Reducing pollution is contributing to global warming?

[Doughknob]

AGW is not so much the problem as is SPDKTAS.

 

[Doughknob]

here is the study that is clearly linked to in the article https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

Fake news……

 

[Raul-02]

Yep-they point back to their own "research" as data

Without speaking to the accuracy of that assertion, I should ask: "Wouldn't you?" Isn't that part of the whole model? You do your work and others try to tear it apart? Look at how well it worked (The Scientific Inquiry mode I mean) with Dr Judy Mikovits.
In a paper that rocked the medical world, she claimed to have discovered the cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome(CFS). CFS is a poorly understood illness with ENORMOUS FREE MONEY from Congress as Research Grants to study it. Any new development set the Medical Molecular Biology world on fire.

So Scientists all over the world did exactly what they are supposed to do; they took her findings and method apart piece by piece and by November of that same year, discovered she had made the whole thing up.

Same for those bozos Dr Stanley Pons and Dr Martin Fleishman who published their paper proving they found Cold Fusion, but it was all made-up crap? Other researchers tore their "research and findings" apart.

So where is the other research work tearing this apart? It's been out since 2017 I should think that's plenty of time to show the science world the flaws in this piece. Where is it?

 

[kenmbz]

These say they are based on other research and do not have the research papers noted.
No one will even look at this from the scientific community since it is not based on anything.

 

[Raul-02]

Now now lil piney. Its OK. I know it hurts. Mommy will be home soon.

Why is it that when progressives are confronted with material that contradicts their doctrinaire assertions (which they never examine critically) that they automatically and universally resort to insults and belittlement?
Did you not see the link in the article that has the original research?

 

[kenmbz]

I am not arguing that there are flaws in the science of global warming etc. I am sure their are since the models are so complex and created by humans.

My point is just the flaws in this paper.

 

[GSVette]

I am not exactly sure what you are saying here, but I don't Feynman meant what you think he meant. Here is the transcript from that entire speech if anyone wants to read it: What Is Science?


Einstein definitely never said this, and it is likely that no actual scientist or person worth quoting actually said this. It is likely that the original was:
There’s an age-old adage “if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the theory”. But all too often it’s easier to change the facts
but that has been distorted over the years.

Or as it has been morphed “ the truth has been established, beat the facts in to submission “

 

[ponytug]

Just because the media calls a storm 1000 year storm is enough evidence for a thinking person to know they are blowing smoke. We don't have 1000 years of good data. Heck, we don't have 200 years of good data.

You don't always need a thousand years of data; you observe something over time, and accumulate observations. Typically, there is a pattern, or shape, to the distribution of your observations. You can then take your observations, and the distribution of your data over time and make an estimate for how likely some new data point would be.

It doesn't matter whether it is home runs by a hitter, bumper specifications, electrical power cable failures, whether hoof beats are zebras, or weather. You can readily make an estimate with sufficient data. The breadth/size of your base data, and the exact type of its distribution, will determine how certain the estimated data point is. The more data that you have, and the better your model is, the more accurate your predictions are. With global temperature measures, there is a surfeit of data.

What is often lost in the popular press reporting is that an estimate for a "one in a thousand year flood", is that there is a probability associated with that estimate, usually 95%, or 99%, meaning that one time in twenty or one time in a hundred that something that is estimated to be a "one in a thousand year flood", is not that. The flip side is that at least nineteen out of twenty times something called a "one in a thousand year flood", is a "one in a thousand year flood".

I admit to be at home with numbers and numerical analysis. I once made out really well with it when I came across a roulette wheel that was badly off.

It is just statistics.

Whether you believe that the climate is changing or not, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing. (See citizen reported data here) That is just the data folks. One explanation for the fact that more extreme weather events are happening is that "**** happens". Another is that by virtue of shifts in CO2 levels, global temperature, and climate shifts are occurring. The "**** happens" explanation gives you no way to model or plan for the future. The other explanation gives people who plan, and are involved in building and maintaining things like infrastructure, such as dams, water supplies, levees, roads, power supplies, and home designs, something to make plans with to be better prepared when the future arrives.

If someone recognizes that the roulette wheel is off, and you don't, they will clean you out. That is a fact. It is called betting on a sure thing.

Americans are strangely resistant to believe in climate change compared to the rest of the world;

Climate Change in the American Mind: November 2019

Our latest national survey finds that the highest percentage of Americans since our surveys began are "extremely" or "very" sure global warming is happening.

climatecommunication.yale.edu

Which countries believe in climate change?

A new poll shows different attitudes to climate change around the globe

www.theguardian.com

All the best,

Peter

 

[Raul-02]

No one will even look at this from the scientific community since it is not based on anything.

How can you make such a blanket statement? It sounds like wild speculation.

 

[Raul-02]

Whether you believe that the climate is changing or not,

Oh I believe. I believe it's been changing since the planet first spun into orbit. I also believe that the idea that there is a proper or correct of knowably correct climate for this or any other period is itself a fallacy.
Humankind may be existing in a tiny blip of some goldilocks climate (for us anyway) during our wink of geologic time. It may be that inexorable climate change will soon correct that wiping us from the face of the planet just as it seems to have the dinosaurs.

 

[kenmbz]

How can you make such a blanket statement? It sounds like wild speculation.

I read it, they point out lots of scientific sources, but don't point to any, only their own research, based on their own research.

 

[kenmbz]

If you keep throwing garbage in your backyard, eventually it gets full.
It doesn't matter if we are causing all the climate change or not, we can still clean up our mess.
The earth will keep moving on, whether we are here or not, if it's a meteor, or our CO2, it's still a bit of a problem

 

[cqaigy2]

Says right there that /pine is a yam.

 

[Raul-02]

I read it, they point out lots of scientific sources, but don't point to any, only their own research, based on their own research.

That's not offensive in the business. Especially when the work is a survey of other work which is pretty much what the GAST measurement analysis is.
The only counterarguments I can think of about the GAST adjustment data would be: 1) to charge that the data was incomplete thus unreliable, or 2) that the conclusions (if any) are in error.
But to insist that there needed to be supporting works cited to, seems a bridge to far to me.

It's as if I did a paper on the number of times the word "Apostate" was used in this forum and then later revised by the original poster.
To what other research would I cite? I either counted correctly or I didn't.

 

[bnold]

Statistics in a sampling of time can ‘prove’ anyones point…


The market has done amazing this year!

The market has done terrible this year!

 

[kenmbz]

That's not offensive in the business. Especially when the work is a survey of other work which is pretty much what the GAST measurement analysis is.
The only counterarguments I can think of about the GAST adjustment data would be: 1) to charge that the data was incomplete thus unreliable, or 2) that the conclusions (if any) are in error.
But to insist that there needed to be supporting works cited to, seems a bridge to far to me.

It's as if I did a paper on the number of times the word "Apostate" was used in this forum and then later revised by the original poster.
To what other research would I cite? I either counted correctly or I didn't.

It seems the more I read it, the less this report makes sense.
The only thing they point out, ultimately, is that the corrections made to the data over time may have made it seem like the temps went up without looking at cyclical data which could have impacted the data.
While this makes sense, it does not invalidate the data and does comparisons with disparate data to get to this conclusion, and most data is stopped at certain years in their comparisons, even though newer data is available, and used in other comparisons.

So the data models are not accurate and constantly being adjusted. Don't need a masters to see that.
That the data may make things look like they are warmer than they are, well who did they tell that to? Certainly if they are this sure they should publish for NOAA peer review.

That would make it something to be noticed.

Has that happened, I don't think so, not every scientist agrees on everything and I am sure there is someone who could champion this through the process.

We count on scientists to openly discuss this, and some have.

But I just came back from Switzerland where a 12,000 year old glacier is disappearing at an accelerating rate over the last few decades, enough that I can see the change and the layers can be measured in how many years they contain.

I hope it's just a cycle, but why not clean up our act just in case?

 

[/pine]

Says right there that /pine is a yam.

LoL...Obviously you could use a remedial course in reading comprehension....! (check with the local community college...you may not even need a GED to enroll...!)

 

[kenmbz]

500-year-old 'goatelope' mummy found in melting European glacier

 

[Larry Caldwell]

Just because the media calls a storm 1000 year storm is enough evidence for a thinking person to know they are blowing smoke. We don't have 1000 years of good data. Heck, we don't have 200 years of good data.

Sitting next to the Cascadia Subduction Fault, I can tell you that 1000 year events leave plenty of traces that can be analyzed and dated. Thinking you have to shuffle through old newspapers for records is nonsense. The Earth speaks.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

The link to this study is clearly there in the article https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

That paper cherry picks its data in an effort to discredit it. Fortunately for those of us who respect reality, NOAA and NASA have satellite data that is not subject to local variations.

NASA Data Resources | NASA Science – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

I have no idea why the denialists are so dedicated to denying facts. It makes no sense.