Global warming discussion III

[ideogram]

You didn't even imagine there could be two sets of data, raw and adjusted.

Identify which of your sources are raw data and which are adjusted. It's your evidence, you justify it.

 

[ideogram]

They have two sets of books? How does that work in your mind?

Like this:

Here's the data for Chicago from the BEST site:

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/173130-TAVG-Data.txt

Both raw and adjusted figures are given.

 

[Belz...]

More fallacies.

Do you even know what that word means ?

If somebody claims the old weather station recorded "a slew of 113 degree F readings", and you go and check, and there are no readings anywhere near that from the NWS, you know the claim is false. It's obvious.

You know this isn't what I'm talking about. Stop playing games with me. I am talking about global warming in general. You say the data speaks for itself. Why have the experts not picked up on that ?

Answer the question.

 

[ideogram]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...conservative-alec-over-climate-flap/16233881/

 

[Mikemcc]

You didn't even imagine there could be two sets of data, raw and adjusted.

Identify which of your sources are raw data and which are adjusted. It's your evidence, you justify it.

They don't even have one. The only link I found on the NWS website to daily measurements was pointing to NCDC.

 

[bit_pattern]

Just an addendum to the "raw data" claims from so-called sceptics - recently the media in Australia published an article from a think-tank scientist caliming to have analysed homogenised data from the Bureau of Meteorology and found that they had artifically increased the temperature trend.

It was all the rage among certain circles for a few days but did manage to at least inspire this wonderful rebuttal from BoM scientists.

The bit I found most amusing was when the authors pointed out that when you look at the entire data set for the whole country - and not just a handful of carefully cherry-picked sites that apparently support the "sceptic" argument - you actually find that homogenisation actually corrected for a warming bias that was present in the raw data.

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

I can't remember for certain but I'm pretty sure the same thing has been pointed out regarding the US surface temp record too - homogenisation has actually resulted in a slightly lower average temperature rise than what shows up in the raw data.

Tres amusing.

 

[Pixel42]

Well it suggests that those people were unaware that the weather data they were gathering (for such it was, from their point of view) would some day be needed in the stude of climate change. If one believes that "climate is always changing" and people have always been concerned about it then this becomes negligence.

Of course we don't know what constraints they were working under when placing the station, it's possible the roof was the least worst location. Perhaps they just couldn't spare someone to trek out to a more suitable location every day, or perhaps the roof was the best place for accurate wind speed measurements and they considered that more important than accurate temperature measurements.

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course we don't know what constraints they were working under when placing the station, it's possible the roof was the least worst location. Perhaps they just couldn't spare someone to trek out to a more suitable location every day, or perhaps the roof was the best place for accurate wind speed measurements and they considered that more important than accurate temperature measurements.

Wind speed and direction are certainly what matters most for air traffic control and for pilots, so having the anenometer and windsock visible from the control tower would be an advantage. When it comes to drawing up weather-charts air-pressure is the most important element and would obviously be homogenised - using raw pressure data without reference to elevation would be a bit silly, after all.

Basically, temperature used to be the least interesting measurement from a forecaster's perspective. From an AGW denier's perspective it's the most interesting one.

 

[Belz...]

Making things up in the age of the internet doesn't work.

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to tell you.

Answer my question, r-j:

Why would a layman understand and interpret the data better than most of the experts on the planet ? What is your explanation for that ? We can look at the actual data after you've explained.

If you fail to answer, then I will have little choice but to conclude that my initial assessment was correct: you _are_ accusing those experts of deliberate falsehoods, but cannot provide a reason for this fraud, nor prove that it actuall occurs. That is slander, you know ? I suspect that this is why you are avoiding this question like the plague.

It's just the conspiracy theorist's M.O., and I think this thread should be moved to the appropriate section.

 

[r-j]

It's become too funny to even describe anymore.

You didn't even imagine there could be two sets of data, raw and adjusted.

The entire argument is over exactly that. That the actual data is changed, creating a second, and third, and fourth collection of "data". That in toto always makes the present warmer, and the past colder.

 

[greybeard]

R-j who cant find the name of two scientists that I found multiple ways of contacting in a couple of minutes, who believes that the Oregon petition contains the names of over 31,000 scientists has discovered a giant conspiracy. I would like to say that is funny but it's not. It's beyond a joke.

 

[Belz...]

Still waiting for your answer, r-j. I'm thinking that my conclusion, that you were so outraged about a few days ago, is in fact correct, and you prefer not to call attention to it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Indeed, but 55% of the carbon is going somewhere.

Sure it is. It is the carbon cycle. Improving that cycle from 55% to over 100% is very important. That way we can start making a dent on the 400 ppm atmospheric carbon.

Agriculture is starting to get more attention in international negotiations around climate change. The consensus is that it contributes 10-15% of all global anthropogenetic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making it one of the key drivers of climate change. But looking at agriculture alone is not enough; it is also necessary to look at the larger food system. Beyond the emissions that occur on the farm, today's dominant industrial food system generates GHGs by transporting food around the world, by deforestation to make way for plantations and by generating waste. Pulling together the available data on these sources of emissions reveals that the global food system is responsible for around half of all GHGs. Thus it is the food system as a whole that it at the center of the problem of climate change.
If measures are taken to restructure agriculture and the larger food system based on food sovereignty, small scale farming, agroecology and local markets, global GHG emissions could be cut by half within a few decades. There is no need for carbon markets or techno-fixes. What is needed is the right policies and programmes that bring about a shift from the current industrial food system to a sustainable, equitable and truly productive one.

Quoted from Commentary IV Food, Climate Change and Healthy soils: The Forgotten Link, UNCTAD

Now that of course is before we even start talking about Biome Carbon Cycle Management. I have another whole thread on that. You start actually taking the food system to negative carbon emissions by putting it in the agricultural soils, and the whole ball game changes dramatically. Not only does that solve the AGW problem, it just might be possible to dramatically reduce or eliminate world hunger at the same time.

A fair number of agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts believe that a large-scale shift to organic farming would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger. [1]

 

[greybeard]

Once again, you don't know who I've talked to. This assuming things not in evidence must stop.

Really! I asked you constantly if you had contacted the scientists you claim are part of a conspiracy. You of course ignored me until you felt you couldn't any more. Then you said.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

I clicked on their names, just goes to http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

No contact info.

Clicked that contact link

http://berkeleyearth.org/contact

Mailing list, for them to contact, no way to contact them.

Called the office (510) 926-6446

Automated answering computer, not working.

No contact on realclimate of any kind.

How do you suggest I get hold of them?

DC and I immediately found that it was incredibly easy to contact them. Contact details are on the realclimate site and the scientists themselves make themselves easily available. So easy a google search turned up one of the scientists emails in less than a minute.

ETA So we know you didn't contact the people who you are calling yahoos, liars and conspirators to ask them to explain what is confusing you .

How stupid would anyone be to believe somebody has found proof of a giant conspiracy when he can't even find a way to contact the authors of a blog that your average eight year old could find in a couple of minutes.

 

[r-j]

DC and I immediately found that it was incredibly easy to contact them.

And yet no word at all about it. What did they say? Have you spoke with them? Got an email yet?

You say the data speaks for itself. Why have the experts not picked up on that ?

I showed an example right here in thread, where I noted that twice somebody claimed something, that was simply not true. Nobody else even noticed. Much less corrected the error.

Why would a layman understand and interpret the data better than most of the experts on the planet ?

That's your fallacy again. If you are saying I ever said that, then quote me, and I will answer you. But I do not answer to things you make up. Stick to the facts, it is easier by far.

 

[r-j]

Contact details are on the realclimate site

Nobody here has provided a single page, link or email to contact anyone using the relaclimate blog, much less the two authors of the page under contention.

 

[DC]

And yet no word at all about it. What did they say? Have you spoke with them? Got an email yet?

I showed an example right here in thread, where I noted that twice somebody claimed something, that was simply not true. Nobody else even noticed. Much less corrected the error.

That's your fallacy again. If you are saying I ever said that, then quote me, and I will answer you. But I do not answer to things you make up. Stick to the facts, it is easier by far.

So after you claimed that you tried so hard to reach them, i gave you a working email adress, and you do not even try to contact them?

very telling.
your dishonesty is so extreme.

 

[DC]

Nobody here has provided a single page, link or email to contact anyone using the relaclimate blog, much less the two authors of the page under contention.

you are such a blatant liar. you have absolutely no shame.....

[email protected]
or
[email protected]

why do you constantly lie?

 

[greybeard]

And yet no word at all about it. What did they say? Have you spoke with them? Got an email yet?
I showed an example right here in thread, where I noted that twice somebody claimed something, that was simply not true. Nobody else even noticed. Much less corrected the error.

That's your fallacy again. If you are saying I ever said that, then quote me, and I will answer you. But I do not answer to things you make up. Stick to the facts, it is easier by far.

Priceless! You want me to contact these scientists, highly respected in their field and tell them somebody on the internet has built a conspiracy around something they wrote in a blog article.

No that's your job r-j. You asked us how to contact them because you couldn't find how. We showed you how. You are the one who should have asked them to explain the points which you have an issue with before you started making serious accusations. You asked how you should contact them. We told you. Now have the decency to do it.

 

[greybeard]

Nobody here has provided a single page, link or email to contact anyone using the relaclimate blog, much less the two authors of the page under contention.

R-j this is getting embarrassing. Please go back and check then for once admit you are wrong.

ETA even when it is spelt out to you in simple language you still don't know how to contact them? Do you want us to provide links to the discussion we had about it or can you find them yourself?