Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

We know what the politicians want over AGW

But do the scientists want the same things? Where are the scientists demanding we drive tiny cars? Where are they demanding we use less fuel?

Politicians are who we report to. We do not report to Scientists.

My next car will be designed not to make scientists happy, but to make politicians happy

 

I don't yet agree as I need to evaluate the accuracy of this but irregardless this is a very thoughtful response. Thanks for that.

I have been trying to determine what required standards they use for thermometer calibration and whether or not they adjust for contaminants in the water when calibrating to ice water and if they adjust for the change in CO2 in the water of these past years. Carbonated water will freeze at lower temperatures which if used as a reference will cause the reads to be higher as the water becomes more and more carbonated. Sorry if this makes no sense. It's my job to calibrate instruments and ensure their accuracy so have always wondered.

 

All one has ever had to do to demonstrate just how superficial folks in the AGW camp are is to ask them the simple question, what is the correct temperature? Is it what we see today where tens of thousands of people die from cold exposure? Is it what we see today where millions and millions of acres across the globe aren't able to sustain agriculture? What about what is today is so inherently unique that any one of us shouldn't do any small thing to impact or change it from what we have right now? And isn't that the very definition of what denial of science then is? To countermand nature and it's ever changing climate that we must adapt to?

I know who the deniers actually are. AGW faithful. These are the same flat earthers who demanded that their version of status quo (all supported by the finest scientific minds of the day and the church mind you) wouldn't allow for, wouldn't entertain the idea that others (Chinese, the Ottomans etc) already knew better... And yet, here we are, yet again, having an inexorably political debate over one faction's decision to deny what otherwise is always right there in front of your face to know? Climate changes. It has, it does, it ever will. That's the simple truth. The obvious fact. The only folks here are trying to deny those things are those in the AGW camp who demand that this doesn't or isn't allowed to continue. The utter arrogance of that.

 

name one that isn't funded by those that do...

 

This is a very complex subject. I just wanted to bring up two points.

The interesting thing about the way math works out is that our individual measurements could have a 10C RMS error and we'd still be able to compute the global mean within 0.05C or less. The principal is called the standard error of the mean. The error is defined as SEM = σ / sqrt(N) where σ is the error on an individual measurement and N is the number of measurements. Modern reanalysis computes 500,000 grid cells spread evenly over the Earth. Each one has a temperature with an RMS of about 2C or less. So the error on the global mean temperature is then 2 / sqrt(500000) = 0.002C. In practice the error is slightly higher at about 0.01C for other reasons that I won't get into. So conventional datasets have an error of about 0.05C. Satellite datasets are about the same at 0.05C. And reanalysis is the best at 0.01C. There about 6 conventional datasets in use, 3 satellite datasets, and probably 2 dozen reanalysis datasets.

The actual error on the ARGO floats which measure the water temperature is an astonishing 0.002C. Yeah, that's not a typo. There are about 4,000 floats spread over the ocean. There are many other floats with less precise instruments as well which bring the total number up to about 10,000 or so. Then there are ships that constantly take ocean temperature readings as well. The ARGO floats have been in operation since about 2000. Their precise instrument payloads confirmed that the global mean computations from the old style floats and ship readings were pretty close although it was discovered they were biased too low in their measurements.

 

Kd w g

Everything is “ funded” by someone. Just because you can’t name “one” simply means you don’t believe or even understand science. I suppose the tooth fairy is your source ? Or Faux ? Or “ people are saying. .”

 

Man does not “ regulate” or is he in charge of climate. That implies he can control it.
Man influences climate, Big difference.

 

That is nothing more than a cop out.

Unless humans control climate, they have no impact. Even if accidently, to suppose it is our fault brings the responsibility for climate. And the alarmists blame humans.

 

I am with you all the way.

None of them has yet to tell us all the precise perfect temperature nor the perfect climate.

I challenge them when they blame humans by speaking of human control over climate.

Who put us in charge? Where are the boundaries of our responsibility. For how long will we be in charge. Politicians speak of blame. When one blames, one decides others do the control. Then they deny by saying it is an effect only. But that tells me they are guessing.

It is one thing to report on climate and variability, but something else to blame we who are not alarmed at all.

 

The AGW for lunch bunch claims they have everything figured out so they should be able to tell us what exact temperature they want the earth to be in twenty years and then factor in all the natural causes that both cool and warm the planet into a precise formula telling us just how much C02 we should ideally add to the atmosphere to obtain that ideal temperature. It's simple math isn't it?

 

Yes it is. And I have worn out keyboards giving them excellent suggestions to change things and they reject 100 percent of the ideas. Seems they would at least consider the ideas than to reject all of them.

Now my ideas do not punish humans. My ideas consider what happens to Carbon Dioxide and have included ideas to snatch it from the air using technology to using nature and they reject all such ideas. I do not call for taxes and of course that is their aim.

 

Another incoherent statement with a question mark.

 

So, what is your math background ?

 

You need a dictionary, “toot sweet.” You need to speak the same language as those you’re trying to convince.

Thinking that “ control” has the same meaning as “influence” in science means you just failed your first test.

Again, what is your math background ?

 

This makes no sense what so ever to a scientist. It’s just a hodge pudge of words by someone trying to get attention.

 

You're definition of control and influence is different then everyone else's.

What we are talking about is how humans are turning up the dial on the radiative forcing, but we can't turn the dial back; at least not as easily and quickly as we turned it up.

What term do you use to describe this?

 

I assumed you'd see it that way. Funs stuff huh?

 

Ah.. the end is nigh... Ah...... Oh wait, it isn't. Good thing too. In the coming grand minimum, when the bottom falls out, and temps rapidly decline, what ever will you do? I assume you wish we actually did have our hands on that dial. Just sayin.

 

Well, let’s put it this way. In a ligit discussion of science you might disagree with in climate change which has such a high degree of concensus, you have to “:talk their talk. “

 

So, I would suggest that since you don't actually 'talk their talk', that this is rather pointless.... And usually, if someone really wants to be credible, words like "ligit" aren't ever used. So, if you wish, we can wait until you catch up. I have some time.....

 

I guarantee one thing, I can easily put up a better argument scientifically for trusting AGW science then you can “not.”:

Still waited for you to come up with an accredited institute of higher learning that supports your gibberish.

 

Catch up to what. You’re in the rear view mirror. No institution of any substance agrees with you.

 

Swing for the fence stud. Swing for the fence...

 

You get agreement among the easily swayed, low information conservative bunch here. But that’s it, all 25% of you.

 

Not one institute ?