Interesting study of US raw/adjusted rural/urban data sets.
-
Unfortunately its only the US, I would like to see a global verison. But the US data does have quality, longevity and extent in its favour so it is a valid snap shot and representetive of much of the northen hemisphere. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf[^] Free of mans influence of course the true temperature of the US is figure 4, the raw rural data. This clearly demonstrates that the adjustments applied by NOAA GISS and CRUT add a great deal of warming to the rural data set for the recent period and fail to adjust for urban growth in the urban data. Both of which give a false warming signal. Now you can see why I am suspicious when I hear GISS or NOAA stating that some month or year is the hottest on record. If we had a true global raw rural data set we would have an accurate view of temperatures and untill we do we have no hope of determining how much warming is due to man made CO2 and how much is due to natural variation. I can almost hear the cries of 'how about other indicating factors, sea level, arctic sea ice, glaciers'. Irrelevant. CO2 does not directly cause the arctic to melt. Or diectly cause sea levels to rise. It is supposed to raise temperatures. And untill we have an accurate understanding of that any other issues are irrelevant.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Free of mans influence of course the true temperature
How exactly do you reach this conclusion? I'm not particularly well versed in the subject, but wouldn't weather patterns disburse CO2 from it's origin fairly quickly? The attempts at predicting said patterns being the major difficulty in predicting weather, and on a much larger scale climate? I'd be really surprised if we could conclude that rural temperatures are unaffected by human activity. If they have something in the study address that please point me at it. It sounds remarkably interesting.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Change my mind form what, from being suspicious of the stated increase in temperatures and the effectiveness of CO2?
You're not "suspicious." You're as extreme in your beliefs as Al Gore is in his. As extreme in your anti-GW stance as CSS is in his anti-government stance. THAT's why you have so much trouble gaining support here. If I cared enough, I could waste my entire day posting pro-GW crap, just as you post anti-GW crap, but it would be just as unproductive. Hell, I could even post a bunch of "undecided" articles, just to keep everything balanced. As long as your viewpoint as perceived as fanatical instead of logically-based, you'll find it difficult to "convert" anyone.
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:
You're not ...You're
So now you presume to tell me what I think? :laugh: If you want to create an argument I am sure there are lots of discussion boards where there are people willing to take you up. In the mean time, can we just discuss the facts, like those I presented here.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
Free of mans influence of course the true temperature
How exactly do you reach this conclusion? I'm not particularly well versed in the subject, but wouldn't weather patterns disburse CO2 from it's origin fairly quickly? The attempts at predicting said patterns being the major difficulty in predicting weather, and on a much larger scale climate? I'd be really surprised if we could conclude that rural temperatures are unaffected by human activity. If they have something in the study address that please point me at it. It sounds remarkably interesting.
Distind wrote:
fat_boy wrote: Free of mans influence of course the true temperature How exactly do you reach this conclusion?
Free of the effect of urbanisation and data manipulation. By removing these two factors one is left with ONLY the effects of CO2 and natural forces. Given this clearer understanding we will be in a position to determine the relative forcings. With urbanisation and data manipulation in the way we will never have a clear picture.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're not ...You're
So now you presume to tell me what I think? :laugh: If you want to create an argument I am sure there are lots of discussion boards where there are people willing to take you up. In the mean time, can we just discuss the facts, like those I presented here.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
In the mean time, can we just discuss the facts, like those I presented here.
There's my point. You assume that anything from the anti-GW side is "fact," and anything from the pro-GW side is a lie/scam/fabrication. You refuse to question your own viewpoint, but expect others to question theirs.
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:
Change my mind form what, from being suspicious of the stated increase in temperatures and the effectiveness of CO2?
You're not "suspicious." You're as extreme in your beliefs as Al Gore is in his. As extreme in your anti-GW stance as CSS is in his anti-government stance. THAT's why you have so much trouble gaining support here. If I cared enough, I could waste my entire day posting pro-GW crap, just as you post anti-GW crap, but it would be just as unproductive. Hell, I could even post a bunch of "undecided" articles, just to keep everything balanced. As long as your viewpoint as perceived as fanatical instead of logically-based, you'll find it difficult to "convert" anyone.
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:
In the mean time, can we just discuss the facts, like those I presented here.
There's my point. You assume that anything from the anti-GW side is "fact," and anything from the pro-GW side is a lie/scam/fabrication. You refuse to question your own viewpoint, but expect others to question theirs.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)In that case why dont you assume the position that the adjustmenst highlighted in the article I linked to are valid, I will take the position that adjustments are unnecessary if one takes only the rural data, and lets us debate the issue. So to start. Adjustments always require some kind of "I know better" attitude and is open to errors. Rural data however does not need adjustment and so reduces the errors likely to arise in a data set. Therefore in order to arrive at a better understanding of the change in temperatures we should restrict ourselves to only rural data. Is that not a good and valid point? What are your objections if any.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian, why do you waste your time on this? He's a fanatic. Ignore him and he might just eventually go away. Christ, CSS is infinitely more entertaining - at least he has enough imagination to switch topics occasionally.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
It's 9am... I'm not caffeinated, only about 80% awake, and know that if I do any coding now, I'll end up having to redo it later today... So I'm killing time while my brain boots up. Basically... Not a morning person.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
In that case why dont you assume the position that the adjustmenst highlighted in the article I linked to are valid, I will take the position that adjustments are unnecessary if one takes only the rural data, and lets us debate the issue. So to start. Adjustments always require some kind of "I know better" attitude and is open to errors. Rural data however does not need adjustment and so reduces the errors likely to arise in a data set. Therefore in order to arrive at a better understanding of the change in temperatures we should restrict ourselves to only rural data. Is that not a good and valid point? What are your objections if any.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
In that case why dont you assume the position that the adjustmenst highlighted in the article I linked to are valid, I will take the position that adjustments are unnecessary if one takes only the rural data, and lets us debate the issue.
Because you've made it clear that you have no intention of questioning your viewpoint, so this would be a meaningless exercise.
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:
In that case why dont you assume the position that the adjustmenst highlighted in the article I linked to are valid, I will take the position that adjustments are unnecessary if one takes only the rural data, and lets us debate the issue.
Because you've made it clear that you have no intention of questioning your viewpoint, so this would be a meaningless exercise.
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've made it clear that you have no intention of questioning your viewpoint
Actually you know this to be not true, since the first time we debated the effects of CO2 on plant growth so I suspect your recitude in debating this issus is because you cant find any reason to argue with my position. In which case why not admit that you agree?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian, why do you waste your time on this? He's a fanatic. Ignore him and he might just eventually go away. Christ, CSS is infinitely more entertaining - at least he has enough imagination to switch topics occasionally.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
You have ever been a follower of AGW, I would expect nothing more of you than dismissal and insults. CLearly you believe whatever NOAA and GISS tell you. You have no desire to verify their statements by looking at rural temperature data because to you its an matter of faith that man is destroying the planet and must change his ways. You have a lot more in common with religious fanatics than I do.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Because you've made it clear that you have no intention of questioning your viewpoint
Actually you know this to be not true, since the first time we debated the effects of CO2 on plant growth so I suspect your recitude in debating this issus is because you cant find any reason to argue with my position. In which case why not admit that you agree?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
If I recall our first debate, you fell back on an incomplete understanding of climatology, and just vastly oversimplified every argument to support your viewpoint, while assuming that anything that pointed to the contrary was an insignificant factor. Then you brought up plant growth as a red herring, which I admit I fell for, to draw the discussion away from climate entirely.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
It's 9am... I'm not caffeinated, only about 80% awake, and know that if I do any coding now, I'll end up having to redo it later today... So I'm killing time while my brain boots up. Basically... Not a morning person.
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:
It's 9am... I'm not caffeinated, only about 80% awake, and know that if I do any coding now, I'll end up having to redo it later today... So I'm killing time while my brain boots up.
Fair enough. I'm just getting my French press filled up. If I had my normal dose in me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. ;)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
If I recall our first debate, you fell back on an incomplete understanding of climatology, and just vastly oversimplified every argument to support your viewpoint, while assuming that anything that pointed to the contrary was an insignificant factor. Then you brought up plant growth as a red herring, which I admit I fell for, to draw the discussion away from climate entirely.
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:
If I recall our first debate, you fell back on an incomplete understanding of climatology, and just vastly oversimplified every argument to support your viewpoint, while assuming that anything that pointed to the contrary was an insignificant factor.
Well then, you will be happy to debate this small very simple issue about rural data vs adjusted data since the scope for simplisticsm and incomplete understanding is limited. So go ahead, do you think rural data is a more accurate indicator of global temperatures than adjusted data?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If I recall our first debate, you fell back on an incomplete understanding of climatology, and just vastly oversimplified every argument to support your viewpoint, while assuming that anything that pointed to the contrary was an insignificant factor.
Well then, you will be happy to debate this small very simple issue about rural data vs adjusted data since the scope for simplisticsm and incomplete understanding is limited. So go ahead, do you think rural data is a more accurate indicator of global temperatures than adjusted data?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Well then, you will be happy to debate this small very simple issue about rural data vs adjusted data since the scope for simplisticsm and incomplete understanding is limited.
No, I will not "be happy to debate this." I didn't even click the link in your original post, and I don't intend to do so. Every time I think, "Hey, maybe he'll actually make a scientific argument this time," you disappoint me. Let me just save us both some time and sum up your view: 1) Anyone who believes in global warming is a [scam artist/government agent/criminal] 2) Anyone who doesn't read every single article you link has been brainwashed by previous 3) Yours is the only true religion, and all non-believers should be lynched Now here's my viewpoint: 1) All viewpoints are tentative, pending further evidence 2) Some issues are too complex to be fully understood by computer geeks like us, so we need to, at least to some degree, trust the findings of people who spend their lives trying to understand said issues. 3) "I don't know yet" is a valid answer 4) In the event of #3, hope for the best and plan for the worst.
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:
It's 9am... I'm not caffeinated, only about 80% awake, and know that if I do any coding now, I'll end up having to redo it later today... So I'm killing time while my brain boots up.
Fair enough. I'm just getting my French press filled up. If I had my normal dose in me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. ;)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
I'm in the process of draining a CC battery (Don't like coffee)... One is usually enough to energize me through the morning... If not, well, I'll just be half-asleep for a while, because I've been limiting myself to one coke a day.
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:
Well then, you will be happy to debate this small very simple issue about rural data vs adjusted data since the scope for simplisticsm and incomplete understanding is limited.
No, I will not "be happy to debate this." I didn't even click the link in your original post, and I don't intend to do so. Every time I think, "Hey, maybe he'll actually make a scientific argument this time," you disappoint me. Let me just save us both some time and sum up your view: 1) Anyone who believes in global warming is a [scam artist/government agent/criminal] 2) Anyone who doesn't read every single article you link has been brainwashed by previous 3) Yours is the only true religion, and all non-believers should be lynched Now here's my viewpoint: 1) All viewpoints are tentative, pending further evidence 2) Some issues are too complex to be fully understood by computer geeks like us, so we need to, at least to some degree, trust the findings of people who spend their lives trying to understand said issues. 3) "I don't know yet" is a valid answer 4) In the event of #3, hope for the best and plan for the worst.
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:
Well then, you will be happy to debate this small very simple issue about rural data vs adjusted data since the scope for simplisticsm and incomplete understanding is limited.
No, I will not "be happy to debate this." I didn't even click the link in your original post, and I don't intend to do so. Every time I think, "Hey, maybe he'll actually make a scientific argument this time," you disappoint me. Let me just save us both some time and sum up your view: 1) Anyone who believes in global warming is a [scam artist/government agent/criminal] 2) Anyone who doesn't read every single article you link has been brainwashed by previous 3) Yours is the only true religion, and all non-believers should be lynched Now here's my viewpoint: 1) All viewpoints are tentative, pending further evidence 2) Some issues are too complex to be fully understood by computer geeks like us, so we need to, at least to some degree, trust the findings of people who spend their lives trying to understand said issues. 3) "I don't know yet" is a valid answer 4) In the event of #3, hope for the best and plan for the worst.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Oh, just incase anyone wonders why I am tired of Ians pointless argumentativeness; he criticised me for not posting a link to NOAAs webiste about satellite sensor failure when I first posted about it, accusing me of being an alarmist and either making things up or believing blindly in alarmist blogs. A few days later I cam across the information on NOAAs webiste detialing failure by sensors going back to 2005 and posted the information here. Ian did not respond. This shows his sole interst is in criticising and arguing and not discussing the facts however relevant they may be. Just the same as in this thread. He is trying to divert the thread into an argument about what I did or did not say months ago, instead of discussing the verty simple issue of what is and what is not a valid temperature reading. So he gets the :zzz: treatment because I cant be bothered with this kind of childishness.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Oh, just incase anyone wonders why I am tired of Ians pointless argumentativeness; he criticised me for not posting a link to NOAAs webiste about satellite sensor failure when I first posted about it, accusing me of being an alarmist and either making things up or believing blindly in alarmist blogs. A few days later I cam across the information on NOAAs webiste detialing failure by sensors going back to 2005 and posted the information here. Ian did not respond. This shows his sole interst is in criticising and arguing and not discussing the facts however relevant they may be. Just the same as in this thread. He is trying to divert the thread into an argument about what I did or did not say months ago, instead of discussing the verty simple issue of what is and what is not a valid temperature reading. So he gets the :zzz: treatment because I cant be bothered with this kind of childishness.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ian did not respond.
I respond if and when I happen to be viewing this forum (When at the office and not busy), and if I have something to say that hasn't already been said. If I see someone else has already made my point, then why bother?
fat_boy wrote:
Just the same as in this thread. He is trying to divert the thread into an argument about what I did or did not say months ago, instead of discussing the verty simple issue of what is and what is not a valid temperature reading.
Check out the post that I originally replied to. It had to do with changing minds, and I responded on-topic. In this case, the usual CO2/temperature garbage is just the background. You're the one who tried to change it back, and I refused to go along. I wonder if LunaticFringe was right... You're not as entertaining as CSS, and your tactics and fallacies are just as repetitive. Maybe it's time to go back to haikus. That made it more entertaining.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'm in the process of draining a CC battery (Don't like coffee)... One is usually enough to energize me through the morning... If not, well, I'll just be half-asleep for a while, because I've been limiting myself to one coke a day.
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:
Ian did not respond.
I respond if and when I happen to be viewing this forum (When at the office and not busy), and if I have something to say that hasn't already been said. If I see someone else has already made my point, then why bother?
fat_boy wrote:
Just the same as in this thread. He is trying to divert the thread into an argument about what I did or did not say months ago, instead of discussing the verty simple issue of what is and what is not a valid temperature reading.
Check out the post that I originally replied to. It had to do with changing minds, and I responded on-topic. In this case, the usual CO2/temperature garbage is just the background. You're the one who tried to change it back, and I refused to go along. I wonder if LunaticFringe was right... You're not as entertaining as CSS, and your tactics and fallacies are just as repetitive. Maybe it's time to go back to haikus. That made it more entertaining.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)