- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,801
- Reaction score
- 26,559
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest "years on record"
- Thread starter PoS
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 13,794
- Reaction score
- 7,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Right now, it is summer here, and it is hot.
There is no question anthropomorphic climate change has occurred and will continue to so. Wherever man treads, the species effects the local ecology, and by extension the world ecology. I believe this also holds true for all flora and fauna. To expect otherwise is absurd.
Should there be corrective measures taken?
Could this be the cause of mass extinctions, including our own? Are the extinctions undesirable, and should they be countered?
Are the resulting climate changes truly a negative? Or are they a necessary step in the evolutionary process of our world? Perhaps only our own egos and vanity as a species demands we survive?
Meh, what do I know?
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,007
- Reaction score
- 1,428
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Anybody who says there hasn't been a warming trend since 1850 isn't paying attention.
So since we are in a warming trend it would make sense that recent years will be the
warmest. You guys make a big deal out of this obvious fact.
The issue is, would warmer world with longer growing seasons, more rain, more arable
land, and CO2 enhanced agriculture be a recipe for disaster or not.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,801
- Reaction score
- 26,559
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
It shows you didnt even bother to read the OP: all these so-called records are comparable to statistical errors- which means they are meaningless.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 66,364
- Reaction score
- 22,109
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
After how many corrections did we get those results?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 20,738
- Reaction score
- 6,290
- Location
- Sunnyvale California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I think it’s amusing that you are calling people who believe the NYT article lemmings, yet you seem to be using some questionable sources yourself.
Dr. Will Happer may be a award winning physicist but I don’t think his area of expertise has anything to do with the climate or environment. His field of scientific studies is atomic physics and optical pumping, not climate science, in fact he has not received any training in climate science.
In addition to that, some of Happer’s positions seem completely Bonkers. He claims and continues to advocate that the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be beneficial to humanity because it will boost plant growth. The problem with that is that we are doing a good job at killing plant-life faster then they can grow back. I don’t think dr. Will Happer has any background on atmospheric research, ecological and biological systems, ecosystems, or environmental science.
And I don’t think CFACT and climate depot are hiding their bias in their criticism of the NYT article.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You tell me. If you are going to discount NOAA temperature records, it's you onus to prove it.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,603
- Reaction score
- 14,464
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The observed warming is roughly .9C. The difference between the collection methodology of the early 1900's and now,
High/Low vs continuous, leads to a statistical systematic error, showing higher temperatures.
Systematic errors do not average out.
much of the observed warming, could simply be a result of improving technology!
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well, if it's on CBS, I guess that's Gospel, then, isn't it.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,801
- Reaction score
- 26,559
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The link is right in the OP. Are you always so dishonest with everything?
Shoot the messenger fallacy.
Appeal to authority fallacy. My, you are on a roll here.
Just to humor you, who exactly has the expertise to refute the NYT? The Washington Post?
First you claim he doesnt have the expertise, now you claim to know more about science than he does.
You've made textbook examples of every logical fallacy known to man. Congrats.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Did you know that before the wide spread use of fossil fuels, the human population of the planet was under 1 billion folks.
Now the human population of the planet is over 7 billion. Eliminating fossil fuels also eliminates the possibility that the humans alive today could be fed. World wide famine and pestilence without fossil fuels.
In a comedy routine, I think it was George Carlin who proposed that the Earth may have decided that it needed plastics so it created man to make them.
We might just be a temporary, needed tool to provide the essential ingredient for the actual goal.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS | Real Science
<snip>
The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.
<snip>
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS | Real Science
<snip>
The next blink comparator shows changes in the US temperature record from GISS. It alternates between their 1999 graph and the 2012 version of the same graph. The past is cooled and the present is warmed.
<snip>
Let's look at the real science, From May 2019...
NASA GISS: NASA News & Feature Releases:
New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature
The most complete assessment ever of statistical uncertainty within the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) data product shows that the annual values are likely accurate to within 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit (0.05 degrees Celsius) in recent decades, and 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (0.15 degrees C) at the beginning of the nearly 140-year record.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,801
- Reaction score
- 26,559
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Even if that was true (which I doubt), the margin of error (0.09) is still so great that it would support practically every conspiracy theory out there.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 47,695
- Reaction score
- 10,467
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
So, let me get this straight. You are claiming that NASA is saying that NASA is correct, right and accurate?
Who could POSSIBLY have predicted that? NASA says NASA is correct! Omigod! What a scoop! Are you like Lois Lane or Woodward or Bernstein?
C'mon, man!
Out of curiosity, before the data and conclusions they were issuing in 1999 were replaced by data and conclusions they liked better, did NASA claim that the data and conclusions they were issuing were garbage?
The simple fact of the matter is that NASA decided that every global temperature calculated before 1970 was too warm and that every global temperature calculated after 1970 was too cool.
As a result, most of the warming that we are now called to correct was manufactured in 1999 by Dr. James Hansen and his crew. No new actual measurements were required. Actually, kind of a neat trick.
In this way, our globe's warming is due to manufacturing. In this case, though, it is the data that is manufactured. The resulting funding, however, is real.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,603
- Reaction score
- 14,464
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The margin of error is much greater, since the GISS has not control or even knowledge of the collection methodology
used to gather the data they accumulate, they acknowledge this in their FAQ section.
Data.GISS: GISTEMP — The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature
The differences between collection methodologies can be up to .9C, but is usually between .2 and .7 C,
but the real danger is that the greater the sample rate, the higher the averaged temperature most of the time.
This means that the collection methodology from the early 1900's, High/Low average (2 samples a day),
has largely been replaced with continuous or at least hourly samples.
This change produces a systematic error.
I had done a quick sample of cities around the world to see the difference between 2 samples vs 12 or 24 samples.
I think this would greatly increase the GISS's error!
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[h=1]You Don't Need To Be A Scientist To Know That The Global Warming Alarm "Science" Is Fake[/h]July 15, 2019/ Francis Menton[FONT="]If you follow the subject of global warming alarm, you will have read many times that there is a “consensus” of “97% of climate scientists” on — well, on something. I’ve actually never been able to find a precise statement of the proposition on which the 97% supposedly agree. But suppose you can find the statement. And suppose that it consists of some kind of definitive assertion that there has been significant atmospheric warming over the past century, and that most to all of such warming has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. Is this real science or fake science? How do you tell?
It seems that the most common approach of most people to this question is to trust the “scientists.” After all, science is complicated. You are not a scientist, so how are you ever going to understand this? And even if you are a scientist in some other field, and you have both the talent and the interest to delve into the details of how this conclusion was reached, you don’t have the time. You are told that 97% of “climate scientists” agree. Really, what choice do you have other than to trust the people who have done the work, and who call themselves the scientists and the experts on this subject? This approach apparently seems reasonable to a lot of people, including many, many seemingly intelligent people.
But not to me. The approach does not seem reasonable to me because the scientific method provides a very simple check for testing whether scientific claims are valid, and you don’t need to be a scientist to apply this check. (Another way of looking at it is that the people who apply this check are actually the real scientists, because they are the ones using the scientific method; and the people who call themselves “scientists” and work in “scientific” fields of endeavor and publish in scientific journals and wear scientist outfits, but don’t apply the actual scientific method, are not really scientists. But at this point in time the label “scientist” has been so captured by those who apply it to themselves whether or not they follow the scientific method that I think it is hopeless to get it back.)
Here is the very simple check. When confronted with a claim that a scientific proposition has been definitively proven, ask the question: What was the null hypothesis, and on what basis has it been rejected? . . .
READ MORE[/FONT]
It seems that the most common approach of most people to this question is to trust the “scientists.” After all, science is complicated. You are not a scientist, so how are you ever going to understand this? And even if you are a scientist in some other field, and you have both the talent and the interest to delve into the details of how this conclusion was reached, you don’t have the time. You are told that 97% of “climate scientists” agree. Really, what choice do you have other than to trust the people who have done the work, and who call themselves the scientists and the experts on this subject? This approach apparently seems reasonable to a lot of people, including many, many seemingly intelligent people.
But not to me. The approach does not seem reasonable to me because the scientific method provides a very simple check for testing whether scientific claims are valid, and you don’t need to be a scientist to apply this check. (Another way of looking at it is that the people who apply this check are actually the real scientists, because they are the ones using the scientific method; and the people who call themselves “scientists” and work in “scientific” fields of endeavor and publish in scientific journals and wear scientist outfits, but don’t apply the actual scientific method, are not really scientists. But at this point in time the label “scientist” has been so captured by those who apply it to themselves whether or not they follow the scientific method that I think it is hopeless to get it back.)
Here is the very simple check. When confronted with a claim that a scientific proposition has been definitively proven, ask the question: What was the null hypothesis, and on what basis has it been rejected? . . .
READ MORE[/FONT]
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You really need to do some research before popoo'ing scientific sources and methods.
Measurements
The primary purpose of the USCRN network is to monitor air temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture/soil temperature. In addition to these parameters, each station measures ground surface (IR) temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, wetness from precipitation, and several values that monitor the operating condition of the equipment. Some of the secondary parameters contribute to improving the confidence in the observational measurements, and provide insight into the reliability and performance of the primary sensors.
Highly accurate measurements and reliable reporting are critical. Station instruments are calibrated annually and maintenance includes routine replacement of aging sensors. The performance of each station's measurements is monitored on a daily basis and problems are addressed as quickly as possible, typically within days. Each station transmits data hourly to a geostationary satellite. Within minutes of transmission, raw data and computed summary statistics are made available on the USCRN web site. This page describes the details of the data stream.
U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,801
- Reaction score
- 26,559
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Not bad? I dare not imagine what kind of standards is unacceptable to you, especially when every alarmist goes ape-**** the moment a hundredth of a degree in temperature changes.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 11,375
- Reaction score
- 2,650
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It looks like 2019 will show a temperature anomaly of about 1.1 deg C (about 2 deg F) from pre-industrial records. Factoring in the error factor, that's between 1.05C (1.9F) and 1.15C (2.1F). That's splitting hairs in my book. Let me know how your family reacts differently to 90 degree temperatures versus 90.1 degree temperatures???
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2014
- Messages
- 33,801
- Reaction score
- 26,559
- Location
- Oceania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
As the OP has stated, we have had no real accurate global temp readings until satellites went up in orbit at around the late 70's, so I'll take those pre-industrial temp recordings with a sack of salt.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,603
- Reaction score
- 14,464
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You do realize that with the current average, to get an annual average of 1.1 C from the GISS,
would require every month left int he year to be 1.04 C,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
and frankly, that does not look like even Gavin can pull that rabbit out of the hat.