Global Warming is over.

[z31maniac]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

Any credibility to this?

[Nesset]

Sooo.... If global warming is over, can I straight pipe my 2002 and ride a CR500 on the road and not get arrested for being a "Gross polluter"?

[BraveUlysses]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ience-at-nasa/


Any credibility to this?

Does the author have any credibility?

[CorvallisBMW]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ience-at-nasa/


Any credibility to this?

Maybe? I spent about 15 minutes looking at it. One one hand, the author has an entire website devoted to "debunking" global warming, so he obviously has an agenda. However he does have lots of pretty graphs, charts, and pictures to make things look nice.

I like that he superimposes graphs on top of each other, it makes identifying before/after much easier. But as far as I can tell, he's leaving out some key information. From his front page:

"Yesterday I showed how Addison, New York January temperatures had been massively tampered with to cool the past by three degrees, and eliminate the cooling trend.

Perhaps they had good reason for this, and it needed to be homogenized with a nearby station to bring it in line?

Let’s look at the next station over at Elmira, N.Y. Guess what, exactly the same data tampering – they knocked three degrees off the past temperatures and made the cooling trend disappear. The early part of the 20th century was cooled five degrees. What possible error could require five degrees of data tampering?

Perhaps they believe there was a massive conspiracy of global warming deniers in 1895 tampering with the temperature record? Or more likely the temperature adjustments being made today are fraudulent, and intended to turn cooling into warming."

Who is "they"? Why would they alter the data? "They" obviously didn't come straight out and say 'we did it to fake a warming trend', so they must have given some kind of reason. What was that reason? Did it have any credibility?

He gives us some pretty graphs, but cites no sources as to who made them, where the data came from, or anything else. Without any credible source, it's entirely possible that he generated the data and graphs himself from scratch, just to prove his own point. I'm not saying he did, but it's possible, because he doesn't give even the slightest detail as to where the data came from. There's no way to tell fact from fiction.

His argument could be a lot more convincing if he'd share the sources of all this amazing data and proof of his "cover-ups". It's hard for me to put much faith or credibility in to a series of one-sided arguments that fail to cite their sources.

[MF DOOM]

(theres not enough name calling in this thread anymore).

[z31maniac]

Maybe? I spent about 15 minutes looking at it. One one hand, the author has an entire website devoted to "debunking" global warming, so he obviously has an agenda. However he does have lots of pretty graphs, charts, and pictures to make things look nice.

I like that he superimposes graphs on top of each other, it makes identifying before/after much easier. But as far as I can tell, he's leaving out some key information. From his front page:

"Yesterday I showed how Addison, New York January temperatures had been massively tampered with to cool the past by three degrees, and eliminate the cooling trend.

Perhaps they had good reason for this, and it needed to be homogenized with a nearby station to bring it in line?

Let’s look at the next station over at Elmira, N.Y. Guess what, exactly the same data tampering – they knocked three degrees off the past temperatures and made the cooling trend disappear. The early part of the 20th century was cooled five degrees. What possible error could require five degrees of data tampering?

Perhaps they believe there was a massive conspiracy of global warming deniers in 1895 tampering with the temperature record? Or more likely the temperature adjustments being made today are fraudulent, and intended to turn cooling into warming."

Who is "they"? Why would they alter the data? "They" obviously didn't come straight out and say 'we did it to fake a warming trend', so they must have given some kind of reason. What was that reason? Did it have any credibility?

He gives us some pretty graphs, but cites no sources as to who made them, where the data came from, or anything else. Without any credible source, it's entirely possible that he generated the data and graphs himself from scratch, just to prove his own point. I'm not saying he did, but it's possible, because he doesn't give even the slightest detail as to where the data came from. There's no way to tell fact from fiction.

His argument could be a lot more convincing if he'd share the sources of all this amazing data and proof of his "cover-ups". It's hard for me to put much faith or credibility in to a series of one-sided arguments that fail to cite their sources.

Not trying to give credence either way, but from what I understand, it's the difference in 2 different GISS reports.

Then again, if we go full cynic, how do we know what is and what isn't "faked" on the interwebs.

I personally don't care either way, I just think as responsible, sentient beings we should try our best to not fuck up our planet. No political agenda included.

[cale]

(theres not enough name calling in this thread anymore).

If you want to provoke a reaction, you'll need to be something stronger to the table than a decades old petition where anyone can claim to be Bruce Wayne.

[rwh11385]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ience-at-nasa/


Any credibility to this?

The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999

Well, to start, the NASA animated gif is temp anomaly not the actual temps. So the records didn't shift but rather the best fit line did and thus the deltas to that line shifted, as the animation shows... Basic lack of understanding of what is being talked about is pretty low indication for credibility.

Over a reasonable duration of time, more data leads to different trending lines, from the climate to the stock market. edit: To be more clear, if you took a trend line for stocks and charted the difference of the actual prices to that line, then the deltas to a trend made in 1999/2000 would be very different to a trend more recently with more data to base our regression on. But the actual historic data points wouldn't have changed themselves.

[BraveUlysses]

derp

You're unworthy of your screen name.

[MF DOOM]

I'd change it if I could..

But on a serious note, Believers or doubters, id like to hear some of your solutions to the issues you present.

[nando]

kill all humans

[CorvallisBMW]

[MF DOOM]

Now we're talking!!

[z31maniac]

Well, to start, the NASA animated gif is temp anomaly not the actual temps. So the records didn't shift but rather the best fit line did and thus the deltas to that line shifted, as the animation shows... Basic lack of understanding of what is being talked about is pretty low indication for credibility.

Over a reasonable duration of time, more data leads to different trending lines, from the climate to the stock market. edit: To be more clear, if you took a trend line for stocks and charted the difference of the actual prices to that line, then the deltas to a trend made in 1999/2000 would be very different to a trend more recently with more data to base our regression on. But the actual historic data points wouldn't have changed themselves.

Jesus Christ, learn to form a grammatically correct sentence.

[smooth]

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-drought-california-20150223-story.html