We can't believe that either it's all based on flawed data and computer projections.
It's time to understand we are in a period of long term climate change in which the actions of man are incidental to the outcomes
|
We can't believe that either it's all based on flawed data and computer projections.
It's time to understand we are in a period of long term climate change in which the actions of man are incidental to the outcomes
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I have in the past proven that MANY of the "weather Stations" they are claiming the changes were measured at... when they were installed were in the middle of a grassy undeveloped area... but today are surrounded py pavemtn, ashphault and man made structures... By links that showed pictures of them before... and now. I'm not going to waste my time digging them up again. Because most of the Global Warming crowd also believe Obama is a demi-god... and their capacity to process data rationally is in question.
That renders any long term comparisons invalid because the basis of the data collection is no longer consistent.
Input flaws raw data.. and the results WILL be flawed as well.
If indeed man made structures/activity affect the data Smoothy, then you have proven beyond a doubt that man affects his environment in some way. Also we know removing the forest, and putting stuff in the land, air and sea, changes ecosystems, some times very dramatically.
Its very possible that man has speeded up a situation that possibly was going to happen anyway, and highly likely that he changes the balance of nature in some ways also. Now we can argue about what that is, but there are a lot of man made bubbles of activity around the world and a good example I submit is the Chinese experiment that has devastated their air quality and their search for more energy is eroding the farmlands at huge rates.
Now you can ignore it, and minimize the effects of man activity on the planet (Its quite profitable to do so), but that only hides the problem, not solves it, and it sure won't solve itself.
Scientists predict an ice-free arctic by 2013, and instead of being ice-free the ice expanded by 920,000 square miles and we're the flat earthers? Bwa ha ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You are missing the point I was making... you can't compare a mearurement in the middle of a grassy field... and one in the middle of a parkling lot 30 years late and claim the pemprature is rising...
Its no different than measuring the middle of a field... then measuing the inside of an occupied building at the same physical location before and after the building is put up.
Changing the conditions of a test during the test... invalidates the data collected. And the test results as well.
Hello again, smoothy:
In MY world, scientists KNOW how to collect and evaluate data.Quote:
Changing the conditions of a test during the test... invalidates the data collected. And the test results as well.
Excon
You can claim that man made the temperature rise. Same collection METHOD, different CONDITION, for comparison. You can't ignore your own observation of the difference between a location with man, and without.
Your methodology is flawed. Temperature over time is what changes water to steam, and more heat changes it to a GAS, still water, but the components have been broken down and separated and just as heat changes water, it changes CHEMICAL composition.
I guess you never look at the air quality reports on your local weather station either. Then you would know the differences in highly industrial areas and very low industrial areas. Rural, and urban. Hell don't you remember during the Olympics in China they had to shut down the industries to clear the air of pollutants? They wanted to hide how NASTY it was.
How do you ignore that data?
2007, arctic will be "ice-free"Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
2013, arctic 920,000 square mile ice expansion
Their evaluation of the data was "gravely flawed" is the correct term.
They may have missed a few variables.
Hello again, Steve:
Nahhhh... If you understand the science, then you'd get a sense of the TIME involved. Given that I DO understand the science, I can report that if they MISSED that projection by even a decade or two, it's STILL accurate.Quote:
2007, arctic will be "ice-free"
2013, arctic 920,000 square mile ice expansion
Their evaluation of the data was "gravely flawed" is the correct term.
Plus, given those same variables, NO scientist worth his salt would narrow down a projection like that to a particular year or even a particular decade.
excon
yes the extrapolated from a few obseravtions without checking their enviromment, thevariables they missed were the ability of sea water to absorb heat, the vegitation in urban areas, the variability of climate. What we had here were some academic nerdsQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Less burning of fossil fuels, replacement of old coal burning power facilities, natural gas conversions, emergence of wind a solar power. The price of gas going up. Just to name a few of those variables. Doesn't solve the problem, but delays the effects.
No, ex said the know how to evaluate data. You guys wouldn't trust anyone else that is as consistently WRONG about their evaluations as climate scientists, not your doctor, not your financial adviser, probably not your spouse. Yet you do so with politicians and climate scientists. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
More accurately, you believe the dogma more than the data.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
Nahhh... Actually, I believe ME. I KNOW that you can't throw your trash into the air WITHOUT bad consequences... The MOMENT when we'll be awash is BESIDES the point. That you cling to a DATE certain to debunk the theory, DEBUNKS your debunk.Quote:
More accurately, you believe the dogma more than the data.
Excon
Your arguments, like your bats, are steadily devolving my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Low blow, but congrats. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Just trying to relay it in terms he can understand. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I think we should tear up the pavement on the city streets... and tear town the cities and make them live in tents... solve the heat island effect and water runoff issues right away...
Apparently they don't... not the liberal ones anytway.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM. |