Current Events > Trump Vs. Global warming:

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkjedilink posted...

I disagree with climate alarmists because the data is flawed, then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

Hyperbole and hysteria isn't always manipulation.

darkjedilink posted...

This is why none of the doomsday predictions by climate scientists have come to pass.

Which climate scientists are publishing scientific papers making doomsday predictions?
---

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

That is a much bolder claim than "their predictions were off". Wanna share your sources?

East Anglia's computer model, which artificially increased temperature data after 1970 so make shit look worse.

It's in the fucking code notes. Like, it literally says that they're intentionally manipulating the data. Remove the code, and every prediction made looks a fuckton closer to actual happenstance.
---

Kavatar posted...

"x happened, therefore global warming/no global warming" is such a fallacy when you're talking about singular events. It's trends that provide actual evidence.

The trend, however, is a general increase in the frequency and intensity of storms from one decade to the next.
---

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

That is a much bolder claim than "their predictions were off". Wanna share your sources?

East Anglia's computer model, which artificially increased temperature data after 1970 so make shit look worse.

It's in the fucking code notes. Like, it literally says that they're intentionally manipulating the data. Remove the code, and every prediction made looks a fuckton closer to actual happenstance.

So do you have a link? I'm interested.
---

Because from what I'm finding on the internet, you seem to be referring to "Climategate", a data breach leading to a smear job. That was eventually investigated by 8 separate committees and no misconduct was found. There were some quotes from emails taken completely out of context to fan the flames of conspiracy theorists, etc.
---

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

That is a much bolder claim than "their predictions were off". Wanna share your sources?

East Anglia's computer model, which artificially increased temperature data after 1970 so make shit look worse.

It's in the fucking code notes. Like, it literally says that they're intentionally manipulating the data. Remove the code, and every prediction made looks a fuckton closer to actual happenstance.

So do you have a link? I'm interested.

I was curious about the same thing. Is the "literalness" of it what makes it difficult to find some form reputable media other than thedailymail and thetelegraph from google search documenting something that involves one of the biggest controversies of recent time?

There's a wikipedia page about it.
---

Not climategate, I'm talking about the east anglia's computer model. I would think some universities, journal organization, or news would be all over this. But when I search the computer model manipulation I don't see any reputable sources.

Hexagon posted...

Not climategate, I'm talking about the east anglia's computer model. I would think some universities, journal organization, or news would be all over this. But when I search the computer model manipulation I don't see any reputable sources.

Isn't climategate the same thing as the East Anglia computer model manipulation?
---

I thought it was about the emails in general. I mean I just searched the phrase "east anglia computer model manipulation" without quotations and only dailymail and telegraph are on the front page, one of the results don't even have anything to do with climate change.

Hexagon posted...

I thought it was about the emails in general. I mean I just searched the phrase "east anglia computer model manipulation" without quotations and only dailymail and telegraph are on the front page, one of the results don't even have anything to do with climate change.

And from what I can see, the telegraph result and most of the other relevant results were talking about climategate.
---

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

That is a much bolder claim than "their predictions were off". Wanna share your sources?

East Anglia's computer model, which artificially increased temperature data after 1970 so make shit look worse.

It's in the fucking code notes. Like, it literally says that they're intentionally manipulating the data. Remove the code, and every prediction made looks a fuckton closer to actual happenstance.

So do you have a link? I'm interested.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-may-probe-leaked-global-warming-e-mails/

Skip past the shit about the emails that nobody - including me - gives two fucks about. They show the actual comments in the code.

America's EPA uses this model to shape policy to this very day.
---

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

That is a much bolder claim than "their predictions were off". Wanna share your sources?

East Anglia's computer model, which artificially increased temperature data after 1970 so make shit look worse.

It's in the fucking code notes. Like, it literally says that they're intentionally manipulating the data. Remove the code, and every prediction made looks a fuckton closer to actual happenstance.

So do you have a link? I'm interested.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-may-probe-leaked-global-warming-e-mails/

Skip past the shit about the emails that nobody - including me - gives two fucks about. They show the actual comments in the code.

America's EPA uses this model to shape policy to this very day.

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

So what are these correcting for specifically?
---

Yea that doesn't make a lot of sense. Many times in articles they show different case scenarios. For all we know, the comment could have been in reference to how the trend would look like excluding their hypothesis, thus they correct for something.

It's so silly if you take a moment's time to read over the comment. Who needs to specify that it's "artificial" I mean if you're intending to be dishonest you would typically be shady as hell. What are they trying to say "make sure you don't accidentally use a real correction".? They definitely deserve the benefit of the doubt because the alternative is insanity.

They're literally pasting a sentence from this conversation. I don't know what they're talking about. In math my professor once suggested a "trick" for evaluating limits by multiplying by the conjugate expression. I have no reason to expect my professor was being nefarious.

civilization has another decade or two and our species will be extinct before this century's end

DarkDragon400 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

then intentionally manipulated to shape public policy.

That is a much bolder claim than "their predictions were off". Wanna share your sources?

East Anglia's computer model, which artificially increased temperature data after 1970 so make shit look worse.

It's in the fucking code notes. Like, it literally says that they're intentionally manipulating the data. Remove the code, and every prediction made looks a fuckton closer to actual happenstance.

So do you have a link? I'm interested.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-may-probe-leaked-global-warming-e-mails/

Skip past the shit about the emails that nobody - including me - gives two fucks about. They show the actual comments in the code.

America's EPA uses this model to shape policy to this very day.

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

So what are these correcting for specifically?

Data that doesn't fit their narrative.
---

DarkDragon400 posted...

So what are these correcting for specifically?

The fact that they're still using Fortran.

darkjedilink posted...

Skip past the s*** about the emails that nobody - including me - gives two f***s about. They show the actual comments in the code.

America's EPA uses this model to shape policy to this very day

Those comments don't support your accusations. People do corrections of data all the time. That's because measurements are often biased and need to be corrected. Unless, of course, you can tell me specifically what data they corrected and why they shouldn't have? Again, this was independently investigated by right different committees and no one found them guilty of any misconduct.
---

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Skip past the s*** about the emails that nobody - including me - gives two f***s about. They show the actual comments in the code.

America's EPA uses this model to shape policy to this very day

Those comments don't support your accusations. People do corrections of data all the time. That's because measurements are often biased and need to be corrected. Unless, of course, you can tell me specifically what data they corrected and why they shouldn't have? Again, this was independently investigated by right different committees and no one found them guilty of any misconduct.

You're suggesting that every scrap of climate data from around the world from 1970 on needs correcting by the exact amount?

How come the uncorrected data makes a much more accurate predictive model?
---

darkjedilink posted...

You're suggesting that every scrap of climate data from around the world from 1970 on needs correcting by the exact amount?

How come the uncorrected data makes a much more accurate predictive model?

I'm suggesting that unless you know specifically what the correction was and why it shouldn't have been done, the evidence you present doesn't support your case. Furthermore, the evidence you present doesn't even address your second accusation, that the data without this correction yields better results.
Could you perhaps elaborate? What data are they talking about? What was the nature of the corrections?
---

When you can't back up your claims, divert. Nice.

darkjedilink posted...

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

You're suggesting that every scrap of climate data from around the world from 1970 on needs correcting by the exact amount?

How come the uncorrected data makes a much more accurate predictive model?

I'm suggesting that unless you know specifically what the correction was and why it shouldn't have been done, the evidence you present doesn't support your case. Furthermore, the evidence you present doesn't even address your second accusation, that the data without this correction yields better results.
Could you perhaps elaborate? What data are they talking about? What was the nature of the corrections?

If literally every piece of data needs correcting, you have bad data and need to start over.

Again, if this is normal scientific research and not a flim-flam, why does the uncorrected data make for a more accurate predictive model?

Explain that, and I'm on board.
---

Depends if it's raw data and how it was collected it might be perfectly reasonable that every piece of data needs correcting.

In biochemistry you can measure the concentration of a protein sample by measuring the intensity of light passing and correlating it to the extinction coefficient of the protein, but water and impurities also absorb light. Therefore every sample needs the absorbance of the pure solvent subtracted for a correct reading.

You don't know what they're correcting and asking other people to tell you...

Hexagon posted...

Depends if it's raw data and how it was collected it might be perfectly reasonable that every piece of data needs correcting.

In biochemistry you can measure the concentration of a protein sample by measuring the intensity of light passing and correlating it to the extinction coefficient of the protein, but water and impurities also absorb light. Therefore every sample needs the absorbance of the pure solvent subtracted for a correct reading.

You don't know what they're correcting and asking other people to tell you...

I'm asking other people to tell me how "uncorrected" data makes a better, more accurate predictive model than "corrected" data.

That's not supposed to happen. That means their corrections are wrong, or the computer program is wrong. Either way, it's wrong, and AN ENTIRE FIELD OF STUDY IS WRONG AS A RESULT.

How is that so fucking hard to grasp?
---

darkjedilink posted...

How is that so f***ing hard to grasp?

I read the article from CBS news twice, and it's not very hard to grasp. Let me repeat this again: The article does not mention it.

I'm asking other people to tell me how "uncorrected" data makes a better, more accurate predictive model than "corrected" data.

Please tell us the paragraph number and sentences(s) that say this. No one is interested in your hypotheticals unless you give us your sources that show what is being corrected and what's going on with the data.

Does that make any sense to you?

So what does that program even do specifically? It's difficult to pass judgement on this if we don't know what the program does, which data it corrects, what the justification for correcting it is, how it corrects the data, etc.
---

darkjedilink posted...

scar the 1 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

You're suggesting that every scrap of climate data from around the world from 1970 on needs correcting by the exact amount?

How come the uncorrected data makes a much more accurate predictive model?

I'm suggesting that unless you know specifically what the correction was and why it shouldn't have been done, the evidence you present doesn't support your case. Furthermore, the evidence you present doesn't even address your second accusation, that the data without this correction yields better results.
Could you perhaps elaborate? What data are they talking about? What was the nature of the corrections?

If literally every piece of data needs correcting, you have bad data and need to start over.

Again, if this is normal scientific research and not a flim-flam, why does the uncorrected data make for a more accurate predictive model?

Explain that, and I'm on board.

Like I said, you need to back that up. Do you have a source to some study that compares model predictions with and without data corrections? Let me resay what I said in my last post, since you completely ignored it:
scar the 1 posted...

Furthermore, the evidence you present doesn't even address your second accusation, that the data without this correction yields better results.
Could you perhaps elaborate? What data are they talking about? What was the nature of the corrections?

---

It's not that Harvey is a direct result (though its severity likely is), it's that the devastation we're seeing will not only become the norm, but will get exponentially worse.


Critical thinking is hard guys
---

Hey, look at that, dark doesn't understand how data collection works. That's amusing.
---

Actually, here, darkjed, read this if you're curious about adjustments:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

Oh, look at that, climatology is a complicated field and the people who spend countless years studying it aren't all in on a giant conspiracy. Who knew that the layman who knew nothing about the subject and threw around accusations of conspiracies despite knowing nothing about the field would be wrong? Fucking big surprise, lmao.

Anyway, the article is off a relatively biased-looking website but most of the website's content is very well sourced and researched, this article being no exception. It goes very in-depth on the subject of adjustments - why they're used, different types of adjustments, how they're used, etc. with sourced papers/graphs.
---

darkjedilink posted...

If literally every piece of data needs correcting, you have bad data and need to start over.

To further address this utterly ridiculous statement, here are some more examples:

As GPS signals pass through the ionosphere, they are subject to a frequency-dependent delay. If that delay isn't accounted for, their measurements would be off. So every GNSS satellite transmits signals with two different frequencies, to be able to correct the data. Literally every piece of raw GPS data needs correcting.

One way of measuring the Earth's temperature is by looking at the emission of EM waves in the microwave spectrum. This method gives us a good idea of the temperature in the troposphere, however some of the waves are absorbed by the stratosphere. This results in a bias in the measurements, making the troposphere look cooler than it actually is (which can be confirmed by e.g., radiosondes). Thus, literally every piece of data collected this way needs to be corrected for the stratospheric cooling effect.

So your idea that "if every piece of data needs correcting, you have bad data" is ignorant and/or stupid.
---

Just FYI, I did some quick plotting to give a sense of how the number of storms and hurricanes have gone up and down over the years:

http://i.imgur.com/a/k59Ds

The data is from https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp and I just added the storms columns data from all the four regions. I was unsure if hurricanes are separate or a subset.

EDIT: I did both storms and hurricanes separately. And I wouldn't mind the huge increase around the 1940s, my guess is that the monitoring started becoming a lot better around that point rather than there being a huge, sudden increase worldwide.
EDIT2: I did some sloppy mistakes but now they should be correct.
---

It's not that the GOP doesn't believe in climate change, but they ultimately worship the dollar, and climate regulations keep them from some of that dollar. So they argue against it. Many conservatives go along with it because they treat politics like they're rooting for the home team.
---

I fear for the day when Oklahoma gets hit by a Harvey like hurricane
---

scar the 1 posted...

EDIT: I did both storms and hurricanes separately. And I wouldn't mind the huge increase around the 1940s, my guess is that the monitoring started becoming a lot better around that point rather than there being a huge, sudden increase worldwide.

That's about when radar became practical, because there was a bit of a world war going on at the time.

Leight_Weight posted...

I fear for the day when Oklahoma gets hit by a Harvey like hurricane

Unlikely, as the prevailing winds across the continent overpower hurricanes and blow then towards Nova Scotia, and they weaken as the travel overland. The furthest west the remains of a north-atlantic hurricane gets is roughly St. Louis, and gulf hurricanes end up deflected loosely along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers as they disintegrate (also through St. Louis).

If Oklahoma City ever gets a hurricane, it's decayed remnants already, and mostly just ends up as a bunch of tornadoes brought about by wind shear between the gulf winds and the prevailing westerlies. Or, more or less, regular-type Oklahoma weather - just more of it.

Questionmarktarius posted...

That's about when radar became practical, because there was a bit of a world war going on at the time.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Sensor technology improved greatly during and after WWII, and that's around the same time as worldwide communication really started growing.

Anyway, it's difficult to see any strong trend (in either direction) in sheer amount of events, and the recent downward trend is pretty much only due to that one very calm year.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Anyway, it's difficult to see any strong trend (in either direction) in sheer amount of events, and the recent downward trend is pretty much only due to that one very calm year.

The NOAA chart strongly suggests there isn't a trend, but some sort of loose cycle of roughly 40 to 60 years or so.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AdjustedTCCount_1878-2008_0.png

Twinmold posted...

It's not that the GOP doesn't believe in climate change, but they ultimately worship the dollar, and climate regulations keep them from some of that dollar. So they argue against it. Many conservatives go along with it because they treat politics like they're rooting for the home team.

It kinda is, though, when the Paris agreement was literally paying China and India billions of dollars for absolutely nothing.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Twinmold posted...

It's not that the GOP doesn't believe in climate change, but they ultimately worship the dollar, and climate regulations keep them from some of that dollar. So they argue against it. Many conservatives go along with it because they treat politics like they're rooting for the home team.

It kinda is, though, when the Paris agreement was literally paying China and India billions of dollars for absolutely nothing.

Ditching Paris was a meaningless gesture, at best, because the agreement itself is toothless.

Questionmarktarius posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Anyway, it's difficult to see any strong trend (in either direction) in sheer amount of events, and the recent downward trend is pretty much only due to that one very calm year.

The NOAA chart strongly suggests there isn't a trend, but some sort of loose cycle of roughly 40 to 60 years or so.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AdjustedTCCount_1878-2008_0.png

Oh would you look at that. You just peer reviewed my conclusion :)
---

https://xkcd.com/1321/
---

Foppe posted...

https://xkcd.com/1321/

There's an interesting correlation with the NOAA chart above.
The 1980s were apparently brutally cold in St. Louis, corresponding with a low period in the vague hurricane cycle.
Meanwhile, record highs in the area are usually from the 'dust bowl' era (mid 30s), when that vague cycle peaked.

Imagine believing politicians over scientists in scientific matters...
---

The Deadpool posted...

Imagine believing politicians over scientists in scientific matters...

This.

The Deadpool posted...

Imagine believing politicians over scientists in scientific matters...

Politicians are untrustworthy until they support my preconceived notions
---

don't you have a rally to be at?
---

Lobyists rule the US. Not the politicians.

Makes sense to not expect the number of hurricanes to have an increasing trend. Major hurricane vs no hurricane is a discrete event, but the average temperature is increasing continuously. Also they form over water which has a moderating effect compared to land disasters. Unless there is reason to believe that we are at a tipping point in the average temperature for the criteria required to form a hurricane. For all we know there could be many "near-misses" of hurricanes that started to form, but didn't quite make it there. I don't know if it was linked, but there was a webpage from NOAA showing an increasing trend in smaller <2 day hurricanes although they say the improvement of the detection equipment could be the cause it doesn't rule it out that smaller, less devastating hurricanes are increasing in frequency.