FYI, information on GISS, NOAA, CRUT station coverage
-
It's 9:33... Even having fireballs thrown at your face gets boring if done over and over again.
-
NWR (Not worth reading)... You seem to be posting about as frequently as Captian happy pants below without changing the subject. Are you trying to become the AWG CSS of this site or what?
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Thank you for the link fat_boy. Keep up the good work. For the lazy of you, read the summary. It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
Haakon S. wrote:
It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
Of course it does, fat_boy posted it! It is our foreknowledge of this message that causes us not to bother reading it, not laziness.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Thank you for the link fat_boy. Keep up the good work. For the lazy of you, read the summary. It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
Haakon S. wrote:
It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
It's just one of thousands of claims and counter claims on this subject, none of which is the definitive answer. About as exciting and interesting as slug racing.
It's time for a new signature.
-
Thank you for the link fat_boy. Keep up the good work. For the lazy of you, read the summary. It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
You wont convince people though. Even Ian who claims to be open minded didnt bother reading it. Yes, its shocking how GISS NOAA and CRUT can base their statements on such a selected sample. By the way GISS then uses a smoothing algorithm to apply temperature data (adusted up) in a 1200 km radius thus showing warming in areas where there are already stations that often show cooling. The product of this is that half the arctic shows a 5 degree warming based on adjusted station data fomr the coast of greenland that in all probability was kept in the data set because it was near a polluted urban center. If you want to look at the real data google "what the stations say" its on Dalys website. Its very interesting looking at raw station data fomr around the world. NOAA are also mad. They showed a 5 degree warming for the center of greenland recently. There arent ANY stations in the center of greenland, only on the coast. Bizarely their data for the coast though only showed a 1 or 2 degree warming. I would like to know what algorithm they are using.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Haakon S. wrote:
It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
Of course it does, fat_boy posted it! It is our foreknowledge of this message that causes us not to bother reading it, not laziness.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Haakon S. wrote:
It puts a big question mark to the basis for the claims that AGW is real and certain.
It's just one of thousands of claims and counter claims on this subject, none of which is the definitive answer. About as exciting and interesting as slug racing.
It's time for a new signature.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It's just one of thousands of claims and counter claims on this subject
No. Its one of TWO claims. That according to NOAA GISS and CRUT, who all using the same limited and adjusted station data show warming. And a claim that the number of stations since 1980 has reduced by 75% favouring low altitude and urban stations. Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You wont convince people though. Even Ian who claims to be open minded didnt bother reading it. Yes, its shocking how GISS NOAA and CRUT can base their statements on such a selected sample. By the way GISS then uses a smoothing algorithm to apply temperature data (adusted up) in a 1200 km radius thus showing warming in areas where there are already stations that often show cooling. The product of this is that half the arctic shows a 5 degree warming based on adjusted station data fomr the coast of greenland that in all probability was kept in the data set because it was near a polluted urban center. If you want to look at the real data google "what the stations say" its on Dalys website. Its very interesting looking at raw station data fomr around the world. NOAA are also mad. They showed a 5 degree warming for the center of greenland recently. There arent ANY stations in the center of greenland, only on the coast. Bizarely their data for the coast though only showed a 1 or 2 degree warming. I would like to know what algorithm they are using.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Even Ian who claims to be open minded didnt bother reading it.
Because you're posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over again. It's annoying, monotonous, and exactly the same as CSS's repetitive ranting. The only difference between you and CSS, is that you at least pretend to understand the subject, while he can't seem to rise out of his drug-induced stupor. You want a sensible viewpoint? Here's one[^] I found... It's a bit old, but I think it still makes sense, and I mostly agree with what it says. Things are constantly changing. Humanity IS influencing it, and not just through CO2 (Which you seem to have a fetish for). How much and in what way is not yet known, because the problem is too complex for a simple answer, so we need to act responsibly and be prepared.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Even Ian who claims to be open minded didnt bother reading it.
Because you're posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over again. It's annoying, monotonous, and exactly the same as CSS's repetitive ranting. The only difference between you and CSS, is that you at least pretend to understand the subject, while he can't seem to rise out of his drug-induced stupor. You want a sensible viewpoint? Here's one[^] I found... It's a bit old, but I think it still makes sense, and I mostly agree with what it says. Things are constantly changing. Humanity IS influencing it, and not just through CO2 (Which you seem to have a fetish for). How much and in what way is not yet known, because the problem is too complex for a simple answer, so we need to act responsibly and be prepared.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because you're posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over agai
No, I havent posted this before. ;P If you mean GW, so what. If you are interested then read it. If not ignore it. I am not compelling you to do either.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
How much and in what way is not yet known
Blah blah blah. Usual response of the prventitive action type. Fact is CO2 and temp dont corelate. Despite everything else this is obvious when you look at real temperature data. Of course of you confine yourself to the product of the above mentioned bodies then you will ever remain ignorant of reality. Its your choice.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Even Ian who claims to be open minded didnt bother reading it.
Because you're posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over again. It's annoying, monotonous, and exactly the same as CSS's repetitive ranting. The only difference between you and CSS, is that you at least pretend to understand the subject, while he can't seem to rise out of his drug-induced stupor. You want a sensible viewpoint? Here's one[^] I found... It's a bit old, but I think it still makes sense, and I mostly agree with what it says. Things are constantly changing. Humanity IS influencing it, and not just through CO2 (Which you seem to have a fetish for). How much and in what way is not yet known, because the problem is too complex for a simple answer, so we need to act responsibly and be prepared.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)And to quote fomr your link: "Our current and future vulnerability, however, will be different than in the past, even if climate were not to change" What an utter load of crap. Oh, and by the way, what you link to is a plea for continued funding.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because you're posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over agai
No, I havent posted this before. ;P If you mean GW, so what. If you are interested then read it. If not ignore it. I am not compelling you to do either.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
How much and in what way is not yet known
Blah blah blah. Usual response of the prventitive action type. Fact is CO2 and temp dont corelate. Despite everything else this is obvious when you look at real temperature data. Of course of you confine yourself to the product of the above mentioned bodies then you will ever remain ignorant of reality. Its your choice.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is CO2 and temp dont corelate.
Seriously, what's with the CO2/temperature fetish? Everything you post is about CO2 and temperature, when there are so many other factors to consider in regards to changing climates. The viewpoint I posted even said that CO2 is only one way we affect climate (CLIMATE, not just temperature), and that temperature is less important to our way of life than other factors like rainfall and humidity.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
And to quote fomr your link: "Our current and future vulnerability, however, will be different than in the past, even if climate were not to change" What an utter load of crap. Oh, and by the way, what you link to is a plea for continued funding.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way, what you link to is a plea for continued funding.
What's your point? Continued funding for climate research is GOOD. It's good to get a better idea of how it all works. That doesn't mean "Funding for a study that proves AGW." That means funding climate research in general, and increasing our ability to measure our environment. Unless your position is that we should stick our head in the ground and hope everything turns out ok, I don't see how research and monitoring capabilities could possibly be construed as a bad thing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Fact is CO2 and temp dont corelate.
Seriously, what's with the CO2/temperature fetish? Everything you post is about CO2 and temperature, when there are so many other factors to consider in regards to changing climates. The viewpoint I posted even said that CO2 is only one way we affect climate (CLIMATE, not just temperature), and that temperature is less important to our way of life than other factors like rainfall and humidity.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everything you post is about CO2 and temperature, when there are so many other factors to consider in regards to changing climates.
At last, you agree with me! YES YES YES! :) Its exactly the simpistic and fals association of CO2 and temperature by the press and GW science that IS my complaint and hence my obsesion.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way, what you link to is a plea for continued funding.
What's your point? Continued funding for climate research is GOOD. It's good to get a better idea of how it all works. That doesn't mean "Funding for a study that proves AGW." That means funding climate research in general, and increasing our ability to measure our environment. Unless your position is that we should stick our head in the ground and hope everything turns out ok, I don't see how research and monitoring capabilities could possibly be construed as a bad thing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
What's your point? Continued funding for climate research is GOOD.
50 billion dollars spent so far on GW, and yet not one single iota of solid empiracle proof that CO2 causes warming on a global scale. There has to be a point at which reasoin takes over and scientific funding is spent on matters that are more pressing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Of course it does, fat_boy posted it!
You know from other discusions we have had that I am not an idiot yet you ignore this post. Why?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It's just one of thousands of claims and counter claims on this subject
No. Its one of TWO claims. That according to NOAA GISS and CRUT, who all using the same limited and adjusted station data show warming. And a claim that the number of stations since 1980 has reduced by 75% favouring low altitude and urban stations. Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Because, like the drivel posted by CSS, it is pretty boring and has run its course. Find something interesting to post about, rather than repeating the same things over and over.
It's time for a new signature.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everything you post is about CO2 and temperature, when there are so many other factors to consider in regards to changing climates.
At last, you agree with me! YES YES YES! :) Its exactly the simpistic and fals association of CO2 and temperature by the press and GW science that IS my complaint and hence my obsesion.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Don't give yourself a gold star just yet... You're the one who keeps trying to manipulate every argument to be about CO2. I've never considered CO2 to be the main factor... It's one of many factors that influence changing climates, and it's a somewhat-useful indicator of pollution output (Though far from perfect). Every time we have a discussion about AGW or climate change, you turn it into a debate about CO2 and temperature. Ditch the fetish, man...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Why do you not want to acknowledge this?
Because, like the drivel posted by CSS, it is pretty boring and has run its course. Find something interesting to post about, rather than repeating the same things over and over.
It's time for a new signature.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Why?
Because I am already aware of the problems with the temperature data sets from various Climate Change sites.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
Don't give yourself a gold star just yet... You're the one who keeps trying to manipulate every argument to be about CO2. I've never considered CO2 to be the main factor... It's one of many factors that influence changing climates, and it's a somewhat-useful indicator of pollution output (Though far from perfect). Every time we have a discussion about AGW or climate change, you turn it into a debate about CO2 and temperature. Ditch the fetish, man...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)