Page 104 of 111 FirstFirst ... 4549499100101102103104105106107108109 ... LastLast
Results 2,061 to 2,080 of 2209
  1. #2061  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Those crazy liberal whack jobs over at NASA support global warming view.
    But this is what I love, from the second paragraph: "The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began."

    Okay, what the heck was going on in 1880? It took 129 years to beat that warmest year? And second, we are comparing 129 years of data vs how long has the earth's temp been changing? Millions of years? Good grief. Swarm, swarm, swarm!!!!

    By the way, calling a group "whack jobs" seems a bit aggressive....maybe tone that down, okay?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #2062  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    By the way, calling a group "whack jobs" seems a bit aggressive....maybe tone that down, okay?
    They're not forum members thus not protected by forum protocol.
  3. #2063  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    They're not forum members thus not protected by forum protocol.
    Excellent....taking notes....just to review, Obama is not a forum member, correct?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2064  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Those crazy liberal whack jobs over at NASA support global warming view.
    If you think that NASA doesn't have its share of liberal whack jobs, you are only fooling yourself.

    Now I'm going to have to do what I dislike and post links...so I'll make the disclaimer that I am only doing so in order to allow people to see some opposing views, not to wholly state that there are MY views.

    I've not been able to read up too much on this report which I heard about earlier this week.

    Not saying this is the case, but here's one example of a similar claim being skewed by NASA.

    NASA weather error sparks global warming debate € The Register

    That of course doesn't relate directly to this latest claim. Here's one that I believe does address some of these issues more directly.
    American Thinker: Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg

    Here's an excerpt:
    Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

    NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

    And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.

    As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.


    AND
    Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

    Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

    Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

    It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

    For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.


    End Excerpts:

    I'll not draw any conclusions at this time, but I suggest anyone interested in the issue from a scientific perspective, might want to read up on the actual scientific methods used (or misused), rather than simply accepting the proclamation of someone like James Hansen--a noted AGW advocate.

    One other thing--in the section daThomas quoted was this:
    "That's the important number to keep in mind," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. "The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

    Yes, indeed--and the uncertainty in temperature measurements is something I raised earlier in this thread. Here it appears this person is trying to use this uncertainty to SUPPORT this NASA conclusion, but in fact--it can just as easily be used to say that this conclusion is not all that certain.

    This uncertainty--specifically going back to the late 1800s is a question that I've been asking for some time, and how this impacts the conclusions.

    In any case--like most complicated matters, this isn't nearly as "certain" as some people would like to believe.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 01/22/2010 at 12:22 PM.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2065  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Excellent....taking notes....just to review, Obama is not a forum member, correct?
    Is this a test?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2066  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Does it matter? If we can adjust it should we not?
    Um...yeah, and if it isn't manmade, then we have no hope of adjusting it.

    The AGW theory is that Man GOVERNS global temperatures, and that remains very much in the realm of speculation.

    If this theory is wrong, and things like...oh the Sun, the Ocean Currents, and other natural factors are much larger influences, then the whole idea of "adjusting" it is not very realistic.

    KAM
  7. #2067  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Excellent....taking notes....just to review, Obama is not a forum member, correct?
    Yes and "whack jobs" is not an obscenity. Although ignoring climate change is.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2068  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yes and "whack jobs" is not an obscenity. Although ignoring climate change is.
    As is falsifying Data and calling it science, or pushing a conclusion based on a theory that is very uncertain.

    Climate Change isn't being ignored--some people just aren't as eager to accept wild claims about being able to control is as easily as others.

    The climate has always changed--long before we had any possibility of changing it, and its likely that will continue.

    If you want to buy into the theory that we can control not only the weather, but the Climate--overriding the influence of the Sun and Oceans, that's fine. However, not everyone has such a large degree of faith in speculative theory.

    KAM
  9. #2069  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yes and "whack jobs" is not an obscenity. Although ignoring climate change is.
    Now....if Obama and Al Gore can just figure out how to make the sun not as hot. Can't we figure out a way to raise taxes on everyone to develop some type of large shade that would block the sun thus preventing this natural heat? This seems like a win/win situation. Taxes could be increased only on those making over $250k (you know, the evil folks) and new "green" jobs would be available to develop this heat "shield". Then, when the sun's recent increase in temp goes back down, we can remove the shade to once again enjoy the warmth. Oh sure, the sun has gone through cycles over the billions of years it has existed, but seems like man should be able to control it more.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2070  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Does it matter? If we can adjust it should we not?
    That depends on what the cost is. If there's a maniacal dictator torturing his citizens and destabilizing a vital region of the world should we not just remove him?
  11. #2071  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    That depends on what the cost is. If there's a maniacal dictator torturing his citizens and destabilizing a vital region of the world should we not just remove him?
    Yes....remove the *******....and we did.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #2072  
    Well, the head of the UN climate change panel admitted that there might be even MORE errors in their report.

    UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report - Times Online

    C'mon people...be happy. This is GREAT news. It's more evidence that we're really not in such dire straits when it comes to climate. We're good. Think of all the good we can do if we start concentrating on REAL problems.
  13. #2073  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Those crazy liberal whack jobs over at NASA support global warming view.
    Hansen really isn't the best person to quote to support AGW. He's released incorrect data several times.

    In 2007, he released data "showing" that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Someone outside the GISS questioned their data and the GISS was forced to issue a correction, stating that 1934 was actually the warmest on record.

    Later, Hansen released data showing 2008 was the warmest on record. However, his data was reviewed again and found to be incorrect. The GISS took data from measurement stations in Russia for September and copied them over for October, an increase of 10 degrees.

    Earlier in the decade, Hansen predicted 2007 would be the warmest on record. It ended up being the coolest since 2001.

    But if people want to continue quoting scientist/activists that have been proven wrong...
  14. #2074  
    I am glad to see this thread is still active!
  15. #2075  
    I will definitely answer this since I'm a student for both weather and ocean with some knowledge in geology

    expect me to answer it tommorro since I have a physics exam tommorro
  16. #2076  
    When I was a kid the talk was we were entering another ice age, hmmm no money to study that.

    it's all B.S, Follow the money!
  17. #2077  
    I'm going to have to break down a few points.

    Is reducing the amount of CO2 necessary?

    Is the amount of CO2 being produced huge? We are burning more gas, oil and coal than ever before in modern age. (well the world wide recession did slow it a bit). Can anyone dispute thatfact, that we are burning an unsustainable amount?

    It is a bit laughable that we are quarreling about CO2 production when in the next few years we will see a rise in fossil fuel prices. Higher prices will mean we will burn less and seek other solutions.

    Way back before humans started to write, there was a European trapped in the snow. This is proof that there was no mountain top melting in Europe for as long as humans were able to record temperatures. (BTW it was a freak sirocco wind that melted that icy grave not global warming)

    It is way too early to predict that the Himalayas will totally melt by 2035, but isn't it a still a safe projection that snow/glacier coverage is slowly decreasing? If the decrease is proveable to be even more than historical levels would that be enough evidence to give off the global warming alarm?
    -------------------------
    Two non-phone Treon650 and Two TX.
  18. #2078  
    global warming is happening, and is a natural thing, but the humans are speedingn it up
  19. #2079  
    blame ourself dude...
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #2080  
    Quote Originally Posted by freefire4629 View Post
    global warming is happening, and is a natural thing, but the humans are speedingn it up
    You're listening to the hype based on false science, imho.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions