Climate and Weather

Multi Sport said:
I found this article of interest. Grest point towards the end about trust..

http://conservativetribune.com/glob...tm_content=2017-07-04&utm_campaign=manualpost
Click to expand...

You have been duped and are spreading misinformation. The entire article you posted just oozes with bullshit. How in the hell can you be that stupid? Typical rightwing bullshit - idiots! Stop making America weak and try to think a little for yourself.

Below is the related press release from the Univ. Of Manitoba which states:

The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.

This regrettably postpones the much-anticipated Hudson Bay System Study (BaySys) involving 40 scientists from five universities across Canada. Timing was key for this $17 million, four-year, University of Manitoba-led project.

The need to deal with extreme ice conditions in the south meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives.

The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future – it is already here. Research results from scientists onboard the Amundsen and innovative Networks like ArcticNet show the impacts of climate change in Canada’s Arctic and Arctic Ocean affect not only northern ecosystems and communities, but also the environments and people living in the south of Canada – as so dramatically seen off the coast of Newfoundland.

The provision of the best information possible is essential for proper planning, decision–making and adaptation to the realities of climate change.

This experience, and climate change conditions currently affecting Churchill, Man., clearly illustrates that Canada is ill prepared to deal with the realities of climate change.

http://news.umanitoba.ca/large-canadian-arctic-climate-change-study-cancelled-due-to-climate-change/
 
Booter said:
You have been duped and are spreading misinformation. The entire article you posted just oozes with bullshit. How in the hell can you be that stupid? Typical rightwing bullshit - idiots! Stop making America weak and try to think a little for yourself.

Below is the related press release from the Univ. Of Manitoba which states:

The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.

This regrettably postpones the much-anticipated Hudson Bay System Study (BaySys) involving 40 scientists from five universities across Canada. Timing was key for this $17 million, four-year, University of Manitoba-led project.

The need to deal with extreme ice conditions in the south meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives.

The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future – it is already here. Research results from scientists onboard the Amundsen and innovative Networks like ArcticNet show the impacts of climate change in Canada’s Arctic and Arctic Ocean affect not only northern ecosystems and communities, but also the environments and people living in the south of Canada – as so dramatically seen off the coast of Newfoundland.

The provision of the best information possible is essential for proper planning, decision–making and adaptation to the realities of climate change.

This experience, and climate change conditions currently affecting Churchill, Man., clearly illustrates that Canada is ill prepared to deal with the realities of climate change.

http://news.umanitoba.ca/large-canadian-arctic-climate-change-study-cancelled-due-to-climate-change/
Click to expand...
Are they cleaning your ward?
 
Can't sleep tonight anyway, and its been awhile since I tried my hand at ripping the scab off one of these. So let's do this.

Sheriff Joe said:
Delingpole: Climate Mafia Caught Tampering With Evidence — Again
Click to expand...

The claim, from our faker friend Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) is that the satellite temperature data used to compile this graph (currently displayed on RSS website, 2017)

Image1309_shadow.png

has been fraudulently manipulated compared to a previous version (RSS website, 2016)
Screen-Shot-2017-02-12-at-7.49.57-AM-down.gif

If one superimposes the graphs, the differences generally fall within the previously defined blue confidence interval.

Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 12.58.45 AM.png

So what's different about the two graphs? (the yellow CIMP5 projection is the same) 1) RSS deployed new software to compensate for orbital decay and other things that have already been discussed on this thread. Notably, UAH, no friend of climate consensus there, updated theirs at about the same time. 2) The older graph is from 80S-80N whereas the newer graph 70S-80N. 3) The newer graph will have a somewhat different running mean that accommodates the temp data from the intervening year (which was a hot one). Without the raw data its hard to sort that out, although the software update is probably the biggest variable IMO. What's funny is that in his hurry to take a shit on something, Heller misses his chance to throw shade at the real import of the graphs, which is that observed warming is not quite matching CIMP-5. Like I've said on here before, if you don't mind getting your feet wet, AGW gives us a chance to follow a rapid pulse of thermal energy through planetary systems and learn about mixing.

Anyway, here's the latest side by side for different software versions utilized by RSS and UAH using data from the NASA satellites
(source: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1). Pretty similar really. And keep in mind that RSS is to Carbon Brief as UAH is to Watt's Up with That. So if somebody's cheating, they're doing it the same way.


. Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 2.07.20 AM.png
 
But if you want to talk about manipulating data towards a particular outcome our friend Heller can show you the way. Referencing back to the previously linked http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...fia-caught-tampering-with-the-evidence-again/, scanning down the article we see this graph.

Screen-Shot-2017-05-01-at-10.01.15-AM.gif

One thing that flags about the above graph is that on the wood for trees graphing site whoever plotted this specified an interval of 60 to smooth the data. That's a strange interval. So lets just go to wood for trees site ourselves and graph the exact same data but without the smoothing (I also included UAH 5 as well as UAH 6 for comparison, same offset, I didn't bother with the trend lines because I consider them effectively worthless with out some metric on the scatter. Anyway, this is what the plot now looks like.

Screen Shot 2017-07-06 at 12.45.28 AM.png

So if you want to cheat, that's how its done. I wonder how many smoothing values he had to punch in before it worked out the right way. One might ask, "Hey, isn't he doing the exact same thing he's accusing the scientists of doing". And the answer would be yes.
 
There is literally no amount of debunking of junk science you can do that would ever change the mind of a nutter.

When their information changes, they just dig in deeper.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
I like that graph.
Not alarming, and not unlike the interactive graphs I have created and posted in the past.
woodfortrees is a great site and even fun for the average joe, like me.
Click to expand...

I recall you using data sets that had been debunked by their own creators. It's amazing what you can do when you don't care about its validity.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
But if you want to talk about manipulating data towards a particular outcome our friend Heller can show you the way. Referencing back to the previously linked http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...fia-caught-tampering-with-the-evidence-again/, scanning down the article we see this graph.

View attachment 1173

One thing that flags about the above graph is that on the wood for trees graphing site whoever plotted this specified an interval of 60 to smooth the data. That's a strange interval. So lets just go to wood for trees site ourselves and graph the exact same data but without the smoothing (I also included UAH 5 as well as UAH 6 for comparison, same offset, I didn't bother with the trend lines because I consider them effectively worthless with out some metric on the scatter. Anyway, this is what the plot now looks like.

View attachment 1176

So if you want to cheat, that's how its done. I wonder how many smoothing values he had to punch in before it worked out the right way. One might ask, "Hey, isn't he doing the exact same thing he's accusing the scientists of doing". And the answer would be yes.
Click to expand...
I am glad she is on your side,

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! Chelsea Clinton shares climate clickbait garbage from WaPo, hilarity ensues
 
Shitstain, if you could finish that Associates Degree at Trump University you might be considered for their Platinum level classes for only $30K a year.
 
Booter said:
Shitstain, if you could finish that Associates Degree at Trump University you might be considered for their Platinum level classes for only $30K a year.
Click to expand...
Shitstain is one of my terms of endearment for the Kenyan-illegitimate bastard child.
Please treat him with all the respect I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top