Trixology
Weather => General Weather Discussion => Topic started by: Blicj11 on March 07, 2016, 09:48:58 PM
-
Here is an interesting read, which claims that NOAA is hiding data.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/
-
Dear Blick and WeatherCat users at the mercy of "black art of science."
Here is an interesting read, which claims that NOAA is hiding data.
The author is presenting a very credible defense of his point of view. Moreover he provides links to clearly real scientific papers. This isn't "make believe."
I am deeply troubled at how divisive this concept has become. Science should never make people as angry as discussions about climate change often do. If the science did really speak for itself, everyone would be a believer. The problem is that the atmosphere is an extremely complex system which is why weather forecasting is so difficult. The climate scientists have a reasonable hunch given the physics of greenhouse gases, but they don't have that decisive argument. If you have a hunch that potentially could effect everyone and everything on earth - it is perfectly appropriate to express those concerns given what is at state. What is definitely not appropriate is to insist that your hunch has more scientific validity than you can accurately demonstrate. Anger is no substitute for a theory of climate change that makes accurate predictions.
Cheers, Edouard
-
Just because it's "on the Internet" doesn't mean it's true. I know, it's very hard to believe that, but that's what Mr. Lincoln said. In the same vain, just because a site calls itself "Real Science" doesn't mean it is... [lol] You do know that the author of that blog article is actually Steven Goddard, right? You do know that Tony Heiler/Steven Goddard has absolutely no training as a Climatologist, right? You do understand that anyone can have their own web site and post anything they want on it, right? [rolleyes2]
-
Global Warming
Must have been happening since the late 1800's and early 1900's if we break a record that is when it happened before [biggrin]
it's a joke
cheers
[cheers1]
-
xAir, he may not be a formally trained climatologist -- which might actually be a resume enhancement :) but he, like all of us, can clearly see when data is deliberately left out of a presentation to fit a narrative or an agenda.
-
Sorry, I just don't trust anyone who claims to know why data has been illuminated when it merely supports hie untrained, non-scientific purposes. Conspiracies are always more complicated than the simple truth. I agree, almost anything can be supported by misinterpreting data. I simply trust the collectors of the data than I do those who use it for click bait. Reminds me of too many politicians... [rolleyes2] "Just tell the crowds what they want to here." Having more 'followers' mean absolutely nothing to me.
As for his "training", not only is it not 'formal', it's not even informal! [lol] Should I live long enough to see him proven correct, I will happily and humbly publicly apologize to him and anyone else I have lead astray. [tup]
-
No matter the source. You don't need credentials to expose an obfuscation. All you need is the real data. When a different picture emerges, then clearly there is an agenda.
My own un-credentialed opinion on global warming, for what it's worth, is based on my experience with the common household refrigerator. When the power goes out, the more frozen food you have the longer it will survive the blackout. With the arctic and antarctic ice as voluminous as it is, surface, ocean and atmospheric temperatures will not show a trending planetary thermal loading until much deeper into the cycle where polar ice has diminished considerably. During the initial phase of a global warming cycle, we must depend on observational data of trends in cyclical ice production and decline. That observation, at this point in time, confirms short term global warming. However, it remains to be seen as to the extent of the longer term trend. But, atmospheric CO2 trends indicate further warming.
[cheers1]
-
NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum) says Antarctic ice is increasing but that isn't a sign of cooling. It must be nice to have a computer model theory that gets "proved" with warming or cooling, increasing or decreasing ice . . . Again, if there weren't so much politics involved I'd be less skeptical. If scientists weren't paid with grant money to find change, I might trust them a bit more but that isn't the case today.
Further, it's all modeling based on future predictions from an infinitesimally small data source ~100 years which is irresponsible in my opinion. Glaciers covered North America and receded before humans found fossil fuel but no one wants to explain how that happened. It's a scam to create a problem that doesn't exist so governments can come in with more taxes and authority to "solve" the problem.
-
Dear X-Air, Randall, dfw, Herb, and WeatherCat outsiders peering into the dirty business of science and academia,
Just because it's "on the Internet" doesn't mean it's true.
Okay, this is always a good precaution, but in this case the links sure looked like perfectly normal academia papers from the past. Here is one paper from 1978:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281978%29106%3C0755%3AGTVSMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281978%29106%3C0755%3AGTVSMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2)
Sure looks like the sort of stuff I used to write during my attempt to be an academic.
This is just a table, but it is hosted on a government website and also looks authentic:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat)
There are additional tables at the bottom of the article. Both are again hosted on government websites. Short of the sites being hacked, we should assume these are actual sources of data collected by our own government that cast doubts on the details of the global warming by greenhouse gases hypothesis.
What makes this subject so difficult and therefore frustrating is that the proposed mechanism for global warming is undeniably real and potentially catastrophic. The $64,000 question lies in the details of how the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and those gases humans continue to produce will actually effect the climate. It isn't nearly good enough to point out that greenhouse gases cause atmospheric warming. It is imperative to answer the question (in advance) of how greenhouse gases are (and will be) changing the climate. These answers need to be detail and in depth. If the current drought in the west is actually being caused by greenhouse gas global warming, then it is too late to simply throttle emissions, we need to change our water policy to support the millions of people out west who need water to survive. Moreover, some of the money earmarked for reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be instead redirected to respond to the crisis of greatest need - the water shortfall in the west.
The same point applies to any question of how climate change might effect people already. For example, it appears summers in Europe might be growing hotter as climate change advocates predict. Once more there is a very serious effect on the population. Most of the structures in Europe were built before the invention of air conditioning. Hot summers have been taking a ever more alarming toll on the population - especially the elderly. Should we spend all our money on reducing emissions or should some money be spent providing technology to people who are suffering and indeed dying?
I think the honest critics of climate change aren't so naive as to suppose all the greenhouse gases that humans have released into the atmosphere is completely harmless. The criticism in over the one-sidedness of the proposed remedies. Before we commit to an extreme makeover of human societies, we need more than hand-waving over whether or not the reductions in greenhouse gases that can be realistically achieved will have enough of an effect to avert the more severe consequences of climate change that are presently predicted. Even the most optimistic advocates of green technology recognize that we will only reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Human activity will still continue to add to the large amounts of greenhouse gases no matter what we do - we cannot stop all greenhouse gas emissions - we don't know how.
Under these conditions what is the most prudent: gamble the very future of human civilization on a hope that we can avoid destabilizing the climate?, or does caution suggest a two prong approach: emission reduction and mitigating the effects of climate change in whatever way we can? I'm not the sort of guy who would ever gamble everything on a single solution.
Edouard