The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming (129 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..43..83..123..163..200~201~202~203~204~205 [Next]
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26639 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Feb 16, 2018, ed rhodes wrote:
IF initial investment were the issue, there'd be no cars, there'd be no electricity.

They were discovered, refined, built and explored by initial investment(s). By people with names we remember today including Volt, Ampere, Faraday, Edison, Gauss, Maxwell, Tesla, Ford...

Is this about government investment?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2606 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Good point. As opposed to today where the government is directly sabotaging solar energy use.
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
18768 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Yea they sabotaged the heck out of Solyndra good point.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
278 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
I've learned that when arguing with dudes you've got to send them one sentence at a time, because if you send them a paragraph they're only gonna respond to one part.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26639 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Global Mercury cycle?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
278 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Apparently the anthrax wasn't enough.
I've learned that when arguing with dudes you've got to send them one sentence at a time, because if you send them a paragraph they're only gonna respond to one part.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2606 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On Feb 17, 2018, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea they sabotaged the heck out of Solyndra good point.


At the risk of getting this thread killed for being overly political, Trump has announced a HUGELY tariff on solar panels not made in the USA. He claims this is to protect US solar panel interests, what it will do is make solar panel conversion hideously expensive.
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
751 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Or make solar panel manufacturers in the US able to compete?
KazMagic
View Profile
New user
67 Posts

Profile of KazMagic
Wow...so many comments in a few days!
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
751 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
, R.S. wrote:

So, do you think NOAA is a credible sources of information?

Ron


No, not really.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/......istence/

"That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.

We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

"He concludes:

On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.

Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.

Now, Homewood has given the same treatment to the most recent Big Freeze – the winter of 2017/2018.

Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.

So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.

Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.

He concludes:

Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenised and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data.

And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better?"
R.S.
View Profile
Veteran user
CT one day I'll have
388 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Feb 20, 2018, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
, R.S. wrote:

So, do you think NOAA is a credible sources of information?

Ron


No, not really.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/......istence/

"That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.

We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda."

"He concludes:

On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F.

Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F.

Now, Homewood has given the same treatment to the most recent Big Freeze – the winter of 2017/2018.

Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true.

So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively.

Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.

He concludes:

Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenised and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data.

And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better?"


FACTCHECK.ORG:

Nothing False About Temperature Data
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothin......re-data/

Rep. Gary Palmer falsely claimed on a radio show that temperature data used to measure global climate change have been “falsified” and manipulated.

The “report” to which Palmer referred was actually a series of blog posts, written by climate change denier Paul Homewood, which were then highly publicized in two stories by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part of climate science.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:


Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?

Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.

NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.

As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.

For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.

Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.

The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.

Another paper, from 2010, looked into the siting of U.S. monitoring stations in particular, and again found no problem with the homogenization methods. “[T]he adjusted [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements. … In summary, we find no evidence that the [conterminous United States] average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.”

Berkeley Earth, a climate science nonprofit founded in early 2010 by scientists expressing skepticism at the time about global warming, has also found no undue manipulation of temperature data in its own analyses. Its page specifically on the Paraguayan Puerto Casado station that Homewood mentioned shows the adjusted readings do in fact show a rise in temperature over time.

An October 2011 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research provides an overview of the entire Global Historical Climatology Network’s temperature data set, including detailed information about adjustments. In total, at least one “bias correction” was applied to 3,297 of the 7,279 stations in use at some point since 1801, though most of these occurred from the 1950s through the 1980s. As the chart below shows, there are approximately equal numbers of adjustments in the positive and negative directions.

Scientists have criticized the Telegraph’s Booker (and by extension Homewood) for spreading misinformation on climate science. In a post on RealClimate.org, Norwegian Meteorological Institute senior researcher Rasmus Benestad quickly debunked the details of Booker’s and Homewood’s claims. He said of the Telegraph story, “a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers.”

The supposed manipulation of data by East Anglia and other scientists in the Climategate affair also proved to be completely unfounded, as we have written twice before.

Climate skeptics claimed that leaked emails between many climate scientists around the world showed there was a coordinated effort to inflate the global warming signal in temperature data. But several separate investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General and the Environmental Protection Agency, found no such wrongdoing or manipulation.

According to one independent international investigation, known informally as the Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.” Palmer’s spokesman said the congressman had no comment on the repetition of this claim in spite of the repeated exonerations.

Palmer’s claim that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. The United Kingdom’s Met Office said that 2014 was among the warmest along with 2010, but it is impossible to say for sure that 2014 was hotter. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
miistermagico
View Profile
Loyal user
218 Posts

Profile of miistermagico
Dear R.S.,
I have found it wise to disregard the statements of politicians. They seem to prefer re-election over objective facts.

American troops are winning in Vietnam...
I never had sex with that woman.
No new taxes.
There is no recession.
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
Sincerely,
miistermagico
Senor Fabuloso
View Profile
Veteran user
325 Posts

Profile of Senor Fabuloso
Magico is right.

Mexico will pay for the big and beautiful wall.
I have evidence of Obama being born in Kenya.
I know more than the generals. Believe me.
The central park five are guilty.
I have the best people.
I have the best words.
There was no collusion.
There was no obstruction.
Russia had no part in the election.
My crowds were the biggest in history.
I won the popular vote if it hadn't been for those 3,000,000 illegals voting.
When Mexico sends its people they're sending drug dealers and rapists.
I saw Muslims in the streets of New Jersey celebrating the fall of the twin towers and the death of 3000 people.
"I think it's clear that if we move people emotionally and have them experience our show on a visceral level they will have been entertained." Me

"When I was young I thought I was clever and could change the world. But now I am wise and instead changed MYSELF." Sudo Nimh
miistermagico
View Profile
Loyal user
218 Posts

Profile of miistermagico
Especially for Senor Fabuloso,
Mexico City, Parched and Sinking, Faces isis a Water Crisis
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017......ing.html

Thank you for your support. Happy magic.
Sincerely,
miistermagico
miistermagico
View Profile
Loyal user
218 Posts

Profile of miistermagico
Keeping an Eye on Cape Town 15 Feb 2018
https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa....../553076/
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
751 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Http://www.thegwpf.com/susan-crockford-p......e-dying/

POLAR BEARS KEEP THRIVING, ALARMISTS KEEP PRETENDING THEY’RE DYING

"The failure of the 2007 polar bear survival model is a simple fact that explodes the myth that polar bears are on their way to extinction. Although starving-bear videos and scientifically insignificant research papers still make the news, they don’t alter the facts: Polar bears are thriving, making them phony icons, and false idols, for global warming alarmists."
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2606 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
So, she acknowledges that there is less ice than before, but because the bears aren’t dying off, “climate change” is a myth?
"He was born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad." - Rafael Sabatini, Scaramouche
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
751 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I'll have to re-read the article. I don't remember her saying climate change us a myth. I think the entire article was claiming that the fear mongering regarding polar bears dying off was a myth.
miistermagico
View Profile
Loyal user
218 Posts

Profile of miistermagico
Dear Mystery Entertainers,
At Greenland's Cape Morris Jessup, the northernmost land based weather station during the month of
February 2018 the average temps were 27 degrees HOTTER THAN NORMAL. TIME March 12, 2018, page 4.
This seems to indicate instability in climate. After observing the history of changing climate in the past
and present this should come as no surprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Morris_Jesup

The Attacking Ocean: The Past, Present, and Future of Rising Sea Levels by Brian Fagan
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 by Brian Fagan
The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization by Brian Fagan
Introducing: Brian M. Fagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_M._Fagan
Sincerely,
miistermagico
miistermagico
View Profile
Loyal user
218 Posts

Profile of miistermagico
Dear Mystery Entertainers,
Perhaps you have noticed, like our ancient ancestors, we are deeply absorbed in a world of change and instability.
The year was 1912 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CaieEwEuiw
How we lived in the 1920's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtPkzqXKhQQ
Did it not look like this to live in the 1920's? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=684n8FO68LU
1920's Hot Hot Hot Dance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUfVnrdn1ps
A Brief History of Electricity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3M9HKK-onM
Daily Life in the 1930's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAfjRolNCI
Expect something new. Roll with the changes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8u4R4VZp1o
Sincerely,
miistermagico
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » New Report on Global Warming (129 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..43..83..123..163..200~201~202~203~204~205 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.32 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL