Benghazi! As far has here private email server she'll get indicted when Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice get indicted for doing similar things with their email.
Why don't you do some digging before you start making unfounded speculations about what they're doing. They're not scared to reveal the methods they're using because they already do that. Climate science is one of the most transparent sciences out there.
Here's a FAQ page from NOAA that talks about the adjustments and has links to actual published papers that explain why and how the adjustments were made:
Or you could try Berkeley Earth. They are independent of the normal funding process. If you click on the Data link then under the Transparency heading you find links to their raw data and their analysis code as well as links to their published papers.
Now really understanding those papers is probably something beyond your capabilities but they're out there.
It's pretty damn obvious that they're torturing the data into being 'politically correct'. Even after accounting for all the corrupt nodes they still have to torture the raw data even further before correcting it again so that it aligns with the CAGW narrative. Every god damn fucking year they lower the temperatures by a fraction of degree pre-hiatus followed by raising it post-hiatus.
Prove it! Go get the raw data. Go read the papers that explain why the adjustments were made and what the adjustments were. If it's fraud as you allege it shouldn't be that hard to prove. But there are at least 5 major temperature record groups all using slightly different techniques and they all are in pretty close agreement. I can't believe that they are all in it together.
So prove it. All anyone's done so far is yell about it like you.
You call it manipulation and corruption, I call it adjusting for known biases in the raw data. It's something that all sciences do so why shouldn't it apply to climate science as well?
You're right, climate change doesn't have human characteristics. However anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax. Human activities definitely have a role in climate change.
No, it's not. The 'raw' surface data sets have been manipulated time and time again...
So what's your remedy to address the known flaws in the raw data? Flaws such as changes in instruments, station moves, changes in the time of observation, changes in the environment around the stations. You can't pretend the raw data is some pure source without fault.
I got my hearing aids in December. It turns out my hearing is close to normal in the lower frequencies but falls off steeply in the higher frequencies. With the aids I am better able to understand women's high pitched voices and things like birds chirping. I could have lived without them but they improve my life a bit. My employee sponsored insurance covered about half the cost so I ended up paying a little over $2K. That included a device called a SurfLink that has built in Bluetooth to hook up to cell phones and to control the aids volume and sound profile. I can change them for listening to live music, being outdoors where wind noise can be a problem or the standard program. There are other programs I have had loaded too. The SurfLink has a built in microphone that can be set to surround or directional mode. In a meeting I can put it across the room so I can hear people on the other side better or in a noisy restaurant I can hand it to my dinning partner . The aids also have a warranty that include no-questions-asked replacement the first time if you lose or destroy them.
The hearing aids are the behind the ear kind with speaker that snakes around the front of the ear and into the ear canal. The earbud is perforated so the natural sound still comes through and they just enhance the frequencies where I'm deficient.
So I would say if you want a hearing aid that matches the pattern of your hearing loss you're going to have to get an audiologist involved but I agree the aids are on the expensive side. I'm a little ambivalent about how much I paid but since my health insurance covered half of the cost and I'll be retired in less than a year it was time to strike.
Yep, they did a study where they went through an cherry picked the individual model runs that happened by coincidence to most closely match the ENSO cycle that actually occurred and they matched the real world quite well.
I think the predictions as outlined in the IPCC reports are alarming enough. Saying they demand we revert back to cave dwelling is just a straw man that very few are advocating. You're worried about spending trillions to avert the problem but it's likely we will spend even more trillions adapting if we don't do anything to slow down anthropogenic global warming.
How far are you from the weather station they get the official figure from? How much above or below in elevation are you compared to it? The only way you could evaluate how your readings compare to the official thermometer would be to take them down to the official station and compare them directly with the official instrument (but they're probably not going to let you do that). A better way to compare them would be to keep long term records and see if the temperatures vary similarly to each other.
If not, why even bother drawing conclusions? How about you show us the real temperature records instead of the ones that were proved to be manipulated to further a political point?
Do you expect those "real" temperature records to be perfect? Do they account for biases like instrument changes, time of observation changes, station moves and the growth of urban heat islands around them? Until climatology became a thing they wouldn't have thought twice about making those changes. Would you ignore all of that even though they can produce step changes in the record? There is no such purity in the older temperature records that would justify using them unadjusted. It's only recently that climatology has been taken into account in the design of weather stations.
The "right" temperature is the one that prevailed while we built our complex global civilization. Once you get very far out of that range it becomes costly to rebuild for the new range.
There was one study recently that said the Antarctic ice sheet was gaining mass. There are hundreds of others that say the opposite. The truth probably is that there are some areas gaining ice but not the whole continent. To me the most telling study uses the GRACE satellites to measure changes in gravity which is equivalent to changes in mass. They show a net loss of ice in the Antarctic ice sheet.
Regarding what to do about it, my preference would be to let the market decide the solution. A revenue neutral carbon tax would reduce income and sales tax (we ought to be encouraging income and spending so this is good) and it would send a price signal to move us from carbon into the new energy economy.
I like the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax but rather than using it to reduce other taxed I would prefer that the proceeds of a carbon tax be redistributed as an equal share dividend to everybody. The reason for that is if the carbon tax works as we want it to it will eventually be reduced to collection zero dollars then you'd have to increase those other taxes again which may prove difficult. A dividend distribution would have the effect of punishing the profligate users of carbon and rewarding those who reduce their carbon emissions.
Also, the carbon tax needs to be simple. The simplest way it could be applied is to levy it at the mine entrance or wellhead or at the point of import. That way the tax naturally filters up the economic chain without the complication of having to apply it to millions of people individually. It gets a bit more complicated if we start taxing the carbon content of non-fossil fuel imports based on the country of origin's carbon emissions but that's doable too.
As far as the Earth is concerned there is no perfect ideal number. It just is what it is.
But when it comes to this complex global civilization we've built up the ideal number is somewhere in the range climate has seen in the last about 2,000 years. Indications are we are rapidly departing that range.
Existing models have failed to correctly predict "the pause", so why should we continue to trust them blindly ? They are obviously missing something...
Models are not expected to predict "the pause". "The pause" is an artifact of the noise of natural variation which is unpredictable in advance. If you think the models are wrong because they didn't predict "the pause" then you really don't understand what models are expected to do.
Rather than reducing other taxes a carbon tax should just be returned to everybody in equal shares. That way the excessive carbon users get penalized and the carbon misers get rewarded. After all if a carbon tax works as we want it to it will eventually reduce to zero collections and we'll still need the other taxes.
I suspect the same people who talk about 2016 being the "warmest on record" are going to be awful quiet during next year's likely La Nina.
I don't see why. Especially if 2017 is still warmer than it was during the supposed "hiatus" of the 2000's. It may be kind of like a stair case. Major El Nino sets a new record temperature. Following decade of La Ninos and lesser El Ninos is below that temperature (but still warmer than the previous step). Then another Major El Nino happens to raise the bar yet again.
Recent studies find the Little Ice Age was caused by some major volcanic eruptions that caused some sea ice growth in the Arctic that reduced albedo coupled with a slight reduction in solar output.
We really haven't spent that much yet. The real question is how much it costs to do something vs. how much it costs to not do something. From what I've seen it's likely to cost a lot more to not take action against anthropogenic global warming.
All that is nice but still doesn't explain WHY FUCKING SATELLITE TEMPS ARE NOT USED???
Even if they were used they wouldn't help your argument. The UAH lower troposphere has been setting monthly records for the past 6 months. Here's the graph.
Slashdot Mirror
What obvious voter fraud? There have been a few scattered cases here and there but never to the level to seriously affect election results.
Benghazi! As far has here private email server she'll get indicted when Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice get indicted for doing similar things with their email.
Why don't you do some digging before you start making unfounded speculations about what they're doing. They're not scared to reveal the methods they're using because they already do that. Climate science is one of the most transparent sciences out there.
Here's a FAQ page from NOAA that talks about the adjustments and has links to actual published papers that explain why and how the adjustments were made:
Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information
Or you could try Berkeley Earth. They are independent of the normal funding process. If you click on the Data link then under the Transparency heading you find links to their raw data and their analysis code as well as links to their published papers.
Now really understanding those papers is probably something beyond your capabilities but they're out there.
It's pretty damn obvious that they're torturing the data into being 'politically correct'. Even after accounting for all the corrupt nodes they still have to torture the raw data even further before correcting it again so that it aligns with the CAGW narrative. Every god damn fucking year they lower the temperatures by a fraction of degree pre-hiatus followed by raising it post-hiatus.
Prove it! Go get the raw data. Go read the papers that explain why the adjustments were made and what the adjustments were. If it's fraud as you allege it shouldn't be that hard to prove. But there are at least 5 major temperature record groups all using slightly different techniques and they all are in pretty close agreement. I can't believe that they are all in it together.
So prove it. All anyone's done so far is yell about it like you.
I'm having this problem too. I don't know if it happens in other browsers or not. It's possible it's a FF problem.
You call it manipulation and corruption, I call it adjusting for known biases in the raw data. It's something that all sciences do so why shouldn't it apply to climate science as well?
"The polar bears will be fine".
Anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax.
You're right, climate change doesn't have human characteristics. However anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax. Human activities definitely have a role in climate change.
No, it's not. The 'raw' surface data sets have been manipulated time and time again ...
So what's your remedy to address the known flaws in the raw data? Flaws such as changes in instruments, station moves, changes in the time of observation, changes in the environment around the stations. You can't pretend the raw data is some pure source without fault.
I got my hearing aids in December. It turns out my hearing is close to normal in the lower frequencies but falls off steeply in the higher frequencies. With the aids I am better able to understand women's high pitched voices and things like birds chirping. I could have lived without them but they improve my life a bit. My employee sponsored insurance covered about half the cost so I ended up paying a little over $2K. That included a device called a SurfLink that has built in Bluetooth to hook up to cell phones and to control the aids volume and sound profile. I can change them for listening to live music, being outdoors where wind noise can be a problem or the standard program. There are other programs I have had loaded too. The SurfLink has a built in microphone that can be set to surround or directional mode. In a meeting I can put it across the room so I can hear people on the other side better or in a noisy restaurant I can hand it to my dinning partner . The aids also have a warranty that include no-questions-asked replacement the first time if you lose or destroy them.
The hearing aids are the behind the ear kind with speaker that snakes around the front of the ear and into the ear canal. The earbud is perforated so the natural sound still comes through and they just enhance the frequencies where I'm deficient.
So I would say if you want a hearing aid that matches the pattern of your hearing loss you're going to have to get an audiologist involved but I agree the aids are on the expensive side. I'm a little ambivalent about how much I paid but since my health insurance covered half of the cost and I'll be retired in less than a year it was time to strike.
Yep, they did a study where they went through an cherry picked the individual model runs that happened by coincidence to most closely match the ENSO cycle that actually occurred and they matched the real world quite well.
I think the predictions as outlined in the IPCC reports are alarming enough. Saying they demand we revert back to cave dwelling is just a straw man that very few are advocating. You're worried about spending trillions to avert the problem but it's likely we will spend even more trillions adapting if we don't do anything to slow down anthropogenic global warming.
How far are you from the weather station they get the official figure from? How much above or below in elevation are you compared to it? The only way you could evaluate how your readings compare to the official thermometer would be to take them down to the official station and compare them directly with the official instrument (but they're probably not going to let you do that). A better way to compare them would be to keep long term records and see if the temperatures vary similarly to each other.
If not, why even bother drawing conclusions? How about you show us the real temperature records instead of the ones that were proved to be manipulated to further a political point?
Do you expect those "real" temperature records to be perfect? Do they account for biases like instrument changes, time of observation changes, station moves and the growth of urban heat islands around them? Until climatology became a thing they wouldn't have thought twice about making those changes. Would you ignore all of that even though they can produce step changes in the record? There is no such purity in the older temperature records that would justify using them unadjusted. It's only recently that climatology has been taken into account in the design of weather stations.
The "right" temperature is the one that prevailed while we built our complex global civilization. Once you get very far out of that range it becomes costly to rebuild for the new range.
There was one study recently that said the Antarctic ice sheet was gaining mass. There are hundreds of others that say the opposite. The truth probably is that there are some areas gaining ice but not the whole continent. To me the most telling study uses the GRACE satellites to measure changes in gravity which is equivalent to changes in mass. They show a net loss of ice in the Antarctic ice sheet.
Regarding what to do about it, my preference would be to let the market decide the solution. A revenue neutral carbon tax would reduce income and sales tax (we ought to be encouraging income and spending so this is good) and it would send a price signal to move us from carbon into the new energy economy.
I like the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax but rather than using it to reduce other taxed I would prefer that the proceeds of a carbon tax be redistributed as an equal share dividend to everybody. The reason for that is if the carbon tax works as we want it to it will eventually be reduced to collection zero dollars then you'd have to increase those other taxes again which may prove difficult. A dividend distribution would have the effect of punishing the profligate users of carbon and rewarding those who reduce their carbon emissions.
Also, the carbon tax needs to be simple. The simplest way it could be applied is to levy it at the mine entrance or wellhead or at the point of import. That way the tax naturally filters up the economic chain without the complication of having to apply it to millions of people individually. It gets a bit more complicated if we start taxing the carbon content of non-fossil fuel imports based on the country of origin's carbon emissions but that's doable too.
As far as the Earth is concerned there is no perfect ideal number. It just is what it is.
But when it comes to this complex global civilization we've built up the ideal number is somewhere in the range climate has seen in the last about 2,000 years. Indications are we are rapidly departing that range.
It's a hypothesis that has some actual evidence to back it up. Link.
Existing models have failed to correctly predict "the pause", so why should we continue to trust them blindly ? They are obviously missing something...
Models are not expected to predict "the pause". "The pause" is an artifact of the noise of natural variation which is unpredictable in advance. If you think the models are wrong because they didn't predict "the pause" then you really don't understand what models are expected to do.
Rather than reducing other taxes a carbon tax should just be returned to everybody in equal shares. That way the excessive carbon users get penalized and the carbon misers get rewarded. After all if a carbon tax works as we want it to it will eventually reduce to zero collections and we'll still need the other taxes.
I suspect the same people who talk about 2016 being the "warmest on record" are going to be awful quiet during next year's likely La Nina.
I don't see why. Especially if 2017 is still warmer than it was during the supposed "hiatus" of the 2000's. It may be kind of like a stair case. Major El Nino sets a new record temperature. Following decade of La Ninos and lesser El Ninos is below that temperature (but still warmer than the previous step). Then another Major El Nino happens to raise the bar yet again.
Recent studies find the Little Ice Age was caused by some major volcanic eruptions that caused some sea ice growth in the Arctic that reduced albedo coupled with a slight reduction in solar output.
We really haven't spent that much yet. The real question is how much it costs to do something vs. how much it costs to not do something. From what I've seen it's likely to cost a lot more to not take action against anthropogenic global warming.
All that is nice but still doesn't explain WHY FUCKING SATELLITE TEMPS ARE NOT USED???
Even if they were used they wouldn't help your argument. The UAH lower troposphere has been setting monthly records for the past 6 months. Here's the graph.
I'm sure you can document that claim /s