Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,927
#4,927

Attachments

  • stationparaguayraw.gif
    stationparaguayraw.gif
    16.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,928
#4,928
Sandvol said:
You do understand that is just a compilation and adjustment of all the local data?
Click to expand...

Of course its a compilation of all the data. That's why you should use ALL the data and not just some very tiny subset of the data that supports whatever position you're pushing.

Why don't you want to use all the data? Why won't you answer this question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,929
#4,929
Danl said:
Of course its a compilation of all the data. That's why you should use ALL the data and not just some very tiny subset of the data that supports whatever position you're pushing.

Why don't you want to use all the data? Why won't you answer this question?
Click to expand...

It is a basic understanding of math. If I give you 10 numbers and ask you the average and mean of those numbers and then adjust or homogenize a couple of those numbers it has an effect on the average of those numbers. I am showing you examples of places that feed into the global data set. Do you understand that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,930
#4,930
station was picked because it hasn't moved in over 100 years.

The second plot is the homogenized data. Notice how the 1920's and 30's warming period has been adjusted out. Any of us who have read "The Grapes of Wrath" know about the 1920's and 1930's warming period. But the geniuses at NOAA have homogenized it.
 

Attachments

  • stationorlandraw.gif
    stationorlandraw.gif
    20.6 KB · Views: 1
  • stationorlandhomg.gif
    stationorlandhomg.gif
    19.2 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,931
#4,931
When the peer reviewed scientists at NOAA talk about lowering the trend they typically talk about lowering earlier periods to show warming so that their temperature trends are in line with the UN IPCC models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,932
#4,932
Sandvol said:
It is a basic understanding of math. If I give you 10 numbers and ask you the average and mean of those numbers and then adjust or homogenize a couple of those numbers it has an effect on the average of those numbers. I am showing you examples of places that feed into the global data set. Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

No, that's not at all what you're doing and you know it.

Let's take a data set of all even numbers between 2 and 100. What is the average of the entire data set?

What you keep trying to foist on us is taking the numbers 2 and 4 from the data set and averaging that tiny portion of the complete data set and arguing that the average of the complete data set is 3. It's utter BS and everyone knows it including you.

Again, the question is: why don't you use the entire data set, adjusted or unadjusted, rather than cherry picking a tiny portion of the data set?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,933
#4,933
Danl said:
No, that's not at all what you're doing and you know it.

Let's take a data set of all even numbers between 2 and 100. What is the average of the entire data set?

What you keep trying to foist on us is taking the numbers 2 and 4 from the data set and averaging that tiny portion of the complete data set and arguing that the average of the complete data set is 3. It's utter BS and everyone knows it including you.

Again, the question is: why don't you use the entire data set, adjusted or unadjusted, rather than cherry picking a tiny portion of the data set?
Click to expand...

No I'm not. Geez. I'm just showing that the numbers 2 and 4 are wrong. And, if they are wrong it makes the mean of the data set wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,938
#4,938
So is it just that all these places around the world aren't experiencing any climate change but all the change is happening at these locations?

1) A broad band over the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia
2) West Africa
3) Central Brazil
4) Polynesia
5) Pacific Ocean east of Mexico
6) Northeastern Siberia


CALL ME SKEPTICAL!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,939
#4,939
Sandvol said:
No I'm not. Geez. I'm just showing that the numbers 2 and 4 are wrong. And, if they are wrong it makes the mean of the data set wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't showed that any numbers are wrong.

You are only cherry picking data points that seem to support your argument. Its wrong and you know it.

You still will not answer the question: Why not use ALL the data points, adjusted or not adjusted?

You know the answer. You're just to chicken**** to admit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,940
#4,940
Danl said:
No, you haven't showed that any numbers are wrong.

You are only cherry picking data points that seem to support your argument. Its wrong and you know it.

You still will not answer the question: Why not use ALL the data points, adjusted or not adjusted?

You know the answer. You're just to chicken**** to admit it.
Click to expand...

Gross Conceptual Error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,941
#4,941
Danl said:
No, you haven't showed that any numbers are wrong.

You are only cherry picking data points that seem to support your argument. Its wrong and you know it.

You still will not answer the question: Why not use ALL the data points, adjusted or not adjusted?

You know the answer. You're just to chicken**** to admit it.
Click to expand...

Why does the MSU or Radiosonde data not correlate with the surface data?
 
#4,949
#4,949
tumscalcium said:
Can they still call it global warming? That's what it was originally called.
Click to expand...

This really is one of the stupider talking points. Scientists didn't change the name from global warming to climate change; both terms have been used for decades and continue to be used. Ironically, though, republican political strategist Frank Luntz did once advise:

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation…“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge
Click to expand...

And no, Florida DEP cannot use the term "global warming" either :crazy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,950
#4,950
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Sun's hot today; must be depleted ozone.
Click to expand...
Why are y'all suddenly throwing around ozone depletion as some sort of "gotcha" against science? The ozone issue was not a fake scare. We signed a successful international treaty to phase out CFCs (and now many of their successors). The ozone hole still exists and is recovering.

Just because you personally haven't thought about ozone depletion in 25 years doesn't mean it stopped existing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top