Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Falsified temperatures

sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't

If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 8:08:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Best I can tell some guy in Paraguay falsified data from 3 rural temp stations. Where is all this made up stuff? three stations would have no significance on global averages.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 11:11:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it is interesting to speculate as to how easy it would be to falsify evidence for global climate change. What evidence needs falsifying and who would need to be involved in this conspiracy?

The evidence would have to include temperature data obviously. This is gathered by a global network of land stations, satellites, radar stations, ships, weather balloons in addition to paleoclimatological data. Is the data coming from these sources hidden? No, it took me one google search to access data for any weather station in the world.

If it is a conspiracy then this data I found must be fraudulent. The data set was vast and updated on an hourly basis. So this would need a team of people to create and maintain a credible set of data. Every one working on the data, eg station repair teams, ships crews, satellite engineers etc must be in on the conspiracy as well. Also any one who works on tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments must also be involved.

In addition to this we also need to consider those working on glacier retreat, sea ice change, extreme weather events, meteorology, global sea levels, CO2 levels and all the other evidence used to paint a coherent picture of climate change.

Also we need to include the theoreticians who are making up the 'false' theories that explain how climate change could be anthropological.

I would estimate that about 10,000 people are involved in this conspiracy. These people are from all around the world and from many different disciplines. There must be a very big incentive to make all these people maintain the conspiracy. As yet not a single person from inside the conspiracy has spoken out.

What could be the motive?

Money? A conspiracy of this complexity would need to make a vast return to be financially attractive. The financial reward would need to be so vast that not a single scientist will speak out against it. Some suggest the conspirators are doing it to get continued funding but that would not be sufficient money to keep anyone silent. Most scientists have integrity and love their subject.

Politics? What political motive unites people from all over world and many different disciplines?

Death threats? Maybe there is a conspiracy within the conspiracy?

Now lets consider if anyone would be motivated to challenge the climate change theory and want to slow down any response to the threat.

Could there be a financial or political motivation to make individuals or groups of people challenge genuine data to make it seem unreliable?

Are any businesses threatened by plans to reduce CO2 production? Are these businesses very wealthy? Is there any evidence that businesses would behave unscrupulously to defend themselves? Is there any evidence that politicians have ever been paid to act on behalf of business in an unscrupulous manner?
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:24:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?

The authors state: "The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 (including 1998).

So statistically 2014 is a tie with 2010 and 2005. However, accusing NASA, NOAA, and IPCC of falsifying data is a far leap. You might be able to argue that, statistically it was one of the 3 hottest years on record rather than the hottest and that NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are guilty of ignoring some of the uncertainties associated with climate studies. That, however, is as far as you can take the accusations and still be consistent with the raw data.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:46:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:24:08 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?


The authors state: "The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 (including 1998).

So statistically 2014 is a tie with 2010 and 2005. However, accusing NASA, NOAA, and IPCC of falsifying data is a far leap. You might be able to argue that, statistically it was one of the 3 hottest years on record rather than the hottest and that NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are guilty of ignoring some of the uncertainties associated with climate studies. That, however, is as far as you can take the accusations and still be consistent with the raw data.

So when global warming really became a hot topic in the public and politics, that is when we started to have the hottest years ever.

Government weather control machine. The data isn't falsified it's the weather.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:56:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:46:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:24:08 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?


The authors state: "The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 (including 1998).

So statistically 2014 is a tie with 2010 and 2005. However, accusing NASA, NOAA, and IPCC of falsifying data is a far leap. You might be able to argue that, statistically it was one of the 3 hottest years on record rather than the hottest and that NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are guilty of ignoring some of the uncertainties associated with climate studies. That, however, is as far as you can take the accusations and still be consistent with the raw data.

So when global warming really became a hot topic in the public and politics, that is when we started to have the hottest years ever.

Government weather control machine. The data isn't falsified it's the weather.

So.....wait.....you're saying that the government is controlling the weather; that the governments around the world are colluding to produce super storms, heat waves, droughts, raise sea levels, etc.....hmmmm....I'm gonna go ahead and leave that one in the conspiracy theory pile with the other crazy ideas.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 10:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:56:18 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:46:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:24:08 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?


The authors state: "The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 (including 1998).

So statistically 2014 is a tie with 2010 and 2005. However, accusing NASA, NOAA, and IPCC of falsifying data is a far leap. You might be able to argue that, statistically it was one of the 3 hottest years on record rather than the hottest and that NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are guilty of ignoring some of the uncertainties associated with climate studies. That, however, is as far as you can take the accusations and still be consistent with the raw data.

So when global warming really became a hot topic in the public and politics, that is when we started to have the hottest years ever.

Government weather control machine. The data isn't falsified it's the weather.

So.....wait.....you're saying that the government is controlling the weather; that the governments around the world are colluding to produce super storms, heat waves, droughts, raise sea levels, etc.....hmmmm....I'm gonna go ahead and leave that one in the conspiracy theory pile with the other crazy ideas.

Then it is thought waves, get enough people to think something is happening and it will happen. Hot years because people thought about global warming.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 11:01:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 10:57:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:56:18 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:46:19 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/24/2015 10:24:08 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?


The authors state: "The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 (including 1998).

So statistically 2014 is a tie with 2010 and 2005. However, accusing NASA, NOAA, and IPCC of falsifying data is a far leap. You might be able to argue that, statistically it was one of the 3 hottest years on record rather than the hottest and that NASA, NOAA, and IPCC are guilty of ignoring some of the uncertainties associated with climate studies. That, however, is as far as you can take the accusations and still be consistent with the raw data.

So when global warming really became a hot topic in the public and politics, that is when we started to have the hottest years ever.

Government weather control machine. The data isn't falsified it's the weather.

So.....wait.....you're saying that the government is controlling the weather; that the governments around the world are colluding to produce super storms, heat waves, droughts, raise sea levels, etc.....hmmmm....I'm gonna go ahead and leave that one in the conspiracy theory pile with the other crazy ideas.

Then it is thought waves, get enough people to think something is happening and it will happen. Hot years because people thought about global warming.

haha, yeah, sure....or Nibiru is getting closer causing the atmosphere to vibrate, or Hell is bubbling up from underneath increasing global temps, or better yet, the body thetans are vibrating more, etc... But just don't let climate scientists be right!!!
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:14:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 4:20:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/24/2015 5:39:46 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:42:45 AM, sadolite wrote:
So who do I believe and why should I?

Accusations that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC have falsified temp data to support global warming have arisen. I could post dozens of links but I would rather read the ones that the people of DDO chose as accurate and truthful both pro and con. Why is the source you choose better than another.

I assume you're talking about the whole "climategate" nonsense.

http://www.factcheck.org...

I think a lot of people have turned that whole thing into something that it wasn't


If you're talking about the the whole 2014 being the hottest year on record thing, I refer you to: http://www.columbia.edu...

There is no argument that 2014 was the hottest year on record, however, it was so by only 0.02 degrees Celsius.

What is the margin of error?

The thermometers used have a precision of better than 0.1 C and there are over 1000 weather stations taking readings every day. So the error in each days temperature is less than 0.1/SQRT(1000) = 0.003 C. So a 0.02 C increase is significant.

An important question is whether the thermometers are calibrated properly. I do not know the details of this but I would expect that care is taken to calibrate each thermometer against a standard so that they give readings that agree with all other thermometers.
The thermometers used in the 60's and 70's turned out to not be as well calibrated as modern thermometers. This is what caused the need to alter archived raw data.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:41:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:31:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
What is the ideal temperature to sustain human life?

Depends where you live on the coast or inland? Moral of the story is not that humans can't survive a warmer earth, it is the changes that happen which cause tremendous physical and economic upheaval that is the risk. Maybe that is where the focus should be mitigating the risks associated with the changes. Eliminating federal flood insurance for those with houses within 1/4 mile of beach would be a good start.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 12:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 11:41:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:31:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
What is the ideal temperature to sustain human life?

Depends where you live on the coast or inland? Moral of the story is not that humans can't survive a warmer earth, it is the changes that happen which cause tremendous physical and economic upheaval that is the risk. Maybe that is where the focus should be mitigating the risks associated with the changes. Eliminating federal flood insurance for those with houses within 1/4 mile of beach would be a good start.

So an ideal temperature to sustain human life would be a cooler climate? How many degrees?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well we can be sure of one thing. There will never be a live prime time open debate among "only" scientists who both support or are skeptical. All of which must put their credibility on the line as scientists and prove all of their data is and was collected properly or be forever drummed out of any scientific field for life. We as the pions have to trust what we are told by politicians and the UN. Neither has any credibility. But we do have "fact check" which of course uses the same information source.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 5:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't pay attention to temperature data. I just look at all the pollutants we pump into the air and figure we're bound to be fvcking something up. GCC is the best possibility for that, and we're probably wrong about the theory - but it seems pretty obvious we're in for a big surprise one way or another whether it is GCC or something else.

You non-believers are clinging to the fact that GCC isn't a perfect science, and yeah it might be completely wrong. Are you gonna eat all the impurities we put into our food on the strength that science can't tell exactly why such chemicals are unhealthy? Both the body and the planet are complex beyond the competency of our scientists to explain - that shouldn't be reason to damage them.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 8:39:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 5:09:10 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't pay attention to temperature data. I just look at all the pollutants we pump into the air and figure we're bound to be fvcking something up. GCC is the best possibility for that, and we're probably wrong about the theory - but it seems pretty obvious we're in for a big surprise one way or another whether it is GCC or something else.

You non-believers are clinging to the fact that GCC isn't a perfect science, and yeah it might be completely wrong. Are you gonna eat all the impurities we put into our food on the strength that science can't tell exactly why such chemicals are unhealthy? Both the body and the planet are complex beyond the competency of our scientists to explain - that shouldn't be reason to damage them.

Localized pollution is about all i can believe. Man could not hurt the earth even if he wanted to. He could cause temporary localized damage, but that's about it. My opinion of course based on mans past disasters. Disasters we were told would be irreversible yet just a few months or a couple of years later hardly a trace to be found.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:35:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...

Google says no answer.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:36:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:35:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...

Google says no answer.

I hate it when it does that...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:36:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:35:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...

Google says no answer.

I hate it when it does that...
I dunno, a lot of MIT people visit the science forum, maybe they know what the optimal temperature for sustained human life is.
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:38:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:36:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:35:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...

Google says no answer.

I hate it when it does that...
I dunno, a lot of MIT people visit the science forum, maybe they know what the optimal temperature for sustained human life is.

My understanding is that it is more a matter of being in a state of equilibrium (stability) than an optimal temperature per se. The climate is not in a state of equilibrium presently, and as it seeks equilibrium, it will not be a fun experience for us or many other creatures.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:43:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 8:39:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/25/2015 5:09:10 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't pay attention to temperature data. I just look at all the pollutants we pump into the air and figure we're bound to be fvcking something up. GCC is the best possibility for that, and we're probably wrong about the theory - but it seems pretty obvious we're in for a big surprise one way or another whether it is GCC or something else.

You non-believers are clinging to the fact that GCC isn't a perfect science, and yeah it might be completely wrong. Are you gonna eat all the impurities we put into our food on the strength that science can't tell exactly why such chemicals are unhealthy? Both the body and the planet are complex beyond the competency of our scientists to explain - that shouldn't be reason to damage them.

Localized pollution is about all i can believe. Man could not hurt the earth even if he wanted to. He could cause temporary localized damage, but that's about it. My opinion of course based on mans past disasters. Disasters we were told would be irreversible yet just a few months or a couple of years later hardly a trace to be found.

You don't think we can cut down the rainforests, overfish the seas, and exterminate just about everything out there? What if we just peppered the crust in atomic bombs? I think the mathematics are clear that we are powerful enough to destroy most of the life on Earth, and I have no doubt it would return and I have no problem with the paradigm that it is only us that is truly affected because we depend on that life.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:49:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:43:03 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:38:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:36:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:35:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...

Google says no answer.

I hate it when it does that...
I dunno, a lot of MIT people visit the science forum, maybe they know what the optimal temperature for sustained human life is.

My understanding is that it is more a matter of being in a state of equilibrium (stability) than an optimal temperature per se. The climate is not in a state of equilibrium presently, and as it seeks equilibrium, it will not be a fun experience for us or many other creatures.

Are you talking about an eternal spring season?
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:05:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:43:24 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:39:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/25/2015 5:09:10 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't pay attention to temperature data. I just look at all the pollutants we pump into the air and figure we're bound to be fvcking something up. GCC is the best possibility for that, and we're probably wrong about the theory - but it seems pretty obvious we're in for a big surprise one way or another whether it is GCC or something else.

You non-believers are clinging to the fact that GCC isn't a perfect science, and yeah it might be completely wrong. Are you gonna eat all the impurities we put into our food on the strength that science can't tell exactly why such chemicals are unhealthy? Both the body and the planet are complex beyond the competency of our scientists to explain - that shouldn't be reason to damage them.

Localized pollution is about all i can believe. Man could not hurt the earth even if he wanted to. He could cause temporary localized damage, but that's about it. My opinion of course based on mans past disasters. Disasters we were told would be irreversible yet just a few months or a couple of years later hardly a trace to be found.

You don't think we can cut down the rainforests, overfish the seas, and exterminate just about everything out there? What if we just peppered the crust in atomic bombs? I think the mathematics are clear that we are powerful enough to destroy most of the life on Earth, and I have no doubt it would return and I have no problem with the paradigm that it is only us that is truly affected because we depend on that life.

It will all grow back. always does
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:05:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 10:49:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:43:03 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:38:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:36:38 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:35:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:33:44 PM, Fly wrote:
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

It is not so much the temperature itself but the rate of change that is the bigger concern. Of course, you could investigate answers to your question by doing Internet searches. Have you tried that? Or do such searches lead you back to the answer I just offered up? If so, there ya go...

Google says no answer.

I hate it when it does that...
I dunno, a lot of MIT people visit the science forum, maybe they know what the optimal temperature for sustained human life is.

My understanding is that it is more a matter of being in a state of equilibrium (stability) than an optimal temperature per se. The climate is not in a state of equilibrium presently, and as it seeks equilibrium, it will not be a fun experience for us or many other creatures.

Are you talking about an eternal spring season?

No. Why do you ask? Is there a particular TV show you never want to end?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 9:03:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 3:34:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 2:28:56 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
So let me get this straight - if I want to win the climate change debate, all I have to do is hire a few people to give bad data and then cite that data as reason why no data can be trusted?

I never get an answer what the optimal global temperature needs to be to sustain human life. All I get is people saying things like a .02 change is catastrophic.

How can you be certainly sure what the catastrophic temperature change thresholds are and not have even a clue as to what the global temperature should optimally be to sustain human life?

I think it has more to do with the fact that in current climate models, global climate is something like an unstable equilibrium with respect to global temperature.
slo1
Posts: 4,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 10:17:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:29:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:41:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 10:31:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
What is the ideal temperature to sustain human life?

Depends where you live on the coast or inland? Moral of the story is not that humans can't survive a warmer earth, it is the changes that happen which cause tremendous physical and economic upheaval that is the risk. Maybe that is where the focus should be mitigating the risks associated with the changes. Eliminating federal flood insurance for those with houses within 1/4 mile of beach would be a good start.

So an ideal temperature to sustain human life would be a cooler climate? How many degrees?

Ideal in what way? As if you could master plan everything with with no regard to cost or ideal in limiting cost and human suffering? If the later the ideal is the current temperature.