Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: odiousgambit

'being nothing' is not something I would say

but you won't like this: NASA and the UN climate programs both are suspect in terms of being compromised by politics and thus having an agenda

NOAA I havent considered one way or another, hadn't heard them sound off before

who knows what they mean. Are we just now catching up to the 1930s , or are those times even part of the "record" they are talking about

Always willing to look at agenda-free science. My best example of agenda-free is both old newspaper "letter's to the editor" and old "60 minute" episodes where people with polar opposite views of one of the articles or feature programs somehow both view it as slanted in opposite directions. They both got opposite bias slants out of the same program.

Quote: rxwine

And all over the climate warming skeptic universe will be mentioning “one-third” as being nothing of course.

I'm not surprised that you don't know this and will immediately discount it as fake news, because well that is what you do, but they have changed how they calculate the average temperature. So the old figures and the new figures are not directly comparable. The new figures are developed from some temperature shots from satellites and run through an algorithm developed at 1 university. The scientists that have looked at it say it is generating figures about 2 deg. higher than the old fashioned thermometer method.

Quote: kenarman

I'm not surprised that you don't know this and will immediately discount it as fake news, because well that is what you do, but they have changed how they calculate the average temperature. So the old figures and the new figures are not directly comparable. The new figures are developed from some temperature shots from satellites and run through an algorithm developed at 1 university. The scientists that have looked at it say it is generating figures about 2 deg. higher than the old fashioned thermometer method.

No, I believe NASA and NOAA are completely unaware and your crack team of scientist have it right.

In Rio, it's the best temp I've ever been in.

We're in winter now and took a walk on the beach the other day.

I wear long sleeves to protect from UV damage, but many women were wearing tiny bikinis.


In summer, it's hot, but not like the USA.

Where I am, the high to low range is much more narrow than the USA is.


So no global warming down here, although I'm sure they'll say there is.

scientists know they have to make adjustments to the data, this is not a secret, nor is it necessarily done wrong. An example is the heat island effect, where the old data was in an orchard maybe, and the new data close to a heat island. The scientists know that

what *we* don't know is if there is a bias that creeps in, and that's when they aren't up to something

As for NASA, an honest evaluation from them would be "all this is new data. We can't compare any of it more than 50 years because the satellites weren't there till then, and barely then. Most of it was not collected until X years ago" [I'd guess 20]

what do they do instead? I found that article and some nitwit says "it’s very likely that July 2023 was hotter than any month in any year since at least 1850,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/earth-just-hottest-july-long-shot-nasa-noaa-say-rcna99775

Climate Activists Glue Themselves to a Tanker Full of Cooking Oil Mistaking It For Crude Oil

Yet the media calls the global warming believers "informed."

Quote: odiousgambit

scientists know they have to make adjustments to the data, this is not a secret, nor is it necessarily done wrong. An example is the heat island effect, where the old data was in an orchard maybe, and the new data close to a heat island. The scientists know that

what *we* don't know is if there is a bias that creeps in, and that's when they aren't up to something

As for NASA, an honest evaluation from them would be "all this is new data. We can't compare any of it more than 50 years because the satellites weren't there till then, and barely then. Most of it was not collected until X years ago" [I'd guess 20]

what do they do instead? I found that article and some nitwit says "it’s very likely that July 2023 was hotter than any month in any year since at least 1850,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/earth-just-hottest-july-long-shot-nasa-noaa-say-rcna99775

While it's not ideal, you have more data points for the last 200 years. Thermometers from the 1800's were shown to be within 1/10th of degree of accuracy. You've also got ice cores, coral skeletons, and tree ring measurements.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

scientists know they have to make adjustments to the data, this is not a secret, nor is it necessarily done wrong. An example is the heat island effect, where the old data was in an orchard maybe, and the new data close to a heat island. The scientists know that

what *we* don't know is if there is a bias that creeps in, and that's when they aren't up to something

As for NASA, an honest evaluation from them would be "all this is new data. We can't compare any of it more than 50 years because the satellites weren't there till then, and barely then. Most of it was not collected until X years ago" [I'd guess 20]

what do they do instead? I found that article and some nitwit says "it’s very likely that July 2023 was hotter than any month in any year since at least 1850,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/earth-just-hottest-july-long-shot-nasa-noaa-say-rcna99775

While it's not ideal, you have more data points for the last 200 years. Thermometers from the 1800's were shown to be within 1/10th of degree of accuracy. You've also got ice cores, coral skeletons, and tree ring measurements.

200 years is nothing. And 1/10 a degree is a huge deal when you are talking a 1-2 degree rise.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

scientists know they have to make adjustments to the data, this is not a secret, nor is it necessarily done wrong. An example is the heat island effect, where the old data was in an orchard maybe, and the new data close to a heat island. The scientists know that

what *we* don't know is if there is a bias that creeps in, and that's when they aren't up to something

As for NASA, an honest evaluation from them would be "all this is new data. We can't compare any of it more than 50 years because the satellites weren't there till then, and barely then. Most of it was not collected until X years ago" [I'd guess 20]

what do they do instead? I found that article and some nitwit says "it’s very likely that July 2023 was hotter than any month in any year since at least 1850,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/earth-just-hottest-july-long-shot-nasa-noaa-say-rcna99775

While it's not ideal, you have more data points for the last 200 years. Thermometers from the 1800's were shown to be within 1/10th of degree of accuracy. You've also got ice cores, coral skeletons, and tree ring measurements.

200 years is nothing. And 1/10 a degree is a huge deal when you are talking a 1-2 degree rise.

You seem more clueless than usual.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

scientists know they have to make adjustments to the data, this is not a secret, nor is it necessarily done wrong. An example is the heat island effect, where the old data was in an orchard maybe, and the new data close to a heat island. The scientists know that

what *we* don't know is if there is a bias that creeps in, and that's when they aren't up to something

As for NASA, an honest evaluation from them would be "all this is new data. We can't compare any of it more than 50 years because the satellites weren't there till then, and barely then. Most of it was not collected until X years ago" [I'd guess 20]

what do they do instead? I found that article and some nitwit says "it’s very likely that July 2023 was hotter than any month in any year since at least 1850,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/earth-just-hottest-july-long-shot-nasa-noaa-say-rcna99775

While it's not ideal, you have more data points for the last 200 years. Thermometers from the 1800's were shown to be within 1/10th of degree of accuracy. You've also got ice cores, coral skeletons, and tree ring measurements.

200 years is nothing. And 1/10 a degree is a huge deal when you are talking a 1-2 degree rise.

You seem more clueless than usual.

Something is incorrect in what I stated or are you just acting like it is the third grade school yard?