Global Temperature Update through April...
- Thread starter gracetoyou
- Start date
What about the ones that don't wear any:scream::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::clap:kay::cool2::sunglasses:
Don't let them sit on your couch on a hot day.
Because numbers can be manipulated =/= numbers were manipulated. It's not every compelling to throw out every number (that doesn't support your view) with accusations of manipulation and grant money.
Why haven't climate models made accurate predictions?
As I have stated several times in these threads, I have no doubt whatsoever the climate is changing. I have no doubt whatsoever that man is responsible for a small part of that change.
My problem is with the exaggerated warming numbers, the exaggerated effect of CO2, the exaggerated claims of calamity, and the exaggerated role assigned to human activities.
If you are not aware of the manipulation of raw data, then you are not educated on the subject well enough to seriously discuss it. If you believe the resulting numbers represent a "fact", then you don't understand the word "fact".
As I have stated several times in these threads, I have no doubt whatsoever the climate is changing. I have no doubt whatsoever that man is responsible for a small part of that change.
My problem is with the exaggerated warming numbers, the exaggerated effect of CO2, the exaggerated claims of calamity, and the exaggerated role assigned to human activities.
If you are not aware of the manipulation of raw data, then you are not educated on the subject well enough to seriously discuss it. If you believe the resulting numbers represent a "fact", then you don't understand the word "fact".
The raw data HAS to be adjusted. That is not the problem. The amount of adjustment and the time periods being adjusted leads to the problem.
Temperature data is created for regions that lack a reporting station. They may get close to what the temp actually was, maybe as close a 1 degree. It's still a guess.
Stations moved over time. Infrastructure caused changes in readings independent of the climate. Liquid thermometers were replaced with electronic devices. Many changes occurred over the last 150 years and they all have to be homogenized into one final number.
So, after all the adjustments, after all the manipulation and manufacture of data, we arrive at a theoretical number and proclaim something like "2014 is the hottest year in the history of the Earth by a significant .04 degrees." You call that a "fact".
Why don't you attempt to answer the question about the models? They are very important in the argument for AGW.
Temperature data is created for regions that lack a reporting station. They may get close to what the temp actually was, maybe as close a 1 degree. It's still a guess.
Stations moved over time. Infrastructure caused changes in readings independent of the climate. Liquid thermometers were replaced with electronic devices. Many changes occurred over the last 150 years and they all have to be homogenized into one final number.
So, after all the adjustments, after all the manipulation and manufacture of data, we arrive at a theoretical number and proclaim something like "2014 is the hottest year in the history of the Earth by a significant .04 degrees." You call that a "fact".
Why don't you attempt to answer the question about the models? They are very important in the argument for AGW.
ymmot31, you are making an irrational "argument" that is really pointless to even read. If you have specific data that you would like to challenge in the IPCC report or any of the work done by the NSAs around the world then specifically address those issues. All the data is there and laid bare for examination. There really is no point in saying "well, they got this one thing wrong so all human scientific knowledge on climate change is invalid" because that is, well, absurd. Point specifically to what the error(s) are in the calculations in the latest IPCC report then we'll consider your arguments. We have the entire world pouring over those reports with thousands of the greatest minds trying to disprove any or all of it so step up and take your swing if you've got something besides utter nonsense. Big Energy and Coal will pay you a fortune for your work. I hate to see you miss out like this and waste your findings on an obscure message board when you could be profiting handsomely from your hard work.
Ymmot31 sounds EXACTLY like a really good friend of mine that I play golf with often. My friend just completely ignores all rational conversation on the subject of global warming, and instead is obsessed that somebody, somewhere has cooked up all these manipulated numbers to establish a world hegemony of tree hugging anarchists who want to take away all his money and cars and destroy the American way of life. It doesn't matter how many glaciers melt, how many thousands are killed in heat waves in India and Pakistan, how many scientific journals publish studies, how many world records for warmest month ever are set . . . it is all a pack of lies and is not "fact", not based on "science", etc. Do they sell these talking points on an internet site somewhere? Honestly, they are singing from the same hymnal.
Ymmot31, seriously, are you a golfer here in Lexington?
Sure it is, but that doesn't mean you just discount all the research and put your head in the sand.
What will the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones be on July 22, 2016? What will interest rates or the unemployment rate be a year from now? That too is very complex, hard to predict, yet hundreds of economists have studied these things, and our elected officials are expected to make informed decisions on public policy based on their best estimate of what the future holds. Why is climate science so much harder for people to understand that we have to use the best scientific knowledge we have and try to make the best informed decisions we can make? (Taking no action is a decision)
Wow...this thread fired up.
BTW...this will be the hottest year on record with this strong El Nino. There's nothing that will prevent it except a massive volcanic blast...like Mt. Pinitubo back in 1991.
BTW...this will be the hottest year on record with this strong El Nino. There's nothing that will prevent it except a massive volcanic blast...like Mt. Pinitubo back in 1991.
My issue with it is that data from the 19th century is used with data from highly sensitive accurate devices of today. There is no way you or anyone else can convince me that it's possible to compare the two. You can't do it without filling in some blanks.
Its all about public opinion and very little to do with accuracy. As far as the Dow jones, that's something that man can without a doubt control. The weather is something we're trying to convince ourselves we can.
If you had never heard about climate change would you think the climate had or was changing? No, but we hear over and over and over that we're facing imminent doom. The governor of California is at the Vatican talking about extinction if we don't act now!
Its weather, there's droughts, Hurricane, heat waves, cold spells, blizzards and on and on. It's always been that way, only before we weren't conditioned to blame it climate change.
No one is saying we shouldn't be responsible stewards of the land, but let's be reasonable about it.
I agree to a certain degree. All the doomsday talk is bologna & always hurts the cause in the long-run.
We do have a problem & it needs to be addressed but there's no weather events going on globally other than natural occurrences like El Nino that is enhancing India heatwave etc. More rainfall globally is due to a warming globe...but that can be good, not bad. We've warmed globally due to nature & humans.
The California drought is just natural variation just like the Texas drought a few years ago was.
I do believe the warmer waters surfacing in the Pacific are enhanced by the ocean's absorbing more heat than they normally would due to greenhouse gases.
But with all that said...we can't afford to ignore the problem either.
Not hard to understand that there is going to a natural pushback when the campaign is a) led by a divisive unlikeable politician that is getting filthy rich, b) doomsday predictions with some saying it likely too late anyway, c) ignores our ability to counteract what other parts of the world is doing, d) the "doing something" consists of considerable taxes on carbon that will effect the costs of pretty much everything we buy.
As for the last one, I have yet to ever get a response to the question of who is ready to pay 10-15% in energy costs and 2-3% more for everything we buy?
And tskware, the "experts" like Gruber told us we were getting $2500 reduction in our healthcare premiums, when do you think that will take effect?
Well for some people, unless you are throwing tons of money at a problem, then you aren't doing anything bout it.
Welcome back, Bill.
I think if some people could do a better job of separating the politics from the science then the issue would become a little more clear.
How many of you do not think human activity has accounted for the +- 100 ppm gain in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century, for example?
I wish we could leave taxes and carbon credits and all the rest of that crap out of this discussion and as really what policy makers decide to do with the science has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the science itself.
I think if some people could do a better job of separating the politics from the science then the issue would become a little more clear.
How many of you do not think human activity has accounted for the +- 100 ppm gain in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century, for example?
I wish we could leave taxes and carbon credits and all the rest of that crap out of this discussion and as really what policy makers decide to do with the science has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the science itself.
Taxes and carbon credits are at the heart of this.
I don't remember bringing politics into it, but maybe I did since the whole thing wreaks of socialistic redistribution of wealth.
Science is not sacred. Let's suppose that every scientist involved in climate study is honest and earnest in their efforts. If the data they are given to work with is adulterated in any way, the science is precise, but not accurate.