Australian Politics Forum - Temperature Data Adjustment

Bobby.

Moderator

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 122301
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #30 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:18pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:56am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

What Ice Age? 2015 is the hottest year on record.

You didn't see my thread on the mini Ice Age with over
250 videos of supporting evidence including graphs & links
to science papers?

forgiven

namaste

I had a laugh at the crap you put up so solemnly. None of it counts, cherry picked data, no science.

You shoot the messenger - in this case many top scientists.

You employ the fallacy of Arumentum Ad Hominem.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Temperature Data Adjustment Reply #31 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:32pm lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm: This paper is available here- http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/igsoc/00221430/v61n228/s11.p... That link doesn't work.
Back to top	Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21592 Gender:	Re: Temperature Data Adjustment Reply #32 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:39pm Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:32pm: lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm: This paper is available here- http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/igsoc/00221430/v61n228/s11.p... That link doesn't work. Ok deleted it. Go to the other one and click on "Download".
Back to top	IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #33 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:58pm

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

Ok deleted it. Go to the other one and click on "Download".

Cheers. Your first point.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

So early 21st century. Where mine was cherry-picking yours was kosher?

Lee, the paper very clearly has data from before the 21st century. I'm assuming you hadn't read past the abstract when you typed that or something

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Temperature Data Adjustment Reply #34 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:03pm lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm: But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed. You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you?
Back to top	Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21592
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #35 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:55pm

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 4:58pm:

lee wrote Today at 2:50pm:
So early 21st century. Where mine was cherry-picking yours was kosher?

Lee, the paper very clearly has data from before the 21st century. I'm assuming you hadn't read past the abstract when you typed that or something

Yes, from 1600 and from 1850.
lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

'The dataset on glacier front variations ( ~ 42 000 since 1600) delivers clear evidence that centennial glacier retreat is a global phenomenon.'

HMM, How much of the now known world existed in 1600?

Or 42,000 readings in 400 years = 105 avg/year spread across how many glaciers

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

'Glaciological and geodetic observations
( ~ 5200 (readings) since 1850) show that the rates of early 21st-century mass loss are without precedent on a global scale'

Yep, by 1850 we knew all of the world's glaciers. 5200/160 years = 32.5 readings / year.

Yep, I'm sure I read the paper. Of course you could take it further. From 1850, some of the 2000 glaciers were sampled.

'Table 1. Information on glacier fluctuation datasets. The total number of observations is given together with the spatial and temporal
coverage of the four analysed datasets: front variations (FV) from direct observations (obs) and reconstructions (rec); mass balance (MB) from
glaciological (glac) and geodetic (geod) methods. For 590 glaciers with no area information available, the average glacier area of the
corresponding observation sample was used for estimating the total area covered.'

So for 590 glaciers with no data, over a quarter of the sample size, they inferred the total area covered.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 9^th, 2015 at 6:13pm by lee »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21592
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #36 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:58pm

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone

The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed. You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you?

Yes, But I was comparing 2,000 glaciers which apparently confirm AGW with 2,000 that don't seem to confirm AGW. Isn't that how science works?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #37 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 4:16pm

Quote:

U.S. academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding, in a sting with reporters posing as industry reps http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

But but but it is AGW scientists who get paid to falsify data, isn’t it?

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21592
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #38 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:28pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 4:16pm:

Quote:

U.S. academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding, in a sting with reporters posing as industry reps http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

But but but it is AGW scientists who get paid to falsify data, isn’t it?

Yes. Now what was it Greenpeace actually did. They set up a "business consultancy" and sought his views. After toing and froing, all in email form, which can be accessed and verified by the authorities, -

'He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.” '

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-gre...

He has also called in the FBI,

'Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.'

same source

That certainly sounds like a man with something to hide.

Ah, Greenpiss.

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #39 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:50pm

Wattsupwiththat, the AGW version of the Daily Toilet.

I always thought the thesis that scientists were paid to “pretend” to believe in AGW was crap. It makes more sense and there is evidence for (Heartland, Koch etc) to be paid to pretend AGW isn’t happening, or to cast doubt on the science (just like Big Tobacco did, may they rot in Hell) etc.

Back to top

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21592
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #40 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:59pm

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:50pm:

Wattsupwiththat, the AGW version of the Daily Toilet.

I always thought the thesis that scientists were paid to “pretend” to believe in AGW was crap. It makes more sense and there is evidence for (Heartland, Koch etc) to be paid to pretend AGW isn’t happening, or to cast doubt on the science (just like Big Tobacco did, may they rot in Hell) etc.

Ah, yes; back to shooting the messenger. Who do you think funds Greenpeace? Rockefeller (renewables, finance for renewables), Soros (all manner of renewables, oh and back into coal). Do you think they don't want or get quid quo pro?

Soros needs to push back onto evil oil for being anti -dirty coal.

Why don't you actually read the post, with the email inclusions, BEFORE forming an opinion?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #41 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:01pm

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone

The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed. You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you?

Yes, But I was comparing 2,000 glaciers which apparently confirm AGW with 2,000 that don't seem to confirm AGW. Isn't that how science works?

Iff that's a fair comment then fair enough Cool

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #42 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 8:38pm

lee wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 4:16pm:

Quote:

U.S. academics-for-hire agree not to disclose fossil fuel funding, in a sting with reporters posing as industry reps http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

But but but it is AGW scientists who get paid to falsify data, isn’t it?

Yes. Now what was it Greenpeace actually did. They set up a "business consultancy" and sought his views. After toing and froing, all in email form, which can be accessed and verified by the authorities, -

'He confirmed that his official title is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus. He also reinforced his earlier message indicating he could not be bought by stating, very clearly:

“To be sure your client is not misled on my views, it is clear there are real pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen for most of them, fly ash and heavy metals for coal, volatile organics for gasoline, etc. I fully support regulations for cost-effective control of these real pollutants. But the Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 itself is a pollutant. This is completely false. More CO2 will benefit the world. The only way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels, which I think would be a profoundly immoral and irrational policy.” '

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-gre...

He has also called in the FBI,

'Greenpeace, in furtherance of what is in effect its war against every species on the planet, has now turned to what, on the face of things, looks to me like outright breach of the RICO, wire-fraud, witness-tampering and obstruction-of-committee statutes. I have called in the FBI.'

same source

That certainly sounds like a man with something to hide.

Ah, Greenpiss.

AGW loons cant find a real story, so make one up and one that flies in the face of the open and obvious facts.

Back to top

IP Logged

random

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2637
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #43 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 6:16pm

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Stratos wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

But there are over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas alone

The study clearly shows the distribution of glaciers that were analysed. You hadn't read this at the time you posted previously before had you?

Yes, But I was comparing 2,000 glaciers which apparently confirm AGW with 2,000 that don't seem to confirm AGW. Isn't that how science works?

So, which 2000 were you comparing? Linky or it's stinky.

I can smell something ...

Back to top

So many farkwits, so little time.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21592
Gender: male

Re: Temperature Data Adjustment
Reply #44 - Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 7:03pm

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Th latest trick of the global warming deniers is to try and discredit the scientific data. This is despite the fact that most of the homogenized data has actually resulted in the raw temperatures being reduced.

What can't be disputed however is the retreat of glaciers since 1850

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

No matter how much the conservative press like to cherry pick data and argue semantics, photo graphic evidence of glacial retreat is unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming

Yes, the science says some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing and some are static.

'The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mista...

But I thought the IPCC only used peer reviewed science.

'Top Indian physicists have concluded Himalayan glaciers show little sign of retreat – in one of the largest studies of its type ever carried out.

I. M. Bahuguna et al, publishing in Current Science [PDF, issue index], studied changes to 2,000 glaciers in various Himalayan regions between 2001 to 2011. They conclude that 1,700 were stable, showing the same surface area and no change of direction.

248 glaciers exhibited a retreat, and 18 an advance. The scientists estimate a net loss of glacier area of about 10,000 km2 – that's a 0.2 per cent decrease (+/- 2.5pc), and an average retreat of 2.1 metres annually.'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/13/indian_boffins_himalayan_glaciers_are_no...

the referred paper -
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf

As you can see it was already linky; leaves you stinky.

Back to top

IP Logged