|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
|
OP
Adept
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642 |
Moxie stfu,
Waste of space
k thnx
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
|
|
OP
Adept
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642 |
Flea, if you can post any scientific article that uses the scientific method to disprove global warming I would appreciate it. I haven't found one that exists. Dr Jim Salinger (who no longer works for NIWA) started this graph in the 1980s when he was
at CRU (Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK) and it has been updated
with the most recent data. It?s published on NIWA?s website at: Out of all of the people who claim global warming is a hoax, there doesn't seem to be at least 1 intelligent guy who can formulate that theory on paper. Why do you think that is Flea? -Rainman The burden of proof is on the believers, not the other way around. The science that "ends the debate" is to be scrutinized, either to support or destroy its theory. http://www.drroyspencer.com/Former NASA scientist Demonstration 1 Satellite proof Other graphs and models Additional Raw Data PDF No one from the IPCC will debate the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
|
|
OP
Adept
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642 |
Rainman] FLea]Of course there will be global warmingists trying to debunk the petition with fake signatures, the global warming farce is political. A few bad apples do not spoil a tree.
A few do not discredit the bunch. The petition is valid.
Ohhhh the irony. I laughed out loud when I read that shit. Are you fucking with me bro? I am not. Anything I or [LoD]EE post doesn't seem to hold any weight (to you), including the recent news of CRU. How many entities must fall like CRU and the New Zealand government in order for you to question your own inclinations? I do think you are correct, the debate is over.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,491
Lord of Canucks
|
|
Lord of Canucks
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,491 |
FLea]Moxie stfu,
Waste of space
k thnx Well that wasnt the warmingist reception ive ever had
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642
Adept
|
|
OP
Adept
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,642 |
Moxie] FLea]Moxie stfu,
Waste of space
k thnx Well that wasnt the warmingist reception ive ever had Rofl, ok that was worthy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,076
LoD Groupie w/ privileges
|
|
LoD Groupie w/ privileges
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,076 |
I think money is the leading factor in this. Both from a governmental standpoint and a scientific. Basically, if you dont show results you wont get the funding. There is a reason why those not going along with the pack were being stiffled and shut up, because if they were allowed to speak and it was shown that this 'man made global climate change' was a hoax than the funding, the BILLIONS of dollars at stake would dry up. Of course, the warming on the other planets in the solar system have nothing to do with that is going on with the Earth. There is no connecting factor, we know its not the SUV's. It could not possibly be a cycle of the sun, not even remotly. It could not be a regular change on the planet it has to be man made and only man made and the planet and those living on it cant survive it. Nothing changes here, ever. It has to be taxed, the businesses and its citizens, that is the only way to cure this problem, buy carbon credits, BUY BUY BUY and TAX TAX TAX! There is a reason why there is a uproar about the IPCC because it one agency is doing it, chances are other are as well and I am sure, in time we will find that being the case. Its all about the Benjamins. Climategate: Follow the Money Wall Street Journal Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called?without irony?the climate change "consensus." To read some of the press accounts of these gifts?amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion?you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere. Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data?facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU. But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them. Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries? Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California?apparently not feeling bankrupt enough?devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal. And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"?largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes?of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely. Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them. Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate-change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God. None of these outfits are per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent?including the thousands of jobs they provide?vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science. Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!" This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble. Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Last edited by [LoD]EE; 12/02/09 08:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,811
The Angry Mythbuster
|
|
The Angry Mythbuster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,811 |
Feel proud that you never once used independent thought to investigate this issue beyond these forums? I asked for proof from any scientist out there that global warming is a hoax. You would think it wouldn't be hard to find since 19,000 people with PHD's signed a document saying global warming is a hoax. Probably, because only 300 on that list of 19,000 were actually scientists who studied climate, and 300 is such a tiny percent they are statistically equivalent to 9/10 scientists agree that global warming data checks out with our current data sets. Same as if I said 1/10 people who read this are to retarded to comprehend any of it. Roy Spencer's report in which he based his book was found to have satellite data errors found by Mears & Wentz. Two other reports showing spencers inaccurate data was written by Santer & Sherwood. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1082393v1Roy Spencers reply, In one of a trio of new global warming papers in Science, Mears & Wentz (2005) address what they consider to be a large source of uncertainty in our (University of Alabama in Huntsville, "UAH") satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric ("LT") temperature trends since 1979. The satellite measurements come from the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs) flying on NOAA's polar orbiting weather satellites. The UAH estimate of the globally averaged trend since 1979 to the present has been +0.09 deg. C/decade, considerably below the surface thermometer estimate that has been hovering around +0.20 deg. C/decade for the same period of record. This discrepancy between the UAH satellite LT trends and the surface thermometer trends has caused some consternation, since what we understand of atmospheric physics suggests that sustained warming at the surface should be amplified with height in the troposphere, not reduced. Mears & Wentz, who are very capable remote sensing experts from Remote Sensing Systems ("RSS", Santa Rosa, California), found that the LT trend was particularly sensitive to the UAH method for removing the drift of the satellites through the local observing time. The satellites are launched into sun-synchronous orbits that are meant to cross over the same Earth locations at approximately the same time each day. But since the satellites do not have on-board propulsion, the satellites fall slowly back to Earth, which changes their orbital characteristics. In particular, what began as early afternoon observations from the daylight side of the "afternoon satellites" orbits drift to later in the day over the several years of each satellite's lifetime. This causes a spurious cooling trend as the Earth observations are made later in the afternoon to the evening. The UAH method for removing this drift depended upon the spacecraft roll attitude (the accuracy with which it was pointing straight down, and not sideways) being almost exactly the same during the day side of the orbit as the night side. The new research paper presents Mears & Wentz's own estimate of LT trends using diurnal cycle corrections based upon a climate model estimate of the daily (diurnal) cycle of temperature at different levels in the atmosphere, on a global basis.
Their final estimate of the global lower tropospheric trend through 2004 is +0.19 deg. C/decade, very close to the surface thermometer estimate, and this constitutes the primary news value of their report.While their criticism of the UAH diurnal cycle adjustment method is somewhat speculative, Mears & Wentz were additionally able to demonstrate to us, privately, that there is an error that arises from our implementation of the UAH technique. This very convincing demonstration, which is based upon simple algebra and was discovered too late to make it into their published report, made it obvious to us that the UAH diurnal correction method had a bias that needed to be corrected.Since we (UAH) had already been working on a new diurnal adjustment technique, based upon the newer and more powerful AMSUs that have been flying since 1998, we rushed our new method to completion recently, and implemented new corrections. As a result, the UAH global temperature trends for the period 1979 to the present have increased from +0.09 to +0.12 deg. C/decade -- still below the RSS estimate of +0.19 deg. C/decade. Our new AMSU-based (observed) diurnal cycle adjustments end up being very similar to RSS's climate model (theoretical) adjustments. So why the remaining difference between the trends produced by the two groups? While this needs to be studied further, it looks like the reason is the same as that determined for the discrepancy in deep-tropospheric satellite estimates between the two groups: the way in which successive satellites in the long satellite time series are intercalibrated. There has been a continuing, honest difference of opinion between UAH and RSS about how this should best be done. In a paper accompanying the Mears and Wentz paper, a new analysis of radiosonde (weather balloon) data by Sherwood et al. also obtains larger levels of warming than have been previously reported. No other radiosonde dataset that has attempted to adjust for the calibration artifacts discussed therein has produced warming estimates as high as those obtained in this new study. As is always the case, it will take a while for the research community to form opinions about whether the new radiosonde adjustments advocated in this work are justified. At a minimum, the new work shows that at least one method for analysis of the weather balloon data (which have traditionally supported the much smaller satellite trends from UAH) results in trends much closer to the warmer surface thermometer trends. The third paper (Santer et al, 2005) takes a more thorough look at the theoretical expectation that surface warming should be amplified with height in the troposphere. The authors restate what had already been known: that the UAH satellite warming estimates were at odds with theoretical expectations (as had been some radiosonde measures). Now, the convergence of these newly reported satellite and radiosonde estimates toward the surface warming estimates, if taken at face value, provides better agreement with climate models' explanation of how the climate system behaves. I only hope that the appearance of these three papers together, with considerable overlapping of authorship, does not represent an attempt to make measurements fit theoretical models. For when this happens, actual measurements can no longer fulfill their critical role in independent validation of climate models. Ideally, measurements would be analyzed with no knowledge of what any given theory predicts they should be. What will all of this mean for the global warming debate? Probably less than the media spin will make of it. At a minimum, the new reports show that it is indeed possible to analyze different temperature datasets in such a way that they agree with current global warming theory. Nevertheless, all measurements systems have errors (especially for climate trends), and researchers differ in their views of what kinds of errors exist, and how they should be corrected. As pointed out by Santer et al., it is with great difficulty that our present weather measurement systems (thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites) are forced to measure miniscule climate trends. What isn't generally recognized is that the satellite-thermometer difference that has sparked debate in recent years has largely originated over the tropical oceans -- the trends over northern hemispheric land areas, where most people live, have been almost identical. On the positive side, at least some portion of the disagreement between satellite and thermometer estimates of global temperature trends has now been removed. This helps to further shift the global warming debate out of the realm of "is warming happening?" to "how much has it warmed, and how much will it warm in the future?". (Equally valid questions to debate are "how much of the warmth is man-made?", "is warming necessarily a bad thing?", and "what can we do about it anyway?"). And this is where the debate should be. REFERENCES Mears, C.A., and F.J. Wentz, 2005: The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature. August 11, online at http://www.scienceexpress.org.Santer, B.D., et al., 2005: Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. August 11, online at http://www.scienceexpress.org.Sherwood, S., J. Lanzante, and C. Meyer, 2005: Radiosonde daytime biases and late 20th century warming. August 11, online at http://www.scienceexpress.org.Nobody wants to debate him? Get the fuck out of here. You don't know jack shit. Why don't you post something scientific instead of all these articles discussing human error. Like your boy Roy Spencer admits to above. It happens all the time. He claims he didn't do it intentionally, but he's affiliates with some strange characters himself. I honestly look forward to any future data he publishes, but right now he is on the talk show circuit and selling his book based entirely off an error filled report. He is also a member of a large cult who believes in world wide conspiracies. This is true now. These guys believe that one day a bright lighted monster which I imagine looks like mothra) is going to visit from outer space, zap 34.5% of the population and make them disappear. Then this mothra like monster goes on a rampage sending down multiple curses and horrors for 7 years. After those 7 years anyone who worships mothra will get zapped and sent into heaven, everyone else has to deal with godzilla and burn in hell forever. Now people can believe whatever they want in my opinion, and I understand when people are religious for family, cultural, charitable, or personal reasons. However, when you are one of the lead scientific advisors for said cult and you believe in that stuff with no factual evidence to support it. I have to question everything else you believe if you fail to show factual evidence for that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,076
LoD Groupie w/ privileges
|
|
LoD Groupie w/ privileges
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,076 |
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data
The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.
Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.
His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.
The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.
The center has also had to acknowledge in response to a freedom of information request under British law that it tossed out much of the raw data that it used to draw up the temperature models that have underpinned much of the science behind global warming.
Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data-shaving has happened at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), another leading global warming research center.
Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said they are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.
"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."
He said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn't say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data. The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.
"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week.
But Republicans on Capitol Hill say the revelations deserve a congressional investigation. Republican leaders also sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson Wednesday telling her she should withdraw a series of EPA rules until the global warming science can be better substantiated. For now, climate scientists are rallying around the British researchers.
Michael Mann, a scientist at Penn State University who is under fire for his involvement in the British e-mail exchanges, said the e-mails' release was timed to skunk up next week's U.N. global warming summit in Copenhagen. Mr. Obama is planning to attend.
"They've taken scientists' words and phrases and quoted them out of context, completely misrepresenting what they were saying," Mr. Mann told AccuWeather.com in an interview, calling it a "manufactured controversy."
NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
The institute blamed a "minor data processing error" for the changes but says it doesn't make much difference since the top three years remain in a "statistical tie" either way.
Mr. Horner said he's seeking the data itself, but he also wants to see the chain of e-mails from scientists discussing the changes.
The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days. Mr. Horner says he's never received an official acknowledgement of his three separate FOIA requests, but has received e-mails showing the agency is aware of them.
He said he has provided NASA with a notice of intent to sue under FOIA, but said he also hopes members of Congress get involved and demand the information be released.
NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.
On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,811
The Angry Mythbuster
|
|
The Angry Mythbuster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,811 |
"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive." Oh so that article is completely speculative with no evidence and you decided to post that as an intelligent response? What about the quote above where they state they are getting his requests, but it takes longer than the impatient fag can handle? It's from your own fucking article. Pay attention. Still awaiting evidence GM is fake. So are most climate panels who have offered $10,000 dollars to anyone who can show a research paper with scientific proof that global warming isn't occurring. Funny how you have all these links to global warming denialists. Yet none of them are capable of collecting a cash reward for posting any evidence of their theory. Probably because out of the thousands of posts you can link here. None of them actually have any evidence. Except Roy Spencer who Flea posted about. Not knowing that he undermines Flea's entire argument that GMing is a hoax. Since Roy Spencer publicly stated Global Warming is\has been happening and I quote: "We are not saying that we don't believe that there can be significant global warming. If you add CO2, something has to change. But things are changing all the time anyway. The big question is: So what?" Flea and EE. Why don't you guys partner up and do the algebra and collect that reward? Nobody else seems to be able to do it, and you guys seem to know all these crazy things that scientists have never ever ever ever ever ever pondered before.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,825
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,825 |
wheres the link to the scientific methodology that the climate change is real?
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
29
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
