AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming - Page 8

Poll Results: Are humans the primary cause of global warming?

 
  • 67% (25)
    Yes
  • 24% (9)
    No
  • 8% (3)
    Other (Please Elaborate)
37 Total Votes  
post #281 of 291
9/5/09 at 5:46pm
Quote:
So yes you could say they removed "some" data

Damn, Hands, that was like pulling teeth...and no, the data wasn't considered inaccurate at all - they did what's called "changing the data 'cause you don't like the results". They already said they removed it because "users" had a problem with it! Better results from less data? Come on, Hands! Where's the checks and balance here? You don't let someone say they are removing data and that's going to result in better accuracy without being challenged, and especially since their reason is spelled out quite clearly, there are "users" who had problems.
Reply
Reply
post #282 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Damn, Hands, that was like pulling teeth...and no, the data wasn't considered inaccurate at all - they did what's called "changing the data 'cause you don't like the results". They already said they removed it because "users" had a problem with it! Better results from less data? Come on, Hands! Where's the checks and balance here? You don't let someone say they are removing data and that's going to result in better accuracy without being challenged, and especially since their reason is spelled out quite clearly, there are "users" who had problems.

If I'm wrong about something I will happily admit it, unless it's not in my best interests

The data from the sparsely sampled areas was in conflict with all the data that had ample sampling. If the data is out of kilt in those areas, which it was and which correlated to the lack of sampling, a more accurate picture is got by simply removing it from the data pool when calculating overall temperatures. That's all they did. And please note that it had very little effect after 1950 and also that it was mostly prior to 1880 and around 1918 where it made meaningful changes to the overall temperatures.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #283 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

v3 to v3b was when the data was removed.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

I'd ballpark that removing the data results in a 20% increase in global warming since 1880.

Actually, it's more like 0.5%, that's because the ice free Southern Ocean (between 60S and 90S latitude) is only ~2% of the total surface area of the globe.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #284 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

No, the data being removed only caused the data from 1985 on to be different. Data is data, the analysis changed, but the data doesn't... unless you have a problem with it, of course

I didn't overlay the graphs, I used the "Smoothed w/37 month filter" graph. The reason I used these graphs is because they were the only ones that I could find.

Best I can tell, Bob Tisdale is an alias for someone who doesn't want to be identified. Too bad he's the only one I can tell who compares the data and posts the results. Still, the admission that data is being withheld from the analysis because "users" have problems with it and not because there are inaccuracies is telling.v3b came out in July, 2009. How does a paper from 2006 explain why they removed the data in the latest version?

You're all over the map here Hands.

See Figure 5 of the aforementioned paper.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #285 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The data from the sparsely sampled areas was in conflict with all the data that had ample sampling. If the data is out of kilt in those areas, which it was and which correlated to the lack of sampling, a more accurate picture is got by simply removing it from the data pool when calculating overall temperatures. That's all they did. And please note that it had very little effect after 1950 and also that it was mostly prior to 1880 and around 1918 where it made meaningful changes to the overall temperatures.

Exactly, see Figure 5 of the aforementioned paper for proof of this.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #286 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:46pm
Surprisingly, "users" can have "problems" with data sets if the data seems anomalous, and inclusion seems to skew results in ways not substantiated by other data.

But I know it's more fun to imagine the phrase means "global warming supremacists dislike data that doesn't support their forgone conclusion."

Good thing there's a guy with a blog to blow the lid off this shoddy methodology, because peer review doesn't do shit.

All of science is a hoax to make regular people feel stupid, is my understanding.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #287 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Exactly, see Figure 5 of the aforementioned paper for proof of this.

LOL, I can't make head or tail of fig 5, but I'll take your word for it

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #288 of 291
9/5/09 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Surprisingly, "users" can have "problems" with data sets if the data seems anomalous, and inclusion seems to skew results in ways not substantiated by other data.

But I know it's more fun to imagine the phrase means "global warming supremacists dislike data that doesn't support their forgone conclusion."

Good thing there's a guy with a blog to blow the lid off this shoddy methodology, because peer review doesn't do shit.

All of science is a hoax to make regular people feel stupid, is my understanding.

This "Bob Tisdale" is hiding behind a mask for some odd reason, can't even use their real identity, but they sure can post plots like WUWT, never knowing or understanding what it is they are actually doing.

Blog-o-smear, what's up with that?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #289 of 291
9/5/09 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Actually, it's more like 0,5%, that's because the ice free Southern Ocean (between 60S and 90S latitude) is only ~2% of the total surface area of the globe.

Off topic slightly, but still far more relevant than presuming 20% of global temperature increases stem from v3b, the entire Indian Ocean is 20% of the worlds water surface. FACT
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #290 of 291
9/6/09 at 9:14am
Taskiss is obviously a foremost climate scientist . It is absolutely impossible for CO2 spewing industries cars and such to influence our climate. We breathe out CO2 and fart methane so it's a natural thing. Humans never had any kind of impact on this planet ever simply because we are just too stupid.

Or maybe it could be true that the oxigen in our air, undoubtetly the main chemical that makes our existance possible, was actually generated by living things. What a leap it would be to think that living things can also harm the extremely thin layer of athmosphere our planet has.
Reply
Reply
post #291 of 291
9/12/09 at 3:06pm
Start watching at 9:30
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming