|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
NASA is a pretty good resource on Climate Change. New article I read yesterday: Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade wrote:Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade By Adam Voiland NASA's Earth Observatory  April to September 2014 temperature anomaly vizualiztation based on data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Credit: Kevid Ward/NASA's Earth Observatory You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from? The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) maintains the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), one of the most widely-cited global temperature records. To conduct this analysis, scientists at GISS use publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; from ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperatures; and from Antarctic research stations. These three data sets are analyzed to account for breaks in station records, urban heating artifacts, and the distribution of stations across the landscape. Then they are loaded into a computer program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperatures relative to the average temperature from 1951-1980. (Note: The GISTEMP analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time.) Since GISTEMP data is freely available on the web, scientists and journalists often download maps showing the most recent month as soon as the data becomes available. While an individual month, or even a few months, offers interesting insight into the weather, such a short time period can be a distraction from deeper discussions of climate change. Monthly and yearly temperatures are closely tied to weather, while climate scientists are more concerned with decade to century trends. For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980. “When you look at all the red in that map, there is no doubt that April through September was unusually warm in most of the world, but it’s the decadal trend that is more significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, GISS director. “Earth has experienced rapid warming in the last few decades, and the most recent decade was the warmest of all. What has happened so far in 2014 extends this ongoing trend. But in the context of climate change, it does not make sense to try to derive much meaning from a single month—or, for that matter, even a single year.” How and when is NASA GISS data made available? Each month, after the most recent month’s data from the meteorological stations has been checked for errors and ingested by the analysis program, it becomes possible to generate graphs and maps that include the most recent month’s data on the GISTEMP website. In recent years, GISS scientists have released an analysis of the previous year in mid-January. For people looking for more details about the GISTEMP record, answers to several frequently asked questions are available on the GISS website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:[size=8]The Corruption of Science[/size]
Posted on August 18, 2013 by Frank Davis
I only found out today that 72-year-old arch-climate-zealot James Hansen stepped down from his job as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies back in April.
About time. I’ve long thought that Hansen had become a major embarrassment for NASA, as he described coal trains as “death trains”, and got himself repeatedly arrested. It didn’t quite fit with NASA’s cool, professional, understated image.
I only found out when I was reading an interview of astronaut Walt Cunningham, who seems to share my view:
[size=7]Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.[/size]
We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.
[size=8]The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is inconsistent with NASA’s history of conducting an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. They should be emphasizing to the media that human-caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific fact…[/size]
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.
He sees it as a religious war, in which NASA should be on the other side.
NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy and support for the White House agenda is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data are being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.
[size=8]The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.[/size]
[size=8]Much of this may be due to today’s lowered educational standards in scientific literacy, skepticism and critical thinking. [/size]Many people today are unable to distinguish between science and non-science, leaving them vulnerable to the emotional appeal of human caused global warming. Unfortunately, most students today are fed a lot more hype about self-esteem and global warming than real information about history and science. Let’s finally recognize that “self-esteem” is no substitute for common sense, and “indoctrination” is no substitute for education.
I only hope NASA takes his advice. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-corruption-of-science/
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn - A-league Mad
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.2K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Quote:The Corruption of Science
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.
He sees it as a religious war, in which NASA should be on the other side.
NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence [size=8]and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW][/size]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-corruption-of-science/ So basically Nasa is wrong for choosing to side with global warming, but instead should be an impartial science tool and side with anti-global warming Whaaaaaaaaaat!
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Glenn - A-league Mad wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Quote:The Corruption of Science
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.
He sees it as a religious war, in which NASA should be on the other side.
NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence [size=8]and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW][/size]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-corruption-of-science/ So basically Nasa is wrong for choosing to side with global warming, but instead should be an impartial science tool and side with anti-global warming Whaaaaaaaaaat! debunking hysteria isnt taking a side, its merely debunking hysteria of which there seems to be an abundance of even many warmists would have to agree with that
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Quote:[size=8]The Corruption of Science[/size]
Posted on August 18, 2013 by Frank Davis
I only found out today that 72-year-old arch-climate-zealot James Hansen stepped down from his job as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies back in April.
About time. I’ve long thought that Hansen had become a major embarrassment for NASA, as he described coal trains as “death trains”, and got himself repeatedly arrested. It didn’t quite fit with NASA’s cool, professional, understated image.
I only found out when I was reading an interview of astronaut Walt Cunningham, who seems to share my view:
[size=7]Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.[/size]
We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.
[size=8]The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is inconsistent with NASA’s history of conducting an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. They should be emphasizing to the media that human-caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific fact…[/size]
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.
He sees it as a religious war, in which NASA should be on the other side.
NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy and support for the White House agenda is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data are being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.
[size=8]The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.[/size]
[size=8]Much of this may be due to today’s lowered educational standards in scientific literacy, skepticism and critical thinking. [/size]Many people today are unable to distinguish between science and non-science, leaving them vulnerable to the emotional appeal of human caused global warming. Unfortunately, most students today are fed a lot more hype about self-esteem and global warming than real information about history and science. Let’s finally recognize that “self-esteem” is no substitute for common sense, and “indoctrination” is no substitute for education.
I only hope NASA takes his advice. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-corruption-of-science/ That is all just editorial opinion of some blogger (it can be argued NASA shouldn't politicise their findings). You can go and look at the data NASA collect, I have just linked an article a few posts ago.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Quote:[size=8]The Corruption of Science[/size]
Posted on August 18, 2013 by Frank Davis
I only found out today that 72-year-old arch-climate-zealot James Hansen stepped down from his job as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies back in April.
About time. I’ve long thought that Hansen had become a major embarrassment for NASA, as he described coal trains as “death trains”, and got himself repeatedly arrested. It didn’t quite fit with NASA’s cool, professional, understated image.
I only found out when I was reading an interview of astronaut Walt Cunningham, who seems to share my view:
[size=7]Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.[/size]
We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.
[size=8]The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is inconsistent with NASA’s history of conducting an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. They should be emphasizing to the media that human-caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific fact…[/size]
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.
He sees it as a religious war, in which NASA should be on the other side.
NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy and support for the White House agenda is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data are being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.
[size=8]The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.[/size]
[size=8]Much of this may be due to today’s lowered educational standards in scientific literacy, skepticism and critical thinking. [/size]Many people today are unable to distinguish between science and non-science, leaving them vulnerable to the emotional appeal of human caused global warming. Unfortunately, most students today are fed a lot more hype about self-esteem and global warming than real information about history and science. Let’s finally recognize that “self-esteem” is no substitute for common sense, and “indoctrination” is no substitute for education.
I only hope NASA takes his advice. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-corruption-of-science/ That is all just editorial opinion of some blogger (it can be argued NASA shouldn't politicise their findings). You can go and look at the data NASA collect, I have just linked an article a few posts ago. its all based on an interview with a NASA astronaut, thats what he posted try again truth hurts dont it. is it pride? is that the issue here?
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Quote:[size=8]The Corruption of Science[/size]
Posted on August 18, 2013 by Frank Davis
I only found out today that 72-year-old arch-climate-zealot James Hansen stepped down from his job as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies back in April.
About time. I’ve long thought that Hansen had become a major embarrassment for NASA, as he described coal trains as “death trains”, and got himself repeatedly arrested. It didn’t quite fit with NASA’s cool, professional, understated image.
I only found out when I was reading an interview of astronaut Walt Cunningham, who seems to share my view:
[size=7]Many of NASA’s retirees have grown increasingly concerned that GISS, a NASA organization located in a midtown Manhattan office building, was allowing its science to be politicized, compromising their credibility. Our concern, beyond damage to the NASA’s exemplary reputation, was damage to their current or former scientists and employees, and even compromising the reputation of science itself.[/size]
We developed a letter to NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and obtained signatures from seven Apollo astronauts, several former Headquarters managers and Center directors, and 40 former management-level technical specialists. We asked that he restrain NASA from including unproven claims in public releases and on websites. Statements by NASA that man-made carbon dioxide was having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. It is clear that the science is NOT settled.
[size=8]The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is inconsistent with NASA’s history of conducting an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. They should be emphasizing to the media that human-caused global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific fact…[/size]
Thankfully, James Hansen has since resigned. He was an embarrassment and disgrace to the agency.
He sees it as a religious war, in which NASA should be on the other side.
NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused [anthropogenic] global warming [AGW]. Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy and support for the White House agenda is replacing objective evaluation of data, while scientific data are being ignored in favor of emotions and politics.
[size=8]The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war — a war between true believers in a human-caused global warming problem and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith, and those who consider themselves more sensible and better informed. “True believers” are beyond being interested in evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of positions they have not been reasoned into.[/size]
[size=8]Much of this may be due to today’s lowered educational standards in scientific literacy, skepticism and critical thinking. [/size]Many people today are unable to distinguish between science and non-science, leaving them vulnerable to the emotional appeal of human caused global warming. Unfortunately, most students today are fed a lot more hype about self-esteem and global warming than real information about history and science. Let’s finally recognize that “self-esteem” is no substitute for common sense, and “indoctrination” is no substitute for education.
I only hope NASA takes his advice. http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/the-corruption-of-science/ That is all just editorial opinion of some blogger (it can be argued NASA shouldn't politicise their findings). You can go and look at the data NASA collect, I have just linked an article a few posts ago. its all based on an interview with a NASA astronaut, thats what he posted try again truth hurts dont it. is it pride? is that the issue here? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php1880-89: 1890-99: 1900-09: 1910-19: 1920-29: 1930-39: 1940-49: 1950-59: 1960-69: 1970-79: 1980-89: 1990-99: 2000-09:
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:Standard lines of conspiracy theorists... Anyone who doesn't agree with them and their 'experts' is either a monkey, a parrot, or a sheep.
Those who find the evidence for the other side more compelling than the evidence for their side are either suckers, uninformed idiots, or unable to comprehend the information at hand. the evidence is pretty clear pal all the alarmist models have been disproved by time that you're rolling out the monkey trained "conspiracy theorist" ad hominem as a means of marginalisation demonstrates you're part of the problem. did you even take a hard science in senior school? do you even have the ability to reason? to disseminate data? to recognise fact from fiction? do you even know what science is? do you understand the basic scientific method of proof? do you realise its not a vote? Crackers, you've seen my picture, you know everything there is to know about me.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
 pretty pictures. what do they prove?
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:Standard lines of conspiracy theorists... Anyone who doesn't agree with them and their 'experts' is either a monkey, a parrot, or a sheep.
Those who find the evidence for the other side more compelling than the evidence for their side are either suckers, uninformed idiots, or unable to comprehend the information at hand. the evidence is pretty clear pal all the alarmist models have been disproved by time that you're rolling out the monkey trained "conspiracy theorist" ad hominem as a means of marginalisation demonstrates you're part of the problem. did you even take a hard science in senior school? do you even have the ability to reason? to disseminate data? to recognise fact from fiction? do you even know what science is? do you understand the basic scientific method of proof? do you realise its not a vote? Crackers, you've seen my picture, you know everything there is to know about me. hehe, i'm bored of you already. jog on pal.
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:pretty pictures. what do they prove? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.phpQuote:The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Bullion wrote:NASA is a pretty good resource on Climate Change. New article I read yesterday: Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade wrote:Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade By Adam Voiland NASA's Earth Observatory April to September 2014 temperature anomaly vizualiztation based on data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Credit: Kevid Ward/NASA's Earth Observatory You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from? The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) maintains the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), one of the most widely-cited global temperature records. To conduct this analysis, scientists at GISS use publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; from ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperatures; and from Antarctic research stations. These three data sets are analyzed to account for breaks in station records, urban heating artifacts, and the distribution of stations across the landscape. Then they are loaded into a computer program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperatures relative to the average temperature from 1951-1980. (Note: The GISTEMP analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time.) Since GISTEMP data is freely available on the web, scientists and journalists often download maps showing the most recent month as soon as the data becomes available. While an individual month, or even a few months, offers interesting insight into the weather, such a short time period can be a distraction from deeper discussions of climate change. Monthly and yearly temperatures are closely tied to weather, while climate scientists are more concerned with decade to century trends. For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980. “When you look at all the red in that map, there is no doubt that April through September was unusually warm in most of the world, but it’s the decadal trend that is more significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, GISS director. “Earth has experienced rapid warming in the last few decades, and the most recent decade was the warmest of all. What has happened so far in 2014 extends this ongoing trend. But in the context of climate change, it does not make sense to try to derive much meaning from a single month—or, for that matter, even a single year.” How and when is NASA GISS data made available? Each month, after the most recent month’s data from the meteorological stations has been checked for errors and ingested by the analysis program, it becomes possible to generate graphs and maps that include the most recent month’s data on the GISTEMP website. In recent years, GISS scientists have released an analysis of the previous year in mid-January. For people looking for more details about the GISTEMP record, answers to several frequently asked questions are available on the GISS website.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:pretty pictures. what do they prove? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.phpQuote:The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Bullion wrote:NASA is a pretty good resource on Climate Change. New article I read yesterday: Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade wrote:Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade By Adam Voiland NASA's Earth Observatory April to September 2014 temperature anomaly vizualiztation based on data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Credit: Kevid Ward/NASA's Earth Observatory You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from? The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) maintains the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), one of the most widely-cited global temperature records. To conduct this analysis, scientists at GISS use publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; from ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperatures; and from Antarctic research stations. These three data sets are analyzed to account for breaks in station records, urban heating artifacts, and the distribution of stations across the landscape. Then they are loaded into a computer program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperatures relative to the average temperature from 1951-1980. (Note: The GISTEMP analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time.) Since GISTEMP data is freely available on the web, scientists and journalists often download maps showing the most recent month as soon as the data becomes available. While an individual month, or even a few months, offers interesting insight into the weather, such a short time period can be a distraction from deeper discussions of climate change. Monthly and yearly temperatures are closely tied to weather, while climate scientists are more concerned with decade to century trends. For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980. “When you look at all the red in that map, there is no doubt that April through September was unusually warm in most of the world, but it’s the decadal trend that is more significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, GISS director. “Earth has experienced rapid warming in the last few decades, and the most recent decade was the warmest of all. What has happened so far in 2014 extends this ongoing trend. But in the context of climate change, it does not make sense to try to derive much meaning from a single month—or, for that matter, even a single year.” How and when is NASA GISS data made available? Each month, after the most recent month’s data from the meteorological stations has been checked for errors and ingested by the analysis program, it becomes possible to generate graphs and maps that include the most recent month’s data on the GISTEMP website. In recent years, GISS scientists have released an analysis of the previous year in mid-January. For people looking for more details about the GISTEMP record, answers to several frequently asked questions are available on the GISS website. I've just informed you that GISS has been corrupted by politics and provided proof with anecdotes from an ex Astronaut there are numerous other cases of ex employees whistleblowing on that organisation everything that comes out of GISS i'd take with pinch of salt
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:Standard lines of conspiracy theorists... Anyone who doesn't agree with them and their 'experts' is either a monkey, a parrot, or a sheep.
Those who find the evidence for the other side more compelling than the evidence for their side are either suckers, uninformed idiots, or unable to comprehend the information at hand. the evidence is pretty clear pal all the alarmist models have been disproved by time that you're rolling out the monkey trained "conspiracy theorist" ad hominem as a means of marginalisation demonstrates you're part of the problem. did you even take a hard science in senior school? do you even have the ability to reason? to disseminate data? to recognise fact from fiction? do you even know what science is? do you understand the basic scientific method of proof? do you realise its not a vote? Crackers, you've seen my picture, you know everything there is to know about me. hehe, i'm bored of you already. jog on pal. The classic ricey bailout line :lol: -PB
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
bail out?
i thought this thread was about climate change fact or fiction... not Benjamin's personal life
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
lots of indoctrinated monkeys here supporting a side because its political
just like a football team
its impossible to convince them of any facts or actual science no matter how much evidence you throw in their face
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:pretty pictures. what do they prove? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.phpQuote:The world is getting warmer. Whether the cause is human activity or natural variability—and the preponderance of evidence says it’s humans—thermometer readings all around the world have risen steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Bullion wrote:NASA is a pretty good resource on Climate Change. New article I read yesterday: Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade wrote:Rising temperatures: A month versus a decade By Adam Voiland NASA's Earth Observatory April to September 2014 temperature anomaly vizualiztation based on data from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Credit: Kevid Ward/NASA's Earth Observatory You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from? The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) maintains the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), one of the most widely-cited global temperature records. To conduct this analysis, scientists at GISS use publicly available data from 6,300 meteorological stations around the world; from ship-based and satellite observations of sea surface temperatures; and from Antarctic research stations. These three data sets are analyzed to account for breaks in station records, urban heating artifacts, and the distribution of stations across the landscape. Then they are loaded into a computer program—available for public download from the GISS web site—that calculates trends in temperatures relative to the average temperature from 1951-1980. (Note: The GISTEMP analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time.) Since GISTEMP data is freely available on the web, scientists and journalists often download maps showing the most recent month as soon as the data becomes available. While an individual month, or even a few months, offers interesting insight into the weather, such a short time period can be a distraction from deeper discussions of climate change. Monthly and yearly temperatures are closely tied to weather, while climate scientists are more concerned with decade to century trends. For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980. “When you look at all the red in that map, there is no doubt that April through September was unusually warm in most of the world, but it’s the decadal trend that is more significant,” said Gavin Schmidt, GISS director. “Earth has experienced rapid warming in the last few decades, and the most recent decade was the warmest of all. What has happened so far in 2014 extends this ongoing trend. But in the context of climate change, it does not make sense to try to derive much meaning from a single month—or, for that matter, even a single year.” How and when is NASA GISS data made available? Each month, after the most recent month’s data from the meteorological stations has been checked for errors and ingested by the analysis program, it becomes possible to generate graphs and maps that include the most recent month’s data on the GISTEMP website. In recent years, GISS scientists have released an analysis of the previous year in mid-January. For people looking for more details about the GISTEMP record, answers to several frequently asked questions are available on the GISS website. I've just informed you that GISS has been corrupted by politics and provided proof with anecdotes from an ex Astronaut there are numerous other cases of ex employees whistleblowing on that organisation everything that comes out of GISS i'd take with pinch of salt They do state: If you are so smart, you can download the GISS dataset and analyse the data for yourself: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/I can't say what the credibility of one astronaut is compared to NASA and every other major scientific society/academy.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
lol @ "every other major scientific society/academy"
prove it
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:bail out?
i thought this thread was about climate change fact or fiction... not Benjamin's personal life What was that you said before..? ricecrackers wrote:...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks :lol:
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:bail out?
i thought this thread was about climate change fact or fiction... not Benjamin's personal life What was that you said before..? ricecrackers wrote:...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks :lol: you started along that line, I merely played along and put you on show remember?
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:lol @ "every other major scientific society/academy"
prove it A joint statement by 54 of the world’s science academies http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=10070Another joint statement: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdfThis is more thorough list (you can double check each if you like): http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
54 = the whole world in your mind :d LOL did you even look at the list of dubious academies they roped in? Quote:• TWAS - The academy of sciences for the
developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences, Argentina
• The National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and
Sciences of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology
(ASRT) Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• The Academy of Athens, Greece
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales
de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• The Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI)
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
• Science Council of Japan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Latvian Academy of Sciences
• Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academy of Sciences of Moldova
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of Mozambique
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
• Romanian Academy
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, United Kingdom
• US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
• Latin American Academy of Sciences
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:54 = the whole world in your mind :d LOL did you even look at the list of dubious academies they roped in? Quote:• TWAS - The academy of sciences for the
developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences, Argentina
• The National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and
Sciences of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology
(ASRT) Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• The Academy of Athens, Greece
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales
de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• The Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI)
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
• Science Council of Japan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Latvian Academy of Sciences
• Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academy of Sciences of Moldova
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of Mozambique
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
• Romanian Academy
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, United Kingdom
• US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
• Latin American Academy of Sciences I thought you might nit pick (what do you have against your own national academy of science), hence the 3 references to cover as many bases. If you want the major ones, the second link(again: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf) is as clear as can be. Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA Which do you see as the most likely reason for their position: A) They know what they are talking about (and their warnings we should heed) B) They are not scientifically literate C) It's a conspiracy to redistribute wealth D) They all have shares in renewable energy
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:bail out?
i thought this thread was about climate change fact or fiction... not Benjamin's personal life What was that you said before..? ricecrackers wrote:...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks :lol: you started along that line, I merely played along and put you on show remember? You put me on show? I'm sorry, I missed that...
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA climate change is real... no shit sun is hot water is wet what a stupid comment...meanwhile you ignore the list of thousands of scientists on the skeptical side of AGW why, because this is like supporting a football team to you. you just want to win... however you're supporting the side that is going to make you lose
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
woops! Quote:Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret
This is about data they don’t own, that wasn’t secure, is supposedly available, but they want to keep secret.
More bad news for the University of Queensland. The Australian discussed the issue of the bizarre threatening letter that UQ sent to Brandon Shollenberger when he contacted them to let them know he’d found some data one of their employees carelessly left unprotected lying around on the web. Now the acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor is trying to do damage-control by releasing a media statement, but he’s missed the chance to say the legal threat was a parody — with that easy escape gone, he’s defending the indefendable. Brandon has already responded on his site, arguing that the VC is “highly misleading”: the names of the surveyers are not important (and are also mostly known already), but time stamps, and missing papers are still unpublished, and UQ has not explained why they ought be concealed.
The UQ Statement (quoted below) also misses the point and in so many ways.
“The following is a statement from UQ acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) Professor Alastair McEwan.
“Recent media coverage (The Australian, 17 March 2013) has stated that The University of Queensland is trying to block climate research by stopping the release of data used in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
The data for John Cook’s paper has nothing at all to do with climate research. Cook did a sociological study on key words used in short summaries of papers published about the climate. It tells us nothing about Earth’s climate but possibly gives some insight into the biased, one-sided nature of bureaucratized climate research.
“This is not the case [that UQ is trying to block climate research].
Actually it is. UQ employs John Cook whose main job appears to be to call climate scientists petty names and generally besmirch the reputation of any climate researchers who get results he doesn’t approve of. “Christy’s Crocks” anyone? Cook has a badge for that, and a whole book about “deniers” — just get him to explain the term scientifically? Even he agrees it is inaccurate – but that doesn’t stop him using it. Cook’s main goal with the Consensus Project seems to be to promote the fallacy that science is done by consensus and that a meaningful one exists. If only he had evidence to back him up instead? The infatuation with Argument from Authority is all profoundly unscientific. The University of Queensland science faculty ought be cringing in embarrassment. If the good scientists there are not now, they will be soon.
Then there is a very odd admission — doesn’t UQ know that SkepticalScience is John Cook’s personal site, and the survey participants were volunteers? Do they “own” this research (with all its flaws) now too? Please tell me yes.
“All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013.
“Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld.
Angst over the identity of participants is a strawman
The identity of participants is not the point. Brandon Shollenberger and Richard Tol want the timestamps, the rater ID’s (in an anonymized way) and the data for 521 papers that were not included in the data files. They want to look for things like rater bias.
UQ seems to believe this has something to do with the confidentiality of volunteers, most of whom are already identified:
“This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.
Does that mean UQ has an ethics policy of sending threatening legal letters to volunteers who helpfully inform them about data they (or someone else) left lying exposed in public? Is it ethical to store those details without password protection and then hope everyone who discovers them writes to UQ so UQ knows who to sic their lawyers onto?
Brandon goes into more detail of just how un-secret the “confidential” participants were:
None of the identities of the participants were keep secret from one another. Heck, people not involved in the project could post in the same forum this data was posted in! How can anyone claim it was confidential? Did everyone involved in the project, and everyone with access to that forum, all sign a confidentiality agreement? If not, the data was never kept confidential.
I’d love to know if there were such confidentiality agreements. That’s why I specifically asked the University of Queensland for them. I wanted to know what data was confidential so I could keep that in mind when considering what data I should or should not release.
John Cook refused to tell me. Later, when the University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter, they invited me to respond. I did, asking for information about these confidentiality issues. They ignored me. They were apparently willing to threaten me with a lawsuit to try to get me to shut up, but they weren’t willing to answer a simple question.
Secrecy of the surveyors was apparently never the point. So what is? It’s hard to believe the secrets of the timestamps and rater ID’s could generate worse publicity for UQ and the 97% Consensus study than what the clumsy legal threats are achieving.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/uni-queensland-defends-legal-threats-over-climate-data-they-want-to-keep-secret/
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then).
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA climate change is real... no shit sun is hot water is wet what a stupid comment...meanwhile you ignore the list of thousands of scientists on the skeptical side of AGW why, because this is like supporting a football team to you. you just want to win... however you're supporting the side that is going to make you lose Let me flesh that out: Quote:Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then). over 9000 on that list have PHDs thats still considerably more than skeptical science can put forward and its only one country yes your alarmist propaganda (lol 'follow up studies' ) has an answer to everything of course, its their business model to shift goalposts and squash dissent to their agenda Edited by ricecrackers: 28/10/2014 03:57:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then). over 9000 on that list have PHDs thats still considerably more than skeptical science can put forward and its only one country yes your alarmist propaganda (lol 'follow up studies' ) has an answer to everything of course, its their business model to shift goalposts and squash dissent to their agenda Edited by ricecrackers: 28/10/2014 03:57:47 PM And why do bother putting up all these blog posts? You should be posting from news organisations, scientific academies and peer reviewed articles from journals.
Bloggers don't have their credibility on the line and you have no way of knowing what their motives are (or their background). When I see you posting blog posts, I just see you being lazy. Probably just a google search and just linked the first thing that popped up that backed your position.
|
|
|
|