Rediscovery of Technology

smr wrote:So much for global warming on this date! Oh, I know we have climate change...we could say that our entire documented and undocumented history!

You do know that you are taking a local phenomenon and use it to claim a global trend is invalid, right? And that that line of reasoning is bogus?

Allright theE, You do know that from US to Europe to Australia that they have found scientists that were/are fudging the numbers. Global warming was found that scientists were manufacturing data to agree with global warming. A university server was hacked and their own email conversations were released. These university professors were altering the data to maintain their grant funding ($20 billion dollars a year in the US) while destroying the lives of any scientists that dared challenge them. Not one of these so called scientists were fired from their jobs.

I ask who should a person trust on climate?
The climate profiteers, the politicians, the skeptics, or do we even know enough what affects the climate (such as the sun and core of the earth).

Most rational people can understand why an individual would question these global warming/climate change crowd!

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/202979

JOEL KOTKIN: The Three Faces Of Populism.“The real target of Davos populists is not themselves, of course. Instead, the effort is to further burden Obama’s version of Josef Stalin’s harsh treatment of Kulaks, the early Soviet Union’s successful but hardly ultrarich peasant class. Megan McArdle aptly describes Obama’s proposal – abandoned this past week – to tax college savings accounts to pay for subsidized college as ‘a plan to redistribute money from the upper middle class to the lower middle class.’ . . . Not surprisingly, after six years of minimal income gains and numerous tax increases, the middle class – Americans making roughly $60,000 to $90,000 – remains far less sympathetic to Obama’s policies than either the rich or the poor. Yet none of this likely affects the Davos attendees, like billionaire real estate investor Jeff Greene, who said, to fight climate change, Americans need to ‘live a smaller existence.’ This, coming from a man with five houses, including a Beverly Hills estate listed at $195 million, does not constitute an ideal populist program.”

Regarding climate change, part of the problem with the numbers is that a large minority of the temperature sensor used were emplaced in the countryside/rural areas and since then, they have had houses etc built around them, transforming their locations to urban areas.
This meant that the temperatures recorded included the heat from the buildings, cars etc thus giving the appearance of a heat increase even in places where the temperature had actually decreased slightly, as well as reducing the actual temperature falls of areas that had got measurably colder.

Of course, changes in local non-weather conditions are often ignored even though they do have an effect on the weather itself, or on the devices used to record it.
But taking things like this into account in order to produce accurate results would be extremely complicated and makes for a lot of work. Overall, it's simpler to just make look at the end data and ignore the process by which it was arrived at.

Similar mental processes can be found in certain food-related announcements. The whole Animal-Based Fats Are Bad thing was at least partially based on flawed research using rabbits, whose digestive system is noticeably different from human digestive systems and as such, cannot process things like animal fats.
A similar thought process led to people thinking that skimmed milk is healthier, but it actually reduces the amount of calcium that can be absorbed since the human body cannot absorb calcium directly, but it can absorb calcium via the absorption of the fats in milk which drags the calcium with it. Remove the fat and the calcium can't get to where it's needed.

Before I decide to trust scientific announcements, I look at the assumptions behind them. And the assumptions behind Global Warming/Climate Change seem to be very rickety from where I'm standing...

smr wrote:So much for global warming on this date! Oh, I know we have climate change...we could say that our entire documented and undocumented history!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/28/noaa-2185-cold-records-broken-or-tied-in-past-week-1913-low-min-records-broken-272-tied-in-7-days/

As I have stated before let's have some honest information exchange and research on the subject. I just want honest information and then let's take the time to make the correct decision not a propaganda decision designed to line someone's pockets.

*Meanwhile* Over here...
Spring begins in February. And that´s not hyperbole, made official last week that the temperature was now fulfilling the requirements to be labelled as spring.
This is 60 degrees north. Around the latitudes of Alaska.

Allright theE, You do know that from US to Europe to Australia that they have found scientists that were/are fudging the numbers.

Ah yes, less than 1/10th of a percent of scientists did that, and you blame the other 99.99% for it.

I ask who should a person trust on climate?
The climate profiteers, the politicians, the skeptics, or do we even know enough what affects the climate (such as the sun and core of the earth).

Go read the raw data. Most of it is openly available FFS!

Most rational people can understand why an individual would question these global warming/climate change crowd!

Yes, rational people knows fools exist in plenty.

Global warming is a fact, the question is how much and how fast.

That human activity is a big part of it is also a fact that you cannot get rid of(just the recent backtrack analysis of data for 20th century showing massive effects during and after WWI and WWII makes it beyond blatantly clear and obvious), no matter how hard you try, again the question is merely how much.

#####

Michael Everett wrote:Regarding climate change, part of the problem with the numbers is that a large minority of the temperature sensor used were emplaced in the countryside/rural areas and since then, they have had houses etc built around them, transforming their locations to urban areas.
This meant that the temperatures recorded included the heat from the buildings, cars etc thus giving the appearance of a heat increase even in places where the temperature had actually decreased slightly, as well as reducing the actual temperature falls of areas that had got measurably colder.

You seriously need to recheck your facts.

The above is mostly a complete myth that was a problem in SOME areas, most sensors have however NOT had major changes around them since they were placed(either they were placed in urban areas and are still there, or they were placed somewhere in the middle of nowhere and noone had any reason to build a city in the middle of nowhere yet and isn´t likely to do so anytime soon either).

And in case you missed it, the fact that you have MORE sensors without surrounding changes than with, that means calibration or finding how much of an offset exists isn´t impossible, and at worst, those known to be affected by urban heat can be discarded.

And fact is that those known to be affected already ARE being discarded. Otherwise current numbers would be something like 0.3C higher.

Heres something interesting:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988

Apparently, it is possible that currently the environment is not warming as fast as it could, due to counter-vailing effects from different parts of the environment, but due to different cycle lengths, its likely that soon this may reverse, and they will accentuate the temperature increase even more than it grows now....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/05/listen-to-answer-senator-gets-when-he-asks-obamas-epa-chief-if-climate-change-temperature-models-have-been-accurate/

Put not your faith in politicians or bureaucrats for when their gums are flapping they are lying. When they are not answering the questions of the elected politicians then begin to really worry because what are they hiding in their silence.

Spacekiwi wrote:Heres something interesting:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6225/988

Apparently, it is possible that currently the environment is not warming as fast as it could, due to counter-vailing effects from different parts of the environment, but due to different cycle lengths, its likely that soon this may reverse, and they will accentuate the temperature increase even more than it grows now....

smr wrote:Put not your faith in politicians or bureaucrats for when their gums are flapping they are lying. When they are not answering the questions of the elected politicians then begin to really worry because what are they hiding in their silence.

Following that motto leads either into paranoia or into a dystopian society. And I'm not willing to classify the US as the latter, yet.

Furthermore: Is this seriously a discussion on climate change?
Come on, at the core of climate change is simple physics, and most times if you find a smoking gun, it has actually been fired. The rest is human nature: power games, egotism, and pure denial of reality...

I am a little sarcastic in nature and some people that read only some of my posts miss that.

anwi wrote:

smr wrote:Put not your faith in politicians or bureaucrats for when their gums are flapping they are lying. When they are not answering the questions of the elected politicians then begin to really worry because what are they hiding in their silence.

Following that motto leads either into paranoia or into a dystopian society. And I'm not willing to classify the US as the latter, yet.

Furthermore: Is this seriously a discussion on climate change?
Come on, at the core of climate change is simple physics, and most times if you find a smoking gun, it has actually been fired. The rest is human nature: power games, egotism, and pure denial of reality...

Frogs are peeping in the annual vernal marsh that has formed on the hillside, below where I live,from the snowmelt.
It is therefore spring in this part of Eastern KY.