AGW Theory - Discussion
|
AGW Theory - Discussion
Again, not sure what you're exactly getting at but data correction is done after the data is recorded. There's nothing that prevents us from going back to older records and incorporating those into the new ones. There are also other ways to indirectly measure past temperatures using proxy data. I don't see what you mean by inadequate data.
Hades.Altimaomega said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Because we weren't trying to measure the temperature of the entire globe? Then why are you so sure the climate is changing when we do not have adequate information? How can you possibly claim the Globe is warming when greater processing was required but never taken! Dude you can't win, he'll just use emotional language to argue you in circles. He feelz he is right, therefor he is right regardless of what your hate facts would say. If he was really interested in knowing the planets thermal energy output, aka temperature, he would advocate just measuring it from space where there isn't anything disrupting the measurements. Satellites aren't homogenized because they don't need it. They aren't taking a temperature reading at the ground at a particular spot amongst a UHI, then extrapolating that to represent an entire Alaska worth of real estate, they are taking a direct energy reading of an entire region underneath them.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Wow, thanks man for repeating what I just said. Imagine how much more productive your posts would be if you weren't too afraid to take me off block. Except for he didn't. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » The satellite data being talked about is literally meaningless with regard to temperatures because the raw data are reflectance values (measures of radiation hitting the sensors). These then need to be processed to get the desired data set. Also, these satellites (or any satellite really) need constant corrections for changes in orbit as well as atmospheric corrections. Remember there's a large atmosphere between the satellite and the area of interest so that needs to be accounted for, which requires *ta-dah* adjustments. Asura.Saevel said: » So most of the "adjustments" are just them correcting for the differences in manufacturing, orbits and tuning. It's very well documented, based on thermodynamics, and applied on an individual level to each satellite source. There is no "averaging" or "homogenizing" of the data, it's still raw, just corrected such that they all have the same baseline to compare from. One satellites measurements will have no effect on a nearby satellites data adjustment. The whole process used, including code, is published and open for public inspection. The tuning adjustment values are take from the manufacturers themselves, the drift values from physics calculations. It's a whole system designed for maximum unbiased transparency free from governmental interference, and it was done this way by NASA because they feared a Republican administration would suppress the "Global Warming" evidence they believed, at that time, the satellite system would prove. It didn't happen and now they are kicking themselves in the *** for not putting it under their control.
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » Satellites aren't homogenized because they don't need it. Hades.Altimaomega said: » Except for he didn't.
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Because we weren't trying to measure the temperature of the entire globe? Then why are you so sure the climate is changing when we do not have adequate information? How can you possibly claim the Globe is warming when greater processing was required but never taken! Dude you can't win, he'll just use emotional language to argue you in circles. He feelz he is right, therefor he is right regardless of what your hate facts would say. If he was really interested in knowing the planets thermal energy output, aka temperature, he would advocate just measuring it from space where there isn't anything disrupting the measurements. Satellites aren't homogenized because they don't need it. They aren't taking a temperature reading at the ground at a particular spot amongst a UHI, then extrapolating that to represent an entire Alaska worth of real estate, they are taking a direct energy reading of an entire region underneath them. The problem is, if he did agree with us the world would implode and we would all die anyways.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Again, not sure what you're exactly getting at but data correction is done after the data is recorded. There's nothing that prevents us from going back to older records and incorporating those into the new ones. There are also other ways to indirectly measure past temperatures using proxy data. I don't see what you mean by inadequate data. Do you just not retain information when we start a new page? This is a completely ignorant statement when taken into context of what is being discussed. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Different satellites at different orbits at different heights above the earth measuring surface temperatures at different areas all at different times of the day all combined into one data set would need correction. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » You are correct. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » My version was
[+]
So your argument is editing my quoted posts. And here I thought you might actually be listening. Nothing I wrote was hostile or condescending towards you and the only thing you can do is blow it off. You're the worst kind of science critic. The kind that has zero knowledge of the topic and has no intention of learning anything yet still think their opinion matters. Clueless and ignorant no matter the topic, as usual.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » So your argument is editing my quoted posts. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » So your argument is editing my quoted posts.And here I thought you might actually be listening. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Nothing I wrote was hostile or condescending towards you Cerberus.Pleebo said: » You're the worst kind of science critic. The kind that has zero knowledge of the topic and has no intention of learning anything yet still think their opinion matters. Clueless and ignorant no matter the topic, as usual. Looks like Saev was right again. Asura.Saevel said: » Dude you can't win, he'll just use emotional language to argue you in circles. He feelz he is right, therefor he is right regardless of what your hate facts would say.
[+]
With an amazing scientific breakthrough, Climate Scientists have discovered the sun has a huge impact on our climate.
Quote: Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » If he was really interested in knowing the planets thermal energy output, aka temperature, he would advocate just measuring it from space where there isn't anything disrupting the measurements. Satellites aren't homogenized because they don't need it. They aren't taking a temperature reading at the ground at a particular spot amongst a UHI, then extrapolating that to represent an entire Alaska worth of real estate, they are taking a direct energy reading of an entire region underneath them. Thermal sounding is notorious for having issues with cloud cover / water vapor, which is why it is correlated with microwave sounding. Not just that, but a good number of satellites (at least up until around mid-00s) are(or were) primarily focused on weather-related data collection, not climate-related collection. You need significantly better accuracy for climate-related collection, as you are working against small variances over long timespans (and have to account for drift of various components of the sensors over time and temperature (e.g. aging of capacitors)). And that doesn't even get into all the various issues just with regards to external interference to the observing platform (i.e. radiation). There's quite a impressive and ongoing body of work involved in the various approaches of verifying/correcting/excluding satellite measurements. Here's a ready example of this type of activity.
[+]
Hades.Altimaomega said: » With an amazing scientific breakthrough, Climate Scientists have discovered the sun has a huge impact on our climate. Quote: Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate".
[+]
Asura.Saevel said: » It's a whole system designed for maximum unbiased transparency free from governmental interference, and it was done this way by NASA because they feared a Republican administration would suppress the "Global Warming" evidence they believed, at that time, the satellite system would prove. It didn't happen and now they are kicking themselves in the *** for not putting it under their control.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » With an amazing scientific breakthrough, Climate Scientists have discovered the sun has a huge impact on our climate. Quote: Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate". So the IPCC an arm of the U.N. is above reproach? A lot of scientists are mentioned in this article. Look up the work and papers they do! In this day and age I'd love to hear what news source you think should be taken seriously. I really cannot think of even 1, the best we can do is take in all the information possible and form our opinions based on what we learn.
[+]
Hades.Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » With an amazing scientific breakthrough, Climate Scientists have discovered the sun has a huge impact on our climate. Quote: Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate". So the IPCC an arm of the U.N. is above reproach? A lot of scientists are mentioned in this article. Look up the work and papers they do! In this day and age I'd love to hear what news source you think should be taken seriously. I really cannot think of even 1, the best we can do is take in all the information possible and form our opinions based on what we learn. He doesn't want the published paper "interpreted" from any news source. He wants to read the actual published paper that the story was about. If you can't check the citations of a news source -especially when it's an easily verifiable research paper- than that news source doesn't need to be considered a source of news. Manyy, many news agencies are bad about linking primary documents that can support their article. Bahamut.Kara said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » With an amazing scientific breakthrough, Climate Scientists have discovered the sun has a huge impact on our climate. Quote: Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate". So the IPCC an arm of the U.N. is above reproach? A lot of scientists are mentioned in this article. Look up the work and papers they do! In this day and age I'd love to hear what news source you think should be taken seriously. I really cannot think of even 1, the best we can do is take in all the information possible and form our opinions based on what we learn. He doesn't want the published paper "interpreted" from any news source. He wants to read the actual published paper that the story was about. If you can't check the citations of a news source -especially when it's an easily verifiable research paper- than that news source doesn't need to be considered a source of news. Manyy, many news agencies are bad about linking primary documents that can support their article. No, I didn't. I addressed both his points and basically said exactly what you said as well. If he really cared to have an informed opinion he would look up all the scientists names mentioned and the study's they conduct. Hades.Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Hades.Altimaomega said: » With an amazing scientific breakthrough, Climate Scientists have discovered the sun has a huge impact on our climate. Quote: Scientists at the Climate and Environmental Physics and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Berne in Switzerland have recently backed up theories that support the sun's importance in determining the climate on Earth. A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims by IPCC scientists that the sun couldn't be responsible for major shifts in climate. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, rejected IPCC assertions that solar variations don't matter. Among the many studies and authorities she cited was the National Research Council's recent report "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate". So the IPCC an arm of the U.N. is above reproach? A lot of scientists are mentioned in this article. Look up the work and papers they do! In this day and age I'd love to hear what news source you think should be taken seriously. I really cannot think of even 1, the best we can do is take in all the information possible and form our opinions based on what we learn. He doesn't want the published paper "interpreted" from any news source. He wants to read the actual published paper that the story was about. If you can't check the citations of a news source -especially when it's an easily verifiable research paper- than that news source doesn't need to be considered a source of news. Manyy, many news agencies are bad about linking primary documents that can support their article. No, I didn't. I addressed both his points and basically said exactly what you said as well. If he really cared to have an informed opinion he would look up all the scientists names mentioned and the study's they conduct. In that entire article, only one item is actually called out; that is the "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate", which, according to the actual document: TheReport_pgVII-VIII_reference_doi:10.17226/13519 said: This workshop report contains no recommendations, findings, or statements of consensus. Instead, this workshop report summarizes the views expressed by individual workshop participants (invited speakers and guests). Also included is background information intended to provide context to the reader on both the solar and climate science topics presented at the workshop; however, this is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the current state of the science. Although the committee is responsible for the overall quality and accuracy of the report as a record of what transpired at the workshop, the views contained in the report are not necessarily those of all workshop participants, the committee, or the National Research Council. But if you are reading something that says items along the lines of: Quote: A paper published last year by the American Meteorological Society contradicts claims You should just stop reading anything by that author. To give an example, the AMS has 11 journals, each of which has anywhere between 6 to 16 publications in a year's span (volume). Each publication may have anywhere from 1 to 30ish entries. So that opinion article is giving you a target of anywhere from 60 to 5000 targets to look into. There may very well be more than one paper published which contradict claims by the IPCC. But you won't know which damn paper your writer is writing about. So no, saying Hades.Altimaomega said: » If he really cared to have an informed opinion he would look up all the scientists names mentioned and the study's they conduct. If I care to have an informed opinion, I can read the specific paper, note the methodologies and assumptions, and understand the results in context with the limitations of the methodology and assumptions. If you are just reading whatever tom *** and harry decides to post as an opinion article on a sixth-rate site, and claiming that as being valid news of any sort (or as a basis for forming any opinion)....
[+]
[+]
Saevel conveniently blocked the most knowledgeable person on this topic.
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Saevel conveniently blocked the most knowledgeable person on this topic. ah yes...the old... jam your fingers in your ears and scream LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! technique... I hear that Werner Karl Heisenberg used to do that to albert einstein whenever they disagreed on supporting the war effort... Shiva.Nikolce said: » I hear that Werner Karl Heisenberg used to do that to albert einstein whenever they disagreed on supporting the war effort...
[+]
I couldn't find the paper but this synopsis of the meeting mentions nothing about climate. The research team proposed a model of solar sunspot activity, suggesting a rare occurrence of conditions leading to a Maunder Minimum.
Why certain media outlets came to associate this with another ice age probably comes from the fact that the last Minumum occurred during the Little Ice Age. However, Quote: The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still controversial, as no convincing mechanism for the solar activity to produce cold temperatures has been proposed,[12] and the current best hypothesis for the cause of the Little Ice Age is that it was the result of volcanic action.[13][14] The onset of the Little Ice Age also occurred well before the beginning of the Maunder minimum.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#Little_Ice_Age Dunno, but it might be fun to head over to that conference next year.
The press release for the talk is here, but cant find any other information on it: https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo
[+]
Quote: “Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950…. A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII, a clear warming appears – although it never existed,” Ederer writes. “Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C. … The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.” http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/german-scientist-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature
[+]
Did the conversation from the past page and a half somehow leak out of your brain and sublimate into nothingness? The thread is like the Fifty First Dates of climate arguments where every bump brings up some busted point from earlier as if that debate never happened.
[+]
I've mentioned several times that NASA and NOAA frequently alter the archived temperature records in order to manipulate the trend lines. It's why I only look at satellite data now as that's available to everyone in raw form without that kind of deliberate manipulation. NASA still kicking themselves in the *** for allowing that to happen.
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.