09 Jan 2020, 12:53 pm
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe,
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
Quote:
Some things have been proven to be flase,
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
I'm getting tired so I haven't read the rest of your post.
I'll tackle it tomorrow.
But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling.
Tomorrow.
I thought you were a skeptic, and yet here you are uncritically, without any evaluation, without looking at any reliable sources, asserting that the process of homogenization is just a way of "cooking the books". I thought you were supposed to be in the middle, and that you just want to hear from both sides. But instead, it looks like you start out from the position that scientists must be acting in bad faith. I think you are a "pseudoskeptic", pretending to be skeptical in order to cover up the fact you're a denialist.
Anyway, if anyone wants to know more about homogenization, you can go here:
Quote:
There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.
Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.
Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding- ... ture-data/
Here is a chart that compares adjusted vs. raw temperatures. If you will note, homogenization has a much less significant effect as you move closer to the present day (from the above source):
Ain't actually looking it up grand instead of just assuming the first thing that pops into your head is correct?
09 Jan 2020, 4:59 pm
09 Jan 2020, 5:01 pm
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe,
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
Quote:
Some things have been proven to be flase,
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
I'm getting tired so I haven't read the rest of your post.
I'll tackle it tomorrow.
But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling.
Tomorrow.
Tired?...I didn't know trolling is such hard work
09 Jan 2020, 5:04 pm
09 Jan 2020, 5:40 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
We gave you rational and logical arguments, but for some reason you don't seem to listen to any of them.
We gave you rational and logical arguments, but for some reason you don't seem to listen to any of them, either.
You and Darmok (oops I mean solosailr) have failed to live up to my challenge of providing credible evidence (which you have carefully avoided and try distraction by posting multiple cartoons designed only to ridicule those of us attempting to discuss science which I am fairly sure falls under trolling if referred to the mods).
Still, I had a chuckle when I saw the Elmo one.
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
09 Jan 2020, 6:10 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
What evidences do you need? If there is not enough evidences for you now, there never will be.
The things you listed have been happening at various times througout the history of this planet.
What makes you think that they are signs of catastrophic climate crisis?
https://xkcd.com/1732/
09 Jan 2020, 6:17 pm
Tollorin wrote:
SoloSailor wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
What evidences do you need? If there is not enough evidences for you now, there never will be.
The things you listed have been happening at various times througout the history of this planet.
What makes you think that they are signs of catastrophic climate crisis?
https://xkcd.com/1732/
That is such a good illustration that ties the temperature changes to our history, and shows how abrupt the current temperature increase is. In addition, the source is provided.
When people say that climate has changed before, they don't seem to appreciate just how abrupt this current change is.
09 Jan 2020, 6:45 pm
09 Jan 2020, 6:57 pm
09 Jan 2020, 7:01 pm
09 Jan 2020, 7:04 pm
09 Jan 2020, 7:08 pm
09 Jan 2020, 7:09 pm
09 Jan 2020, 7:12 pm
09 Jan 2020, 7:24 pm
09 Jan 2020, 8:03 pm
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe,
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
Quote:
Some things have been proven to be flase,
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
I'm getting tired so I haven't read the rest of your post.
I'll tackle it tomorrow.
But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling.
Tomorrow.
I thought you were a skeptic, and yet here you are uncritically, without any evaluation, without looking at any reliable sources, asserting that the process of homogenization is just a way of "cooking the books". I thought you were supposed to be in the middle, and that you just want to hear from both sides. But instead, it looks like you start out from the position that scientists must be acting in bad faith. I think you are a "pseudoskeptic", pretending to be skeptical in order to cover up the fact you're a denialist.
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
I am skeptical about the "Homogenisation" process also, yes,
And so are many others.
BTW,
You do understand what a "Skeptic" is?
I am also skeptical about:
-The integrity of the peer review process,
-The climate modelling system,
-Non climate scientist predictions,
-16 year old girls having supernatural powers,
-The political motives behind government policies,
-The political motives behind the IPCC,
-The political motives behind the UN,
-The motivations behind big business,
-The truthfullness of neurotypicals in general,
-The impartiality of most people.
I have examples why,
But I have the impression you simply dismiss anything I say.
There are only so many times I am willing to go through the hard yakka via finding/re-finding and organising information. <shrug>
I'll leave that to my baby "twin" brother, Solosailor.
It is exhausting "talking" to you,
But it is *good* exhausting.
