone who thinks it might be a problem that the conclusion was reached before there was any evidence must be "completely clueless about science."

But since you raise the point about 1995 -- let's see how things have progressed since then.

The Climategate emails that confirmed the lead researchers would go to improper (and possibly illegal) lengths to push their ideological agenda are as recent as 2009: http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.ca/2011/09/climategate-and-peer-review.html

Gavin Schmidt's admission that NASA was lying in its news release about 2014 being the warmest year was made in January 2015: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html

The times they aren't a-changin'.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
bishop said:
If you are going to use that argument then you have to justify why now scientists are correct,...
Click to expand...
What a scientifically illiterate question. Science is not 'right'. It is a method that comes to the best possible conclusion based on the evidence available.


If compelling evidence is discovered, the conclusions will change. And MF claims of scientists lying is not evidence.
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
Moviefan-2 said:
"Tied"???

You posted -- in three different threads -- that the updated graphs would show that 2014 was 0.18 degrees C warmer than 2010.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753

When I told you that you were wrong and that the two years are statistically tied, you said I was "an outright liar to the groggy extreme."

It certainly appears to resolve one thing. :thumb:
Click to expand...
Wow, not only are you scientifically illiterate but also lack the ability to follow a simple sentence. If you were able to follow, you would understand that I was making fun of your claims of them being tied for first and therefore not important.
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
Moviefan-2 said:
Excellent article.

I find it amazing that guys like Groggy and Basketcase can get excited about a reported temperature change of 2/100ths of a degree -- for the entire planet -- and then claim the rest of us don't understand "the science." :D
Click to expand...
I am concerned about continual changes of .02 degrees. I also have a clue about how sensitive ecosystems can be to change.

Usain Bolt just won the 100 m gold by 0.01 s. Maybe you think they should all share the gold because it was a small difference.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
basketcase said:
Wow, not only are you scientifically illiterate but also lack the ability to follow a simple sentence. If you were able to follow, you would understand that I was making fun of your claims of them being tied for first and therefore not important.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think you're just plain illiterate.

You said the updated graphs for 2014 would show the temperature was 0.18 degrees Celsius higher than 2010. In fact, the actual results show the temperature has been stagnant throughout the 21st century.

Is that important? Sure. It confirms there is no evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
basketcase said:
Misrepresented? That's another of your far out claims of scientists lying.
Click to expand...
The scientists said there was no evidence that man-made emissions were causing warming. The IPCC reported there was evidence.

I'm guessing you don't know what the word "misrepresented" means.
 
B

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,494
6,716
113
Moviefan-2 said:
...In fact, the actual results show the temperature has been stagnant throughout the 21st century.
....
Click to expand...
Only if you continue your bullshit claims that scientists are lying.


You said the updated graphs for 2014 would show the temperature was 0.18 degrees Celsius higher than 2010.
Click to expand...
Sure doesn't sound like something I said. I know I posted several articles where scientists posted results of months or years being the hottest recorded but you keep making excuses about them.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
basketcase said:
Only if you continue your bullshit claims that scientists are lying.
Click to expand...
More nonsense.

I included your "adjusted" numbers in my list of results. Here it is again:

- NASA's "adjusted" graph shows the temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was only 0.02 degrees Celsius. In the case of the inflated increase for 2014, it still only produces an increase of 0.05 degrees Celsius over 2005, which is within the margin of error.

- The HadCRUT4 data of surface temperatures showed the temperature in 2014 was the same as 1998, 2005 and 2010.

- The Berkeley Earth Science data of surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.

- The Japan Meteorological Agency data of surface temperatures show 2005, 2010 and 2014 were all similar and all three years had slightly lower temperatures than 1998.

- The RSS satellite data show there hasn't been any warming for more than 18 years.

- The University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite data show the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature in 2000.

The data -- including your adjusted data -- show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.

The predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature were spectacularly wrong.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
basketcase said:
I am concerned about continual changes of .02 degrees.
Click to expand...
By the way, if you take a look at that "adjusted" NASA graph that you and Groggy love so much, it shows the Earth's temperature increasing by about 0.6 degrees Celsius from 1910 to the mid-1940s -- during a period when natural factors were clearly the predominant cause of warming.

In a world that can experience that kind of natural fluctuation, it's more than a little difficult to believe that a 0.02 degrees increase over a period of anywhere from four to 15 years must be anthropogenic. :thumb:
 
G

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,358
12
38
bishop said:
If you mean reliable like if a car is reliable, then the answer is that wind turbines are supremely reliable, a wind turbine is basically and AC motor which has been tried and true for close to a century. Wind Turbines do not spin at high speeds and even if they did; the ball bearings are the only part on a wind turbine that would wear out and should be easy to replace.

If you mean reliable as in how reliable is the wind in any given period, the answer is that it is as reliable as wind.
Click to expand...
I mean unreliable as in the wind as a source. (Those windmill generators are reliable, and I know that they must use different gears to drive those motors as efficiently as possible under varying conditions).

If battery technology gets better, then perhaps, it can be a major source of power?
 
Last edited:
G

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,358
12
38
Moviefan-2 said:
By the way, if you take a look at that "adjusted" NASA graph that you and Groggy love so much, it shows the Earth's temperature increasing by about 0.6 degrees Celsius from 1910 to the mid-1940s -- during a period when natural factors were clearly the predominant cause of warming.

In a world that can experience that kind of natural fluctuation, it's more than a little difficult to believe that a 0.02 degrees increase over a period of anywhere from four to 15 years must be anthropogenic. :thumb:
Click to expand...

What natural factors are you talking about? Can you prove cause and effect?

Industry and transportation (both based on fossil fuels) has grown from 1910 to 1940 quite significantly too.
 
B

bishop

Banned
Nov 26, 2002
1,800
0
36
basketcase said:
What a scientifically illiterate question. Science is not 'right'. It is a method that comes to the best possible conclusion based on the evidence available.


If compelling evidence is discovered, the conclusions will change. And MF claims of scientists lying is not evidence.
Click to expand...
I used the word correct, and you playing a word game does in no way serve any purpose other than obfuscating your burden to justify your statements.

Which breakthrough or technology makes current AWG theories more correct than that from 1995?
 
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,369
8,038
113
Room 112
GPIDEAL said:
What natural factors are you talking about? Can you prove cause and effect?

Industry and transportation (both based on fossil fuels) has grown from 1910 to 1940 quite significantly too.
Click to expand...
No more than you can prove cause and effect regarding CO2 emissions. Climate is a chaotic system, too many factors at play to quantify any one's measure to earth's warming and cooling. Anyone who says differently has an agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom