Discussion in 'Conservation' started by Klickrolf, Jun 7, 2016.
Love that "choose to be blind" stuff and the "denial" innuendo. The climate stasis disciples truly are blind.
Here's a nice little piece that could improve understanding and therefore knowledge. Rather thorough presentation useful for those who'd like to know more. Please read and please base all objections on factual errors or misinterpretation of the data. Lots of opinion and lots of science...
Found another: Ocean acidification, likely NOT.
And one more that gets to the point a little quicker...
Believe what you will but know what you believe and why before being critical of those who aren't convinced.
This from a NOAA website. With this kind of horseshit data being floated about and feeding the magic computer models , no wonder all the believers believe. Factual real time temp in Austin 89F and Alturas reached a bone chilling 30F.
Hottest 111.2 °F
Austin Executive Airport, TX
Coldest -77.8 °F
Cape Romanzof, Cape Romanzof LRRS Airport, AK
Wettest (Last Hour) 0.7in
Butler, Butler County Airport/K W
What sort of bullshit is this? Alturas at MINUS 77??? I've been to and around Alturas and the area many many times, and it's never been that cold there. But, we blaspheme, right?
That is why data QC is an important part of the scientific process. Things get hinky with your instruments sometimes, for a variety of reasons.
It's clearly NOT an important part of their process.....
Seems like they were just reporting data that hadn't been QCd. This is common with realtime online data. QC comes later, before work is actually done with the data. There was probably a disclaimer somewhere saying as much. Same as what's on the realtime USGS hydrographs we all use. I take issue with the implication that because NOAA reported some obviously problematic data online, that means that other research the agency does is unreliable, or that the scientific process in general is somehow flawed.
I seem to keep coming across this over and over in this subforum--a basic misunderstanding of how scientists actually work.
Maybe so, although I find-as someone with a science minor-that putting out any wildly inaccurate data like this lowers the community's faith in the next data release unless there's an immediate retraction. Is that here? If there are people who depend on the released data, in this instance it's failed. Probably in Alturas, nobody suffered because of a completely bogus temperature report. It will get cold there this Winter, like it always does, but if their station is reporting minus 77, somebody needs to do some recalibration. I know it might be cool (no pun intended) to think of Alturas as similar to Siberia though.
That's a pretty arrogant statement. Are you saying that scientists that don't agree with your thoughts and beliefs are misguided? As for "QC'd data", give us a break. The whole global warming database was outed as being manipulated... did you take issue with that? Where was the outrage, the protests, and the visceral media condemnation?
What is flawed is that true, honest science has been whored out to those with a power and profit agenda. Worse, it is supported by those who know better, but place towing the party line above all else.
No. I know this: In order to draw reliable conclusions, data needs to undergo a QA/QC process before a scientist uses it for analysis and subsequently starts drawing conclusions. That is a thought and a belief, and it is also true. Posting up some cut-and-pasted information from a vaguely referenced site and implying that the mistakes shown there have any bearing on anything else doesn't seem very defensible, but I am sure you have your reasons. Perhaps you do have direct lines of evidence showing some linkages between mistaken realtime online data and subsequent incorrect scientific conclusions and you will share them. What you did is like pointing to a menu that has the wrong Soup du Jour on it, and saying that because of that mistake, nothing on the menu is right and it was probably wrong in the past as well.
What is it exactly you seek a break on? Maybe you can explain what "the whole global warming database" is.
These are the kinds of broad, sweeping generalizations that lead me to conclude that there is a pervasive underlying misunderstanding here. What you wrote here implies that there are no reliable scientists anywhere in any field. You wrote it. You did not write "climate science" or "NOAA science" or "NASA science," you wrote about all of science. For shame.
Attempting to defend the indefensible... consistent and in keeping with the dogma, I'll give you that. The global warming data manipulation was well documented, yet some just choose to turn a blind eye and tune it out. Again I ask, where was the outrage from the scientific community? As for the erroneous temperature data shown on the NOAA site, it is what it is... bogus.
I love dogs!
Here's the problem. Tons of data based on proxy temp and CO2 concentration data has been gathered, written up and reported, much of it published in peer reviewed scientific journals. All this data suggests atmospheric CO2 levels increase after temperatures increase. Therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of the temp increases. If CO2 is causing increased planet temps the physics have to be revised based on this new knowledge or understanding. If that can't be done then we'll have to assume human emission of CO2 does nothing but make the planet a little bit greener.
Waiting for the paradigm shift...the earths physics have changed..? NOT!
No need for the Earth's physics to change. What has changed is the driver (us) of a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2. Read http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm complete with nice links to real peer-reviewed science. You will find a cogent explanation for this apparent lag condundrum (and a healthy discussion afterwards). Natural orbital cycles triggers a small initial rise in temperature. This change in temperature then triggers the release of CO2 into the atmosphere (at a much slower rate than is occurring at present). This increase in atmospheric CO2 is then responsible for 90% of the increase in the Earth's temperature. The rise in CO2 today is NOT driven by natural cycles but by burning of fossil fuels and release of methane from terrestrial and marine deposits.
Changing the driver requires a change in the physics, obviously.
Hmm, tried your link but it doesn't seem to exit...what's with that?
Ok, I do realize none of this CO2 driving the climate exists!