Another fun climate change thread

Science always leaves room for uncertainty.

 

Ah yes, NASA.

About them:

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” Yet in 1999, he made it quite clear that past climate was not stable, and that there was little evidence to support the idea that the climate was becoming unstable. In that 1999 report, he showed that US temperatures peaked in 1934, and declined through the rest of the century.



But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.


The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.



Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

I think that the older you get, the more you're less inclined to actually research what you're told before using it to support you position. Once a self-approved authority figure is established in your mind, you'll likely find yourself in the position of finding out the hard way that the sword you thought you were holding is not really there. What do you think?

 

Do you know what readers are thinking. They're thinking that even after you've viewed the graphs that prove my point, you are nevertheless dead set on pretending that you didn't. So, what exactly do you think the graphs indicate? This should be interesting.

 

Not disinformation, but incompetence

Look at the video again, didnt you notice the obvious difference between the 2012 in the video and the picture you posted

There isnt anything on the nasa earth observatory site after 2012, there is a reason for this, NASA no doubt build great satellites, but what the hell they doing climate research for?
The photos you posted are composite microwave data, they are not real photos


From the NSIDC website, University of colorado, funded by NASA, along with the National Science Foundation , the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (so not some crazy climate change denial site)








Check out the NSIDC site Daily Image | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Then checkout NASAs earth observatory site, see if you can find any mention of the arctic past 2012 NASA Earth Observatory - Home

Its NASA right? They cant possibly have fucked up


Then try and find an actual satellite photo of the arctic this winter (its a trick question, well trick challenge, thats not technically a question)



What is really going on is most of you depend solely on youtube videos or 10 second google searches, that will list the most visited sites, or sites that have paid google at the top

 

I don't really want to get involved in the discussion but I do want to clarify this...

The 95% represents a confidence interval, which is statistically significant.

Meaning we can say with 95% confidence that a sample set from the data represents those findings.

For instance, let's say we got a Mean temperature for a year that's 58 degrees, with a Standard Deviation of 50.

If we calculate the 95% Confidence Interval of that year it's 58 +/- 1.960( 50/ sqrt(365))

Which is roughly 58 +/- 5

So granting approximations we can say with 95% confidence that a sample set will fall between 53 and 63 degrees that year.

Or to look at it the other way, only 1 in 50 sample sets would not fall in that range.

I'm not sure what data comprised the set NASA used but given how many different areas with varying temperature there are, I can only presume their data set dwarfs this example.

 

Uh huh. Well I can say with 95% confidence that a 95% confidence level coming from the people who were caught altering their own graphs in order to misrepresent the facts of the matter doesn't mean very much.

 

I wish the climate scientists would break it down this good!

 

This statement is incorrect:

"So granting approximations we can say with 95% confidence that a sample set will fall between 53 and 63 degrees that year."

 

How is it incorrect?

 

This issue would be easier to sell if we concentrated on pollution. Pollution is something we can experience directly, now. When this morphed into climate change (global cooling, a new ice age, oops, global warming, we'll all cook). This is because the average human can't readily fathom how their tossing a cigarette butt or filling up the family jalopy, is destroying the earth.

Maybe it's time for the message to change into something more practical.

 

I tend to agree if for no other reason than the topic of climate change is so polarizing and divisive. Whereas if you focus on pollution, you can actually see visible consequences. Smog is tangible. Plastic in the ocean is tangible. These are things we can see, things that cant be put up for debate because anyone with 2 eyes can see them

 

Exactly! Pollution is there I see it everywhere. Humans are not helping earth. Seems they try but only a small minority

 

The problem is that on a world wide basis the only organized group that disputes the basic conclusion of climate scientists is the Republican Party and fellow travelers. It is not a divisive issue anywhere else. Everybody else has signed on to the international protocols as did the U S until Trump has tried to back out. CO2 is a pollutant and it is unfortunate it is not purple or orange so everyone could see it. Then we could see what that coal plant across the street is really doing. The greed and ignorance of the climate change deniers in this country is an international disgrace.

 

These graphs are being circulated by Stephen Goddard, aka Tony Heller, on his website Real Science. He apparently uses raw data collected by NASA/NOAA to paint an unrealistic picture of Earth's recent climate trends. He testified to the senate of the state of Washington in 2017 and got a, um, 'chilly' reception. https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/...s-in-washington-senate-environment-committee/.

Did NASA/NOAA Dramatically Alter U.S. Temperatures After 2000?.

He's a nut.

 

True, these are all good points. And I realize i'm essentially arguing that we should dumb down the argument so small minds can comprehend, which probably isnt the best approach.

 

So co2 is a pollutant? You mentioned certain dynamics of co2 in an earlier post. Here is the answer to your alarm.

CO2 is Logarithmic Explained

And as far as co2 being a pollutant, you should probably read this:

There is much talk about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2. We are told that we need to minimize our “carbon footprint.” But CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels (while too much C02 is poisonous for animals, including humans, no one suggests that anthropogenic emissions could ever cause atmospheric levels to reach anywhere near the level of C02 that is directly toxic).

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/12/1037/

 

I'm afraid you're going to have to pull the segment from your link that states that the altered graphs don't show what they clearly show.



In 1988, Hansen told (sympathetic) journalist Bob Reiss that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 or 30 years (2008-2018). In 2001, he confirmed and reiterated that claim.

He's a nut.

 

I'm old enough to remember when Al Gore said the world was going to end in 10 years.

That was 19 years ago in 2005