Global Warming: The actual charts

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Nerdtendo, Jul 16, 2019.

?
  1. Yes

    9 vote(s)
    56.3%
  2. Yes but the bottom option

    7 vote(s)
    43.8%
  1. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    How is anything in your post relevant when the climate data I've cited has been repeatedly independently verified?
     
  2. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    Really? :blink:
    You have got to be kidding me. I mean come on. I have put a LOT of work into my previous post. Only to have you dismiss it with "Oh well how is any of that relevant?"

    Sounds like you are dodging to me. ;) I could have just as easily summarily dismissed any of your previous posts in the same manner.

    Firstly, independently verified. Verified by whom? Whoever verified it (repeatedly) how can we say that they are any more qualified than Michael E. Mann. I mean he's basically the godfather of past climate change.

    Small excerpt from his Wikipedia article :

    " has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on the temperature record of the past thousand years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from noisy data."

    For all intents and purposes, all current scientific research and studies are based on or heavily influenced by his research on climate change data for the last 1000 years (his hockey stick graph).

    The Climate-gate emails revealed that he and his fellow scientists were altering the data to make it appear global warming is a real and present danger. They were hiding the true numbers to fit their narrative.

    So how is my post relevant? It is supremely relevant, almost to the point of being one of the only relevant posts on this topic.

    In light of the information I have shared with you, the correct question is, how is your post relevant?
    How is ANY of the climate data that you or others have posted in this thread relevant in the least?
    Because of what Mann and his cohorts done, it has rendered every last bit of your data and everyone else's data that was influenced by him totally irrelevant.
    Except to illustrate to everyone just how corrupt man is and maybe to teach us how easily we can be deceived by climatologists with an agenda.
     
    Bullseye and Loyalty like this.
  3. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    I'm not interested in talking about emails that do nothing to contradict my previous points. I'm interested in the actual science. The fact that the climate science I've articulate has been corroborated by multiple independent sources means everything about "email gate" is irrelevant. In other words, the science speaks for itself.

    If you want to talk about how the science of one of my points is wrong, I'm listening.

    I'm sorry you allegedly spent a lot of time on your last post, but you hopefully understand now why emails don't matter.

    Edit: I'll bite though. The emails were mischaracterizations of scientific jargon and mathematical jargon. There was no impropriety, and nothing was hidden. However, as I already explained, the emails are irrelevant to whether or not the climate science is valid (it is), and I don't want to spend more time than I have on irrelevant emails.
     
    Last edited by Lacius, Jul 20, 2019
  4. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    Actually, as a journalist, in reporting, you try to write without spin. Just report on stuff that happened basically.

    Whats responsible for the spin usually is the 'working environment' ('line of the paper'). So lets say you are perfectly neutral and center in your political opinion (which will never happen), after a while, interacting with people that think a certain way - and seeing which stories take off, and which dont, and how your colleges think about it, you will start to write 'in that style' - if you are not entirely opposed to it, which the hiring process might indicate.

    You can even see me doing it in here - writing attention seeking headlines, just because its the 'style' of this forum.

    Same with online communities. If you go to a certain corner of the internet these days, you kind of know what to expect... :)

    Issues where direct (top down) influence is 'needed' (because of national interest, owner group interests, editor in chief telling you, that your audience would want to read it with more '10 things you'd never believe'...) are not that common (at least with outlets that honor actual jounalism).

    On the other side FOX f.e. often enough is scraping alongside spreading actual lies and propaganda these days - which feels pretty damn odd, because they themselves should be able to see the logical inconsistancies at least. So I guess the "environment" idea can be moved pretty far.

    The key in all instances is, to consume a spread if you can - so you dont only get the stories from one side. And ideally to stay away from outlets that try to lead with 'emotional pull' most of the time.

    Thats basically it - if times werent changing - and even one of my preferred online newspapers is looking into creating facebook style bubbles currently, because 'research has shown, that people then stay longer and read more'. At which point the 'they do it, because their users want to read those stories' aspect becomes entirely correct. So direct user feedback on news outlets - pretty bad idea in my book. But then prevent that from happening in their current economical sphere, where people hardly ever leave instagram of facebook, and get their 'stories' from there.

    If you do - kind of - stop doing it, at that point its an 'optimized for particular attention' algorithm that tells you how the world works, or more likely - doesnt.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Example for 'journalism on the edge of propaganda':


    It is a perfect example of different 'genres' of 'journalism'. I have to explain the entire clip, because the voice over is german and loud enough to sometimes drown out the english original text.

    The clip itself is from a documentary and starts using all style elements of mood setting, that are possible in a documentary. All of those are entirely manipulative, but also - why we like watching documentaries... ;) The mood setting part then fades into a direct commentary about Kenneth Feinberg, an arbitrator in high profile cases (in this case spreading compensation money from fonds, after the 911 attacks), talking about how Fineberg gets to act independently, without oversight, without seperation of power, without resorting to the legal system (because he is out there to basically settle as many cases as possible outside a courthouse, so they can be dealt with cheaper, faster, with less risk, and keeping the legal system working, because it isnt overwhelmed) - and that that constitutes - real power. Again thats commentary (but also entirely correct ;) ). Then the clip moves into a 'news reporting piece' about illegal immigrant victims of the 911 attacks forming stakeholder groups (because they were working in the towers, when they collapsed as well - because honorable corporations care so much to have every work relationship entirely above board - not), which is purely reporting and 'neutral', then it moves into an introduction of an NGO advocate for the interests of illegal migrants, talking about how naive she was back then, in what she thought about how the US migration/law system worked. Then it moves on to a clip where she gets interviewed by a TV anchor, who is doing a PR hit job on her.

    One question asked:

    Q: So are getting illegal immigrants more money out of the 9/11 victims funds (state financed), than actual families of an american citizen?
    Disregarding the answer almost entirely (which is: They have to prove how much they were earning and are getting compensated according to whats proofable. And - they were working in undocumented, low paying jobs, so no.) - "Good, because it is so hard to stomach, that the families of foreigners who might have had multiple wives, get more money than americans, as compensation for 9/11'

    This is not real journalism, because the question asked is dumb. Statistically not relevant. Leading. Racist. And the purpose of the 'interview' is to spew moral outrage - with prefabricated opinion pieces, that are emotionally grounded - but again illogical and without a direct connection to the answer given, or the case at hand. And again - it is racist.

    So you see pretty much every relevant 'genre' of TV journalism in this clip, and you also see how it looks, if used for propaganda.

    Now - as a viewer, you are kind of expected to learn this after a while. But there are many people who never do. Which is more of a problem, than those all being journalistic genres that are in use - every day, because it comes from the expectation - that someone out there cares about you being especially stupid, and giving you an unbiased view of the world, just because you are so exceptionally stupid, and in need for it.

    This is not how the world works. Although many people believe it.

    Fineberg - btw. also got used by Shell, after their biggest oil spil to settle cases out of court, cheaply, somewhat fairly, and without overwhelming the legal system. Theres something to be said about that as well. Suckers.

    edit: Sorry, forgot to link src. Here it is: https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/062942-000-A/spielen-sie-gott-mr-feinberg/ (German and French voice over available.)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 20, 2019
  5. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    No all of your points are invalid AND climate science itself is invalid. At least anything that has to do with man-made global warming because as I said earlier, they are ALL proceeding off the same faulty information produced by Michael Mann.

    He started it out with false figures and fast forward to 2019 all so called "reputable" scientists are using his inaccurate work as the foundation, as the starting point for their own work.

    Until you produce evidence to the contrary, I have officially won this debate. So game over.
    You have mentioned, independently verified repeatedly, yet you have yet to present proof.
    You are still dodging, It is evident that you have no clue who independently verified that climate data or either as I said the independent verifiers are using the same information produced by Michael Mann to "verify" their "so - called" climate data.
     
  6. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    This is the logic that crackpots use to declare the moon landing fake as well.

    You have thousands of people working in their respective fields, all over the world. You have a 'process' called science thats all about trying to remove uncertainty, or 'a human factor' (people lying) from results. You have everybody basically questioning everybody - and doing that mostly in public. You have many of those people not following financial pressures (at least not directly) - because much of this science is state financed.

    But yet some guy - managed to pull a ruse and managed to mislead every single one of them. And the entire media system (because that always gets explained away with a 'they all corrupt, our president says' these days). And done did it - for the extremely nefarious reasons of...

    A prank.

    Apparantly. Because again, neither Blackrock, nor Vanguard (largest private investor firms on earth) divested towards renewable economy investments quite yet.

    And some guy on the internet knew. He just knew.

    And he told us.

    Have you ever considered, that you might just be crazy on that particular point. Not in general, just on that one? Because - it happens, you know? ;)

    Now - that said, yes there are self-propelling effects in place as well. F.e. if you work in those fields as a scientist, your work becomes more important. But. All the proposed solutions will come from the fields of engineering, psychology and politics. So as a climate scientist, its not as if this will propel you very far - career wise. Keep checking those numbers though. And thanks indeed for checks and balances.

    And even if - the next kind of huge problem that would cause us to act in a very similar fashion (peak oil, expected to happen around 2030) isnt that far out. But that guy on the internet just knows that all of it is a ruse, organized to...

    ... sorry, I really dont know to do what exactly right now, because humanity even tries to prevent the next migration causes doing it, so it can't even be to kill babies, or to destroy white radicals cultural identity, ...

    ..., but that guy just knows - that it is all a psyops operation, because - here - he showed us the two images he found on the internet. One of which was a well known fake - according to all fact check platforms, but those are all in it as well of course.

    Do you see a flaw in this logic? Anywhere?

    :)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 20, 2019
  7. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    One addition. Just because, you might be crazy on this one point. Doesnt mean, that some of the folks screaming in panic on the streets that the world is dying - arent crazy as well. Its equal opportunity that way. ;)

    Doesnt mean, that we dont have to start acting in some fashion or another though.

    edit:

    Just because - here are the best crackpot theories, I could come up with, why to engage in such an immense, highly unlikely "lets pull a ruse on the entire world" project.

    1st: World unification project. To basically establish something like a unified world government, that doesnt instantly break because of a conflict of interest, you have to somehow bring all of the actors on a similar level economically. Please understand, that everything would be easier than that. Especially continuing onward on an already known trajectory - having to do nothing, because the world is fine as usual.

    2nd: Easing transitioning states - so lets say, china is on their way to become the next world leading power, and europes development trajectory is to be too old, to be too unimportant, and to be outcompeted within the next two generations. How about you reduce your own economic state over time, by freezing it in place for a while.

    I think, that thats about it.

    Its much more likely though, that having to transition energy sources is a very real thing, and that investing in that is something that makes sense. Its just, that 'when' is also a major point of contention that makes and brakes entire economies and countries even. So - if you are the USA, and you are experiencing a fracking boom, and energy independence, for the first time in several houndreds of years - do you:

    a. Act swiftly and according to the expectations of china and europe, as well as the entire developing world at least?

    b. Do you say - frack it, we only made it so fun for everyone that established themselves as a part of those economies - lets wait and see a little longer. We can deal with the fallout afterwards, because - magical thinking (and low probability that we can come up with something that would actually work, scale - and basically be unproblematic terraforming in a box).

    Which of those very high concept theories seems more likely? Lets complete some thought processes here. ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 20, 2019
  8. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    1. Whether or not the emails are scandalous (they aren't) is irrelevant to whether or not the science is true. That's what the peer review process and data-replication are for. I could perform a really scandalous study on climate change, for example, and that wouldn't mean that climate change isn't real.
    2. The science has been independently verified. (Source compendium)
    3. The emails are mischaracterizations of scientific and mathematical jargon, and they aren't actually salacious. (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)
    I await your concession(s) so we can move on from the distracting topic of emails. I'm here to talk about the science of global warming and climate change. You can call that a cop-out if you want, but #1 and #2 above explain why it's not.
     
  9. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    The far right is problem solving again:
    src: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49052360
     
  10. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    SDGs have to be linked there, probably. :)

    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs

    Actually read them and dont read them naively (first ones probably more important in that agenda, there are some of them in there that are contrary in direction, there are some of them in there that might conflict with universal human rights, there are some of them in there that might partly be in there for a PR angle (cheap talk), dont dismiss them entirely, either though. Imho.)

    Here is a progress report as well:
    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 23, 2019
  11. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    Yep... you may want to gander at this article from a few months ago I posted on my FB page.... I ran across it when cleaning my page up the other day (I delete a lot of old stuff on my FB page every so often)...

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archi...kSeHRKvSXky6OCswgW_2yKjXf-EBKKNur7xxzCMn0VLyg
     
  12. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    Source lists such valuable contributions like:
    Ok, listen to this. You take one of the metrics, thats not able to be modeled sufficiently at all (cloud cover - because, its too chaotic). Then you propose that it is the cause of everything.

    Tadaaa! The far right is problem solving again.

    God their readers must be mooooooorooooooons.

    This is logically very close to: You cant tell me the weather report of 01.01.2050, so climate change isn't real.
    The stuff people on the right are dragging out just to have something to convince the morons with - is... very special.

    This is p-value stuff again. Does your model measure what you want it to measure, and with what confidence interval. "Ups it was all the cloud patterns." May be a potential explanation - but maybe not a very likely one. So if your entire argument against a thing consists of 'but randomness is with us now, politically". Go home.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 24, 2019
  13. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    How do you take a report on Australia changing their old early 1900s temp records to read lower so that it seems today is warmer as anything other than what it is.... A deliberate attempt to buff their argument for political reasons. Or do you want to deny that is what they did? They freaking changed the readings lower and....

    Nevermind, I see the replies have devolved to droll fests of name calling the left is famous for.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/hi...n2-raises-australias-warming-rate-by-over-20/

    In other news today...

    All-Time Record Low Temperatures set across Montana + one tied from 1898

    https://electroverse.net/new-all-time-record-low-temperatures-set-across-montana/
     
    Last edited by Loyalty, Jul 25, 2019
  14. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    If you google for ACORN version 2, you only get highly dubious climate sceptics blogs on the first 2 pages of google results, which is always a good sign. When reading the most 'extensive' version of the 'something is very wrong here' version of one of those sites (top search result), you'll find that it doesnt link sources, but when it makes the appearence of doing so - it links to its own reportings again.

    When you take the time to actually look at sources:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/BRR-032.pdf

    You'll find, that the blog massaged the messaging ("they did raise mean average by ultimately 50% over raw - and partly so only because of 'new equipment - automatically reporting data faster!111!1!!!1" - in the source becomes actually:

    Which now raises the question, why are those blogs suddenly using that as a main example - that there is 'something shady going on'?

    You can read up on other factors in the actual report. Like - measuring stations having been moved farther away from city centers (when cities grew f.e.), so there was a difference in location - and then you look at what caused the magnitude of changes according to the report and you see this:

    [​IMG]

    Which gives you the following problem. If you move measuring sites, and change measuring equipment, and then look at your results over time, and that that resulted in "breaking points" on 'how temperature was measured', and that then correcting those results in trend shows a higher increase on some metrics than before.

    Do you stop doing that, because 10 blogs on the internet will accuse you of having done it fraudulently?

    Answer still is no.

    Also: That part - as far as I can tell - from your main source is just plainly untrue:

    So you use words like uncover, and "greatest fraud of all time", then you act all like "raw" would be higher quality somehow, then you only link within your bubble ('The manhattan contrarian blog states, that...'). Then you use "adjustments" in quotes. Then you infer the cause of all this as 'to better bamboozle voters". And you have the dumb fucks up in arms again.

    Lets say - I give you, that this is "the biggest fraud of all time" and that the Manhattan Contrarian blog states undercover sources, bamboozling voters correctly, and that raw is god (regardless of if you moved the measuring site or not).

    What you are doing on top of that is to infer - that this is happening all over the world - for coordinated 'bamboozling voters' reasons - which you cant show. Not at all. Thats a logic jump that induces more issues - than all of the adjustments you are criticising combined - and that you have no proof for.

    And once you understand how cheap that is, you'll have understood the issue with your argument.

    Btw. higher changes in cities, because there moving the measurement stations caused higher mean temperature changes. So what do the blogs do? Show significant changes of ACORN 2 only on cities - but then don't name the causes.

    If you look at all 57 weather stations in australia on average annual max temperature, where raw, ACORN 1 and ACORN 2 are plotted - the differences arent that high - and do not change the trend at all.

    src: http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/ ()

    But all you guys do is use big fonts, but not brains.

    Thats suffuciant for your cause.

    Because you then take the changes in average annual mean minimum temperature - which media never talks about - in fact, no one but climate scientists does -

    src: http://www.waclimate.net/acorn2/
    And then make a fuss about.

    You suck.
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 25, 2019
  15. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    Last edited by notimp, Aug 4, 2019
Loading...