The data needs to stand on its own. No adjustments are needed
Actually no. Context matters.
consider for example Napoleon. the age old myth is that Napoleon was short, and stems partly from the fact (verifiable historical fact) that at his death his height was listed as 5ft 2in.
but the reality is that he wasn't, and it arises from an error or mismatch in units used. specifically, those were French units on his death certificate.
using modern units, we would say he was 5ft 7in tall, which is actually somewhat above the average height for a Frenchman at the time of 5ft 5in (again in modern units). http://www.todayifoundout.com/...
So no. Data cannot stand always on its own. Context matters and can change the entire meaning of the "raw data" you present.
Now relate that to climate data. You have 4 measuring stations within a small radius, say, on an acre of land small enough that we can consider them to all be measuring the same area. yet their data doesn't match up.
why?
well, upon examination you discover: -One sits in an under a lean too (open side, but shaded from above) among some trees. -One is on the east side of a tree. -One is on the west side of a building. -One is on top of a small hill.
Q: which data set is correct? A: All of them, and none of them.
Because each is biased by different factors. the first one experiences no direct sunlight. it also experiences no wind, due to the trees. the second one experiences direct sunlight from sunrise til noon, at which point it becomes shaded by the tree. the third one experiences no direct sunlight until the afternoon, having been shaded by the building all morning. the last one experiences direct sunlight all day. its also at a different elevation being on a hill, and being exposed on that hill, it also experiences wind, if its windy.
And that's reality. Different stations will have different biases depending on their installation. IE, context.
And it matters. If a direct sunlight on a hill station is replaced by one under a leanto next to a building, the two sets of readings are not directly comparable. Thus, calibrations of the data so that they are.
I suspect you have no clue what the terms "shill", "front organization", or "rent-seeking" even mean.
Skeptical Science presents,in a manner more easily understood by those who don't hold phds in the field, including ignorant (actual) shills like yourself, the actual peer reviewed science, along with full citations and links to all peer reviewed referenced scientific data and papers presented.
you meanwhile present specious and fallacious arguments backed by nothing.
while not large, yes actually it does have an effect, even on greenhouses.
greenhouses work because glass (or plastic sheeting) does not well transmit infrared radiative energy. IE, its an insulator that blocks the transmission of radiative heating, or radiative transfer. visible and ultraviolet light passes through the glass and strikes the surface of the objects inside, including the molecules of air. some of this energy is then re-radiated as infrared light energy, ie, heat. Because the glass blocks the infrared from exiting the structure, the system becomes unbalanced.
In thermodynamics terms, the greenhouse is an enclosed system with 1 input and no output. And therefore because Ei > Eo, the total energy of the system must increase, and this results in increased temperature inside.
Now, it is completely possible to create a greenhouse (or simply, enclosed system) and control the gases inside, then measure the effect different compositions have on the total temperature increase when exposed to a source of radiative energy that can enter but not escape.
In fact, that's exactly how it's been proven that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas as early as the 1800s by scientists studying the radiative effects of various gases, such as john Tyndall.
1) Lamar Smith for one. He's the one who raised the issue, an issue also known about by everyone involved in the science. And they've now completed their work accounting for it, and presenting their finding back to him.
See, you (and Lamar Smith) are trying to do this:
Skeptic (Denier): What about X? Does X not disprove your entire conclusion? Scientists: We are aware of X, and studying its impacts on the data so that it can be accounted for. ~~time passed~~ Scientists: We have finished studying X and have accounted for it. However it's effect is negligible, and our original conclusion still stands. Skeptic (Denier): Well who gives a s*** ?! You're all liars and the climate is fine.
2) No, they are not. The devices used to measure have accuracy in the range of 0.001 degree, or better. And even less accurate devices (say, +/-0.1) can still show a trend. The accuracy of the device relates more to each individual reading in a vacuum, not to a series of readings. That is to say, errors are typically linear or progressive in measurement equipment; non-linear or random inaccuracy does occur, but is uncommon (has a lot to do with the type of instrument too....geared instruments, like dial indicators, can more easily appear non-linear if the multiple errors are on a gear that only rotates a single time; note that if the gear rotated twice, you would see the error as cyclical). IE, say your thermometer is rated as +/-0.1 degree accuracy. So when measuring 20.1C, the "true" could be between 20.0 and 20.2. Then say you take a 2nd measurement, of 21.6. The true value is between 21.5 and 21.7. BUT, assuming the true value of measurement 1 was 20.2....it would be very unlikely that the true value of the 2nd measurement is below the indicated value. IE, the trend is still visible. (source: several years of metrology and instrumentation experience)
200 years ago, and at roughly 330,000x faster than all previous known trends it's nothing like previous trends. go peddle your paid shilling somewhere else.
but they are designed to operate in that range safely, with various principles and design features to reduce drag and eliminate transonic shock forces as Area Rule, swept wings, air fences, etc.
remember that the wings were swept specifically because it delays the onset of the sonic shock compared to straight wings, which begin experiencing it at a lower velocity.
and those surfaces aren't 200 feet long, high aspect ratio, rotating arms rotating at ~200mph, which adds another layer of considerations. wind turbine blades take their cues from sailplanes and helo rotors.
I know its hard for you, but think it through: same way US cities do. the jobs and investment were promised, probably in exchange various favors from the local city government to the Ford company. they were probably counting on that investment and jobs, and been structuring local activities around it to be ready for it. that now means lost time and effort on their part.
happens in the US all the time when a company backs out of a new plant before construction begins but after inking the deal with the new town.
all that s*** you guys accused the Clintons of doing all those years, all the corruption, all the double dealing? trump is doing right now, blatantly, in public, using just his status as president elect, not even in office yet.
thank god you saved us from the Clintons because EMAILS!!!@#!$@#! suddenly became more important right?
Regardless of your own "no true Scotsman" definition, our allies in the region do include Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Morocco. Egypt had been one as recently as 2013, but it's status following the repeat disruptions of its government leave it rather chaotic at the moment.
We also have a drone base in Saudi, and a full military base (joint Army/Air Force) in Qatar. Been to the Qatar one. Nice place. Has a Chili's on base, and a regular boat tour out into the Gulf for swimming and sunning.
because telling the truth about trump = trolling. and the blatant bigotry of your own posts somehow doesn't. don't let the door hit you on the way out.
except for the minor detail that the most advanced states and nations of the world with the best performing economies and most satisfied workers trend to the left...
Republicans want legal voters. The rules pushed by democrats make illegal voting trivial. We can't get on a commercial airplane anywhere in the world with the rules the democrats want to use. Is voting at least as important as flying? Registering to vote in the USA is easy. Showing up to vote is easy for the vast majority of people. Just show a state ID. Most people show a drivers license, but a state ID is acceptable too. Democrats complain that payment is needed to get a state ID. Not for low income people. It is free for them. It is a hassle to get any ID/DL. That is just the nature of dealing with the govt. It is a hassle 1-time every 10 years where I live. My last new DL required paying $10 by mail. I sent a cheque. They mailed the new DL back a few days later, reusing the old photo. My next one (in 2019) will be a major hassle thanks to the federal Real-ID requirements. THESE requirements are inconvenient, but ensure only legal residents get state IDs. They are the primary door into "the system" to provide access to govt programs, so a little extra care makes complete sense to me.
Trump admitting at one of his thank you tour stops that all of it, the "lock her up", "drain the swamp" etc, was all BS just to elected. notice how the audience is confused by what is going on, as trump tells the people who elected him, that the things he told them was crap to get elected.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to read both:
-Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done
-No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine
translation: "my ignorance is as good as and disproves your knowledge"
The data needs to stand on its own. No adjustments are needed
Actually no.
Context matters.
consider for example Napoleon.
the age old myth is that Napoleon was short, and stems partly from the fact (verifiable historical fact) that at his death his height was listed as 5ft 2in.
but the reality is that he wasn't, and it arises from an error or mismatch in units used.
specifically, those were French units on his death certificate.
using modern units, we would say he was 5ft 7in tall, which is actually somewhat above the average height for a Frenchman at the time of 5ft 5in (again in modern units). http://www.todayifoundout.com/...
So no.
Data cannot stand always on its own.
Context matters and can change the entire meaning of the "raw data" you present.
Now relate that to climate data.
You have 4 measuring stations within a small radius, say, on an acre of land
small enough that we can consider them to all be measuring the same area.
yet their data doesn't match up.
why?
well, upon examination you discover:
-One sits in an under a lean too (open side, but shaded from above) among some trees.
-One is on the east side of a tree.
-One is on the west side of a building.
-One is on top of a small hill.
Q: which data set is correct?
A: All of them, and none of them.
Because each is biased by different factors.
the first one experiences no direct sunlight. it also experiences no wind, due to the trees.
the second one experiences direct sunlight from sunrise til noon, at which point it becomes shaded by the tree.
the third one experiences no direct sunlight until the afternoon, having been shaded by the building all morning.
the last one experiences direct sunlight all day. its also at a different elevation being on a hill, and being exposed on that hill, it also experiences wind, if its windy.
And that's reality. Different stations will have different biases depending on their installation.
IE, context.
And it matters.
If a direct sunlight on a hill station is replaced by one under a leanto next to a building, the two sets of readings are not directly comparable.
Thus, calibrations of the data so that they are.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
then you should have no problems explaining how it applies to environmentalists or Skeptical Science.
again: I rather suspect you cannot.
I suspect you have no clue what the terms "shill", "front organization", or "rent-seeking" even mean.
Skeptical Science presents,in a manner more easily understood by those who don't hold phds in the field, including ignorant (actual) shills like yourself, the actual peer reviewed science, along with full citations and links to all peer reviewed referenced scientific data and papers presented.
you meanwhile present specious and fallacious arguments backed by nothing.
while not large, yes actually it does have an effect, even on greenhouses.
greenhouses work because glass (or plastic sheeting) does not well transmit infrared radiative energy. IE, its an insulator that blocks the transmission of radiative heating, or radiative transfer. visible and ultraviolet light passes through the glass and strikes the surface of the objects inside, including the molecules of air. some of this energy is then re-radiated as infrared light energy, ie, heat. Because the glass blocks the infrared from exiting the structure, the system becomes unbalanced.
In thermodynamics terms, the greenhouse is an enclosed system with 1 input and no output.
And therefore because Ei > Eo, the total energy of the system must increase, and this results in increased temperature inside.
Now, it is completely possible to create a greenhouse (or simply, enclosed system) and control the gases inside, then measure the effect different compositions have on the total temperature increase when exposed to a source of radiative energy that can enter but not escape.
In fact, that's exactly how it's been proven that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas as early as the 1800s by scientists studying the radiative effects of various gases, such as john Tyndall.
1) Lamar Smith for one. He's the one who raised the issue, an issue also known about by everyone involved in the science. And they've now completed their work accounting for it, and presenting their finding back to him.
See, you (and Lamar Smith) are trying to do this:
Skeptic (Denier): What about X? Does X not disprove your entire conclusion?
Scientists: We are aware of X, and studying its impacts on the data so that it can be accounted for.
~~time passed~~
Scientists: We have finished studying X and have accounted for it. However it's effect is negligible, and our original conclusion still stands.
Skeptic (Denier): Well who gives a s*** ?! You're all liars and the climate is fine.
Also:
No, it's not a small amount of warming
No, more CO2 isn't necessarily the boon to the environment you think it is. Problems associated with increased heat and/or CO2 include reduced agricultural output, increased pest infestation of crops, and crops that turn toxic , and others.
2) No, they are not. The devices used to measure have accuracy in the range of 0.001 degree, or better. And even less accurate devices (say, +/-0.1) can still show a trend. The accuracy of the device relates more to each individual reading in a vacuum, not to a series of readings. That is to say, errors are typically linear or progressive in measurement equipment; non-linear or random inaccuracy does occur, but is uncommon (has a lot to do with the type of instrument too....geared instruments, like dial indicators, can more easily appear non-linear if the multiple errors are on a gear that only rotates a single time; note that if the gear rotated twice, you would see the error as cyclical). IE, say your thermometer is rated as +/-0.1 degree accuracy. So when measuring 20.1C, the "true" could be between 20.0 and 20.2. Then say you take a 2nd measurement, of 21.6. The true value is between 21.5 and 21.7. BUT, assuming the true value of measurement 1 was 20.2....it would be very unlikely that the true value of the 2nd measurement is below the indicated value. IE, the trend is still visible. (source: several years of metrology and instrumentation experience)
200 years ago, and at roughly 330,000x faster than all previous known trends it's nothing like previous trends.
go peddle your paid shilling somewhere else.
but they are designed to operate in that range safely, with various principles and design features to reduce drag and eliminate transonic shock forces as Area Rule, swept wings, air fences, etc.
remember that the wings were swept specifically because it delays the onset of the sonic shock compared to straight wings, which begin experiencing it at a lower velocity.
and those surfaces aren't 200 feet long, high aspect ratio, rotating arms rotating at ~200mph, which adds another layer of considerations.
wind turbine blades take their cues from sailplanes and helo rotors.
I know its hard for you, but think it through: same way US cities do.
the jobs and investment were promised, probably in exchange various favors from the local city government to the Ford company.
they were probably counting on that investment and jobs, and been structuring local activities around it to be ready for it.
that now means lost time and effort on their part.
happens in the US all the time when a company backs out of a new plant before construction begins but after inking the deal with the new town.
plus ford is already replacing steel with aluminum in the F150 where it can
libertarians believe in screwing over all of society in the name of freedumb.
so naturally he would refuse.
sounds like France is ready for the all-robotic-labor-force already.
that puts them ahead of the US.
In yet another metric.
Would-be world conquerors tend to be dictators that crush everything that doesn't fit their exact world view.
you just described exactly what the US has done in roughly half the countryies of the world following WWII.
so much so, that it gave rise to this old joke:
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
he uses facts, whereas Jones does a line of LSD and coke and then turns on his microphone shouting out whatever pops into what passed for his mind.
all that s*** you guys accused the Clintons of doing all those years, all the corruption, all the double dealing? trump is doing right now, blatantly, in public, using just his status as president elect, not even in office yet.
thank god you saved us from the Clintons because EMAILS!!!@#!$@#! suddenly became more important right?
morons.
spoken like the ignorant person you are.
Regardless of your own "no true Scotsman" definition, our allies in the region do include Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Morocco.
Egypt had been one as recently as 2013, but it's status following the repeat disruptions of its government leave it rather chaotic at the moment.
We also have a drone base in Saudi, and a full military base (joint Army/Air Force) in Qatar.
Been to the Qatar one. Nice place. Has a Chili's on base, and a regular boat tour out into the Gulf for swimming and sunning.
a) they are not our only ally in the region
b) the past does not give them a pass on their own slow moving genocide
because telling the truth about trump = trolling.
and the blatant bigotry of your own posts somehow doesn't.
don't let the door hit you on the way out.
except for the minor detail that the most advanced states and nations of the world with the best performing economies and most satisfied workers trend to the left...
Republicans want legal voters. The rules pushed by democrats make illegal voting trivial. We can't get on a commercial airplane anywhere in the world with the rules the democrats want to use. Is voting at least as important as flying? Registering to vote in the USA is easy. Showing up to vote is easy for the vast majority of people. Just show a state ID. Most people show a drivers license, but a state ID is acceptable too. Democrats complain that payment is needed to get a state ID. Not for low income people. It is free for them. It is a hassle to get any ID/DL. That is just the nature of dealing with the govt. It is a hassle 1-time every 10 years where I live. My last new DL required paying $10 by mail. I sent a cheque. They mailed the new DL back a few days later, reusing the old photo. My next one (in 2019) will be a major hassle thanks to the federal Real-ID requirements. THESE requirements are inconvenient, but ensure only legal residents get state IDs. They are the primary door into "the system" to provide access to govt programs, so a little extra care makes complete sense to me.
Utter BS.
whomever told you John Lewis supports repealing the 2nd Amendment, lied to you.
Trump admitting at one of his thank you tour stops that all of it, the "lock her up", "drain the swamp" etc, was all BS just to elected.
notice how the audience is confused by what is going on, as trump tells the people who elected him, that the things he told them was crap to get elected.
this from the man who "tells it like it is."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Really? Care to explain Reagan's Administration then?