Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
tmcom

Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

883 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

tmcom
26 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have actually studied climate change, both in a graduate-level course and in independent research projects, one unpublished and one now in review with a third in the research phase.  I have 30 years' experience in natural resource work, especially forest inventory.  I have actually solved supply-and-demand problems impactinng forests.

Have you actually studied the science behind global warming?

Doug

Yes, l have been through all NOAA data for the US, since records began, (twice to be sure) and by studying the numbers saw that 1931 to about 1934 where the 4 hottest years that US has ever had, or 32 was a run of 4 years increasing in temperature, (which over 1880 to present day a fluke that hasn't recurred). NOAA data can be corrupted, but since these numbers are backup by other sources should be reliable.

And if you have studied and such then you should be agreeing with me and Lost_Shaman?

And agreeing with the 2015 Gov, Committee Hearing on Climate Change, Hoax or not video, which you, (and others sidestep) at every mention!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Yes, l have been through all NOAA data for the US, since records began, (twice to be sure) and by studying the numbers saw that 1931 to about 1934 where the 4 hottest years that US has ever had, or 32 was a run of 4 years increasing in temperature, (which over 1880 to present day a fluke that hasn't recurred). NOAA data can be corrupted, but since these numbers are backup by other sources should be reliable.

And if you have studied and such then you should be agreeing with me and Lost_Shaman?

And agreeing with the 2015 Gov, Committee Hearing on Climate Change, Hoax or not video, which you, (and others sidestep) at every mention!

B)

Just to go through the data sources I listed would be a monumental task.  I doubt you even opened most of those files.

To reiterate the temps we are discussing:

1931 was 0.10 C below the baseline.

1932 was 0.15C below the baseline.

1933 was 0.28C below the baseline.

1934 was 0.17C below the baseline.

1935 was 0.19C below the baseline.

1936 was 0.17 below the baseline.

NONE of those years were as warm as the January 1951 to December 1980 baseline.  

EVERY year since 1977 has been warmer than the baseline.

My datasource is NASA's GISS dataset.  Suppose you post a dataset that backs up what you're saying.  You are flat-out WRONG.

I very much doubt that you have studied anything related to climate science.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Just to go through the data sources I listed would be a monumental task.  I doubt you even opened most of those files.

To reiterate the temps we are discussing:

1931 was 0.10 C below the baseline.

1932 was 0.15C below the baseline.

1933 was 0.28C below the baseline.

1934 was 0.17C below the baseline.

1935 was 0.19C below the baseline.

1936 was 0.17 below the baseline.

NONE of those years were as warm as the January 1951 to December 1980 baseline.  

EVERY year since 1977 has been warmer than the baseline.

My datasource is NASA's GISS dataset.  Suppose you post a dataset that backs up what you're saying.  You are flat-out WRONG.

Doug

NASA, not a very reliable source, and no l am not posting over 100 years of numbers, couldn't be f....ed,(go to US land/sea temps raw data).

That is the problem go to a site where they have charts that have been changed, then all of their numbers are nonsense. I would suggest going to some of the sites in Tony's videos, and reporting back here.

Either that or tell us how 18 years of global satellite data, is wrong, (should be good for a laugh).

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, tmcom said:

NASA, not a very reliable source, and no l am not posting over 100 years of numbers, couldn't be f....ed,(go to US land/sea temps raw data).

That is the problem go to a site where they have charts that have been changed, then all of their numbers are nonsense. I would suggest going to some of the sites in Tony's videos, and reporting back here.

Either that or tell us how 18 years of global satellite data, is wrong, (should be good for a laugh).

:sleepy:

So if you don't like NASA, post a different source.  Just a reference, preferably with a link.  You don't need to post the entire dataset.

And BTW:  those listings at the top of the list of lists I posted under Arkansas and Oklahoma are links to the raw data.  You can access all 50 states through them.

Why settle for 18 years of satellite data?  I have data for Oklahoma going back to July 1, 1826.  The earliest records are those kept by the Army Surgeon's Office and Signal Corps.  Beginning in about 1880, the US Weather Service gets into the act.  The last Army station was closed in 1907, but by then, there were around 20 Weather Bureau stations.  There are now about 205 manned stations and a godawful number of automated ones.

So put up or shut up.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

NASA GISS 2000

1931  was 1.15 degrees C above the baseline.

1932 was 0.07 degrees C above the baseline.

1933 was 0.73 degrees C above the baseline.

1934 was 1.30 degrees C above the base line.

1935 was 0.10 degrees C above the baseline.

1936 was 0.26 degrees C above the baseline.

My datasource is NASA's GISS dataset.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

NASA GISS 2000

1931  was 1.15 degrees C above the baseline.

1932 was 0.07 degrees C above the baseline.

1933 was 0.73 degrees C above the baseline.

1934 was 1.30 degrees C above the base line.

1935 was 0.10 degrees C above the baseline.

1936 was 0.26 degrees C above the baseline.

My datasource is NASA's GISS dataset.

1934 was 1.30 DC, thanks LS, l guess Doug has shown us!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 minutes ago, tmcom said:

1934 was 1.30 DC, thanks LS, l guess Doug has shown us!

B)

Yes and we've also recently seen that 12 of the contiguous 48 U.S. States have record high temperatures in 1936 alone. 23 States have all time record highs in the decade of the 1930's. NASA GISS can't change those records!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Although the mutual admiration league of self-credentialed Internet knowledge is quite inspirational, you should probably realize that both sides are discussing something different, namely, doug is talking about global anomalies whereas the M.A.L. is talking about only the United States.  Great work, @lost_shaman and @tmcom, y'all really proved you...can look at a different dataset.  Really top-notch work.

Of course, I didn't notice any actual links from anyone.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/

So there y'all go.  You can even make pretty figures with them.

I further refer those who don't actually study climate, yet erroneously believe themselves to be experts to the list of Frequently Asked Questions regarding changes to the US temperature record.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215

The idea of a supposed shadowy conspiracy theory that documents and explains their actions is, of course, absurd.  Yet, it's what various scientifically illiterate conspiracy theorists believe.  Quite sad.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Great work, @lost_shaman and @tmcom, y'all really proved you...can look at a different dataset. 

I was replying to Doug who has been talking about the Great Plains for days. Maybe you didn't notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
31 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I was replying to Doug who has been talking about the Great Plains for days. Maybe you didn't notice. 

Both of y'all posted different datasets.  But the distinction between local and global can be tough.  I sympathize.

Do you mind actually linking to where your NASA GISS 2000 dataset comes from?  I'm interested.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

NASA GISS 2000

1931  was 1.15 degrees C above the baseline.

1932 was 0.07 degrees C above the baseline.

1933 was 0.73 degrees C above the baseline.

1934 was 1.30 degrees C above the base line.

1935 was 0.10 degrees C above the baseline.

1936 was 0.26 degrees C above the baseline.

My datasource is NASA's GISS dataset.

Please name the actual dataset and/or post a link.

It appears you are referring to the extreme yearly high temps, not the averages.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes and we've also recently seen that 12 of the contiguous 48 U.S. States have record high temperatures in 1936 alone. 23 States have all time record highs in the decade of the 1930's. NASA GISS can't change those records!

Recorsd high temps do not reflect climate change beyond being averaged into the mean temps.  It is those mean temps that reflect global warming.

You two idiots can't tell high temps from averages and I'll bet you didn't even calculate the baseline correctly.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

It appears you are referring to the extreme yearly high temps, not the averages.

Nope those are U.S. annual anomalies posted by GISS as they appeared in June 2000. 

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
31 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You two idiots can't tell high temps from averages and I'll bet you didn't even calculate the baseline correctly.

No one said those "all time record high" temperatures were "averages" Doug. Your Strawman argument is weak. 

Dispite your nonsense, some of the Summers in the 1930's were extremely hot, these were the years of the Dust Bowl and Mass exodus from the central Plains, "The Grapes of Wrath" and all that; which we are not even close to those extremes these days!

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No one said those "all time record high" temperatures were "averages" Doug. Your Strawman argument is weak. 

Dispite your nonsense, some of the Summers in the 1930's were extremely hot, these were the years of the Dust Bowl and Mass exodus from the central Plains, "The Grapes of Wrath" and all that; which we are not even close to those extremes these days!

Yes, funny how Doug and Socks, still ignore the Committee Hearing quoting how satellite data, (that had be verified as being accurate) for 18 years?

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, funny how Doug and Socks, still ignore the Committee Hearing quoting how satellite data, (that had be verified as being accurate) for 18 years?

Honestly I'm hard pressed to decipher your posts.  'quoting how satellite data, (that had be verified as being accurate') for 18 years?'  What does that mean?  How satellite data what for 18 years?  

In fact, the opposite of 'had be verified has being accurate' occurred with the satellite data.  Satellite data is heavily adjusted in a variety of confounding ways - much more so, in fact, than surface measurements.  Of course, adjustments are good when they confirm your conspiracy theories...but wait.  Here is a pretty good explanation of why satellite data is tough to work with via some scientists ("A Response to the 'Data or Dogma?' hearing" by Ben Santer and Carl Mears).

Quote

First, satellites do not provide direct 40 measurements of atmospheric temperature: they are not thermometers in space. The satellite TMT data plotted in Exhibit A were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers (2-4). Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.The major uncertainties arise because the satellite TMT record is based on measurements made by over 10 different satellites, most of which 48 experience orbital decay (5) and orbital drift (6-8) over their lifetimes. These orbital changes affect the measurements of microwave emissions, primarily due to gradual shifts in the time of day at which measurements are made. As the scientific literature clearly documents, the adjustments for such shifts in measurement time are large, and involve many subjective decisions (2-4, 6-8). Further adjustments to the raw data are necessary for drifts in the on-board calibration of the microwave measurements (9, 10), and for the transition between earlier and more sophisticated versions of the MSUs In navigating through this large labyrinth of necessary adjustments to the raw data, different plausible adjustment choices lead to a wide range of satellite TMT trends (2-10). This uncertainty has been extensively studied in the scientific literature, but was completely 62 ignored in the discussion of Exhibit A by Senator Cruz and by witnesses for the majority side of the subcommittee (2-15). The majority side was also silent on the history of satellite temperature datasets. For example, there was no mention of the fact that one  group’s analysis of satellite temperature data – an analysis indicating  cooling of the global troposphere – was repeatedly found to be incorrect by other research groups.

Given how much stock is placed in how bad and evil it is to make adjustments to datasets by shaman, although he ignores explanations as to why adjustments occur, I post this graph of Roy Spencer's satellite dataset.  Roy Spencer, the man who said this "Of course, everyone has their opinions regarding how good the thermometer temperature trends are, with periodic adjustments that almost always make the present warmer or the past colder."

uahadj.png

Woah.  Is that...adjustments?  What?  I can't believe he would adjust his datasets!  He's making the present cooler and the past warmer!  This **** is almost funny.

In the end, I'll just post a picture from an article called "Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming" (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html).  The fun part, of course, is that their picture shows a clear increase in temperature over this time.  Quite amusing.

trend

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
1 hour ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Honestly I'm hard pressed to decipher your posts.  'quoting how satellite data, (that had be verified as being accurate') for 18 years?'  What does that mean?  How satellite data what for 18 years?  

In fact, the opposite of 'had be verified has being accurate' occurred with the satellite data.  Satellite data is heavily adjusted in a variety of confounding ways - much more so, in fact, than surface measurements.  Of course, adjustments are good when they confirm your conspiracy theories...but wait.  Here is a pretty good explanation of why satellite data is tough to work with via some scientists ("A Response to the 'Data or Dogma?' hearing" by Ben Santer and Carl Mears).

Given how much stock is placed in how bad and evil it is to make adjustments to datasets by shaman, although he ignores explanations as to why adjustments occur, I post this graph of Roy Spencer's satellite dataset.  Roy Spencer, the man who said this "Of course, everyone has their opinions regarding how good the thermometer temperature trends are, with periodic adjustments that almost always make the present warmer or the past colder."

uahadj.png

Woah.  Is that...adjustments?  What?  I can't believe he would adjust his datasets!  He's making the present cooler and the past warmer!  This **** is almost funny.

In the end, I'll just post a picture from an article called "Updated list of 63 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming" (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html).  The fun part, of course, is that their picture shows a clear increase in temperature over this time.  Quite amusing.

trend

And he shows clear cases of tampering to fit in with your dodgy charts above, the real ones show global temps declining!

And an expert on gases, also gives evidence showing that hot air balloons and satellite data are accurate, the weasel with the iffy chart, making up excuses about iffy satellites burning up and such is nonsense.

Remember they are under oath including the weasel, that probably believes it. And a site with a nutter proves nothing.

Several pieces  of key data from a US Con, hearing, with contradictory fluffing from the faithful, proves volumes.

But you and others willl try to get around this, and keep bleating the last year was the hottest and the last couple, and iceland is melting, (which is understandable, witches melt) but our coustlines, NEVER go up in Any noticable way!

Yeah, lets forget about 34!

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And he shows clear cases of tampering to fit in with your dodgy charts above, the real ones show global temps declining!

And an expert on gases, also gives evidence showing that hot air balloons and satellite data are accurate, the weasel with the iffy chart, making up excuses about iffy satellites burning up and such is nonsense.

Remember they are under oath including the weasel, that probably believes it. And a site with a nutter proves nothing.

Several pieces  of key data from a US Con, hearing, with contradictory fluffing from the faithful, proves volumes.

But you and others willl try to get around this, and keep bleating the last year was the hottest and the last couple, and iceland is melting, (which is understandable, witches melt) but our coustlines, NEVER go up in Any noticable way!

Yeah, lets forget about 34!

Yeah, about what I expected.  You don't understand enough to know what you don't understand.  There but for the grace of God go I, I guess.  Keep on posting your conspiracy theories.  I'm sure you believe them.

However, the main point is to reach people who actually have a little understanding.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 8/30/2019 at 11:36 AM, lost_shaman said:

NASA GISS 2000

1931  was 1.15 degrees C above the baseline.

1932 was 0.07 degrees C above the baseline.

1933 was 0.73 degrees C above the baseline.

1934 was 1.30 degrees C above the base line.

1935 was 0.10 degrees C above the baseline.

1936 was 0.26 degrees C above the baseline.

My datasource is NASA's GISS dataset.

Those are US temps, Braintrust.  We're talking about GLOBAL warming.  Still trying to compare apples and oranges.

You still need to learn how to post a link/reference.  Fortunately, it was the first one on your list:

http://www.john-daly.com/GISSUSAT.006 

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
3 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Those are US temps, Braintrust.  We're talking about GLOBAL warming. 

You and I were talking about the Great Plains for the past two days in case you already forgot. Remember you were saying the great plains temperatures have risen by 2.2 degrees F? Or when I say "U.S. States" that is probably a clue Doug. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
15 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yes, funny how Doug and Socks, still ignore the Committee Hearing quoting how satellite data, (that had be verified as being accurate) for 18 years?

B)

I have no problem with satellite data, even stuff that has to be corrected.  In this case, the original researchers forgot to correct for orbital decay, meaning the staellite had to look through less air.  Once they made the corrections, the set was fine.

You need to remember that there are lots of different kinds of satellite data.  Some is shot in visiable light, some in infrared, some by radar, etc.  Some covers one set of latitudes; some covers another set.  In determining global warming, satellite data is used to determine sea surface temps.  Land temps are determined from local stations that are becoming increasingly automated.

I'm wondering about that 18-year figure.  Satellites have been measuring ice cover since November 1978.  I'll bet that there are longer satllite temperature datasets available.  But even then, we have temp records for some European cities going back 400 years and sunspot records going back to 1610.  Why should we arbitrarily limit ourselves to 18 years?  That doesn't even reach back to the baseline.  Most of America has been more-or-less covered since the 1820s.  What is so special about temps since 2000?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
3 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Given how much stock is placed in how bad and evil it is to make adjustments to datasets by shaman, although he ignores explanations as to why adjustments occur,

I've never said adjustments on their own are "bad and evil"! That's a ridiculous mischaracterization on you part. Nor have I ever ignored the reasons some adjustments are made. 

What I have objected to is GISS using some monstrosity of a Computer program that they run the temperature records through about every 18 months to 2 years that always cools the past temperatures and always warms the present temperatures. That is not making necessary adjustments, that is adulterating the temperature records. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, tmcom said:

And he shows clear cases of tampering to fit in with your dodgy charts above, the real ones show global temps declining!

And an expert on gases, also gives evidence showing that hot air balloons and satellite data are accurate, the weasel with the iffy chart, making up excuses about iffy satellites burning up and such is nonsense.

Remember they are under oath including the weasel, that probably believes it. And a site with a nutter proves nothing.

Several pieces  of key data from a US Con, hearing, with contradictory fluffing from the faithful, proves volumes.

But you and others willl try to get around this, and keep bleating the last year was the hottest and the last couple, and iceland is melting, (which is understandable, witches melt) but our coustlines, NEVER go up in Any noticable way!

Yeah, lets forget about 34!

:sleepy:

You cannot use direct observations for the entire 192 years that we have reasonably good coverage.  ALL temp data has to be adjusted for a myriad of problems.

Examples:  Before about 1857 they didn't have recording hi-lo thermometers.  They guessed at highs and lows by taking temps at three or four times during the day.  They then compared these manually with diurnal temperature records to estimate the high and low.  These were then averaged to give the average daily temp.  Then they invented recording thermometers that measured and saved the high and low temps.  Once a day an observer could read the thermometers and reset them.

Before November 1883 all times were sun times.  There was no standard time for taking measurements.  Thus, one station was measured at 7:00 am, another at 10:00 am and another at 9:00 pm.  Temps are usually higher at 10:00 am than at 7:00 am, so temps at different stations could not be compared.  The US Weather Bureau eventually standardized all tempos to 7:00 am standard time.  That means that stations observed at other times have to be corrected to 7:00 am to prevent erroneous readings.  And that also means that EVERY observation taken before November 1, 1883 has to be corrected to 7:00 am standard time, not sun time.

Even then,at the equinox, a station in Poteau, Oklahoma shows the temp about four minutes before sunrise while one in Boise City shows it about ten minutes after sunrise.  Even standardization doesn't eliminate all the problems.

There are gaps in the data that distort yearly averages.  The station at Kemp, Oklahoma burned up in a fire.  It was over six months before the equipment could be replaced.  That same station was manned by a schoolteacher who moved elsewhere to work during the summer, so there are two-month gaps every summer.

And then there are times people didn't take the records for whatever reason.  On November 23, 1963, only one-third of Oklahoma stations reported readings.  What happened?  People stayed home to watch coverage of the Kennedy assassination.  You can tell when the Christmas party was held by which day the readings are missing.  At Hee Mountain readings are missing on the hottest and coldest days each year.  The observer was a wimp who wouldn't go out in extreme weather.  We know which days those were by comparing readings with other stations.

To avoid biasing the annual means, the missing data has to be estimated.  In most cases we can fill the gaps, but sometimes we can't produce an estimate with satisfactory confidence, so there are unfillable gaps in the early parts of most records.

I challenge you to produce even one dataset, obtained from direct observations or not, that does not show global warming since the 1970s.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I've never said adjustments on their own are "bad and evil"! That's a ridiculous mischaracterization on you part. Nor have I ever ignored the reasons some adjustments are made.

You've said adjustment schemes are 'false'.  You've said the algorithms are 'bad'.  Thus, you're accusing those who do such things of scientific misconduct, which is, by definition, bad.  Thus, not a mis-characterization.  Your continual accusations of 'unwarranted' adjustments speak for themselves.

Nice try.

Quote

What I have objected to is GISS using some monstrosity of a Computer program that they run the temperature records through about every 18 months to 2 years that always cools the past temperatures and always warms the present temperatures. That is not making necessary adjustments, that is adulterating the temperature records

You've said stuff like this before.  It's wrong.  The adjustments do not always cool past temps and always warm present temps (although I suppose all the temps are in the past...).  Just so everyone reading this thread knows, the bolded part of what shaman said is a lie, and he knows it's a lie.  He insists on repeating it anyway.

Again, you're accusing them of scientific misconduct here.  You're aware that would be 'bad' conduct on their part, right?  Of course, it isn't misconduct, and it's not bad conduct, but you believe it to be.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it bad.  I know, tough to swallow.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.