Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #220 on: February 08, 2015, 11:01:57 PM »
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
I just have one question:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?
That isn't one question, Dave. ::)

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #221 on: February 09, 2015, 12:43:27 AM »
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
I just have one question:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?
That isn't one question, Dave. ::)
Fine, I altered my post.  Sheeesh.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7070
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #222 on: February 09, 2015, 01:40:35 AM »
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?

All of these questions are, hilariously enough, answered by the article.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #223 on: February 09, 2015, 03:12:39 AM »
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?

All of these questions are, hilariously enough, answered by the article.
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7070
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #224 on: February 09, 2015, 03:23:08 AM »
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #225 on: February 09, 2015, 03:33:54 AM »
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?

All of these questions are, hilariously enough, answered by the article.

No, they were answered in the blog the article linked to, but not in the article itself.  Booker described what Homewood was doing only in the vaguest, yet amusingly-puffed-up terms imaginable.  The story of a resourceful skeptic who bravely "uncovers," "reveals," and "discovers" all this incriminating information on such a dastardly conspiracy sounds more impressive than saying, "He went on to NASA's website and read up on what NASA was already happily sharing with the world."

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7070
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #226 on: February 09, 2015, 04:25:02 AM »
No, they were answered in the blog the article linked to, but not in the article itself.  Booker described what Homewood was doing only in the vaguest, yet amusingly-puffed-up terms imaginable.  The story of a resourceful skeptic who bravely "uncovers," "reveals," and "discovers" all this incriminating information on such a dastardly conspiracy sounds more impressive than saying, "He went on to NASA's website and read up on what NASA was already happily sharing with the world."

"The article provided the answers but I'm going to say it didn't anyway."

Okay, Saddumb.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #227 on: February 09, 2015, 05:22:21 AM »
But it didn't. ???  It just linked to the blog, like I said.  That wasn't a clever comeback.  You're the one who's being dumb, not to mention wrong.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 11:19:58 PM by Saddam Hussein »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #228 on: February 09, 2015, 12:20:55 PM »
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.
What have I made up?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7070
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #229 on: February 09, 2015, 04:44:29 PM »
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #230 on: February 09, 2015, 06:42:46 PM »
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

So you've never seen a brown day before eh?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7070
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #231 on: February 09, 2015, 08:07:08 PM »
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

So you've never seen a brown day before eh?

That isn't carbon dioxide.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #232 on: February 09, 2015, 08:54:21 PM »
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

So you've never seen a brown day before eh?

That isn't carbon dioxide.
True, but burning fossils fuels (which creates both carbon and CO2) does help create smog.  (except natural gas burning, I think)

Also, by burning fossil fuels we take a gas we breath (O2) and create a gas we exhale (CO2) and water.  Now, call me crazy but any time you exchange a gas you breath for a gas that is waste for you, sounds like a not so good exchange.  For us, anyway.

Granted, I don't think we COULD alter the air enough to outright kill us via oxygen deprivation, but it's still bad for human life in an enclosed space. 

But anyway, even if Global Warming by humans isn't accurate, I still think we should slow down our burning of fossil fuels.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #233 on: February 09, 2015, 09:02:09 PM »
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.

Hang on, basic googling is telling me that CO2 is significantly worse than methane. Atmospheric methane has increased since 1750 by up to 170%, CO2 has only increased by 41%. However, the increase in CO2 over that period means an increase in radiative forcing of 1.88 W/m2, while the change in methane has only resulted in 0.49 W/m2. A significant chunk of CO2 emissions are the result of electricity generation, almost double that of transportation, so efforts should be (and are being, mostly) aimed at moving from coal fired plants.

Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 09:04:52 PM by Vindictus »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #234 on: February 09, 2015, 09:51:02 PM »
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

And it's not much of a conspiracy if they're posting the original numbers as well as detailing how they arrived at the new ones.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #235 on: February 09, 2015, 11:16:00 PM »
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

And it's not much of a conspiracy if they're posting the original numbers as well as detailing how they arrived at the new ones.

It looks like they did not show how they arrived at the published temperatures from the raw data. Unless I missed it. Did I miss it?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 11:48:57 PM by Rama Set »
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #236 on: February 10, 2015, 12:22:09 AM »
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

And it's not much of a conspiracy if they're posting the original numbers as well as detailing how they arrived at the new ones.

It looks like they did not show how they arrived at the published temperatures from the raw data. Unless I missed it. Did I miss it?
I think they adjust it based on time of observance.  Apparently the readings are simple "highest temp and lowest temp" but some kind of min/max that is time dependant.  So they adjust it somehow to make them all even.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7070
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #237 on: February 10, 2015, 12:25:12 AM »
Hang on, basic googling is telling me that CO2 is significantly worse than methane. Atmospheric methane has increased since 1750 by up to 170%, CO2 has only increased by 41%. However, the increase in CO2 over that period means an increase in radiative forcing of 1.88 W/m2, while the change in methane has only resulted in 0.49 W/m2. A significant chunk of CO2 emissions are the result of electricity generation, almost double that of transportation, so efforts should be (and are being, mostly) aimed at moving from coal fired plants.

Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

We started out with a lot less methane than we did CO2, so quoting percentages is, funnily enough, number fixing (though it appears to be unintentional). If you have a small amount of something to begin with, it is a lot easier to double it.

Methane is a much, much worse greenhouse gas (it even destroys the ozone layer). It is the driving force behind the doomsday "clathrate gun" scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis). That said, while CO2 isn't as bad, pumping the atmosphere full of it isn't necessarily good, we'd just need an awful lot more of it to do what a lot of hippies think it will do.

Furthermore, I'm not saying there is anything wrong about saying we are driving climate change, but that exaggerating that change only polarizes people. Telling people OH MY GOD IN 20 YEARS THE OCEAN WILL FLOOD THE WORLD AHHHH, regardless of whether that is true, will make people think you're an idiot. Al Gore did more damage to the climate movement than any Republican could.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 12:28:19 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #238 on: February 10, 2015, 01:44:50 AM »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #239 on: February 10, 2015, 02:06:25 AM »
We started out with a lot less methane than we did CO2, so quoting percentages is, funnily enough, number fixing (though it appears to be unintentional). If you have a small amount of something to begin with, it is a lot easier to double it.

You're right, I did miss the concentration of atmospheric methane being in the ppb range, whereas atmospheric CO2 is in the ppm range. I assumed both were ppm.

Methane is a much, much worse greenhouse gas (it even destroys the ozone layer). It is the driving force behind the doomsday "clathrate gun" scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis). That said, while CO2 isn't as bad, pumping the atmosphere full of it isn't necessarily good, we'd just need an awful lot more of it to do what a lot of hippies think it will do.

This is not necessarily true, and is once again explained pretty succinctly by wikipedia (and sourced):

Quote from: Wikipedia
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years. The 2007 IPCC report lists the GWP as 72 over a time scale of 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years. A 2014 analysis, however, states that although methane’s initial impact is about 100 times greater than that of CO2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime, after six or seven decades, the impact of the two gases is about equal, and from then on methane’s relative role continues to decline. The decrease in GWP at longer times is because methane is degraded to water and CO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I'm not saying there is anything wrong about saying we are driving climate change, but that exaggerating that change only polarizes people. Telling people OH MY GOD IN 20 YEARS THE OCEAN WILL FLOOD THE WORLD AHHHH, regardless of whether that is true, will make people think you're an idiot. Al Gore did more damage to the climate movement than any Republican could.

Bit of a strawman here. I know I certainly never said anything that alarmist.