Reply With Quote
whatever le you assign to make yourself feel better is irrelevant. it's for the birds.
I prefer the term climate crisis skeptic
whatever le you assign to make yourself feel better is irrelevant. it's for the birds.
Global Warming Hoax Exposed: Australia Weather Bureau Tampered With Climate Numbers
Wouldn't "honest mistakes" result in an equal number of false warming and cooling readings? And yet, these "honest mistakes" always seem to show the planet is warming. Odd that.
The Daily Caller reports that for the second time in a just a few years the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia has been caught red-handed tampering with climate temperatures as a means to make a "slight cooling trend to one of 'dramatic warming' over the past century."
Back in August of 2014 the Australian BOM claimed that there was no bad faith behind the decision to "modify the physical temperature records that had been recorded at weather stations across the country.” Nevertheless, the effect, according to Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who holds a PhD in biology, was a “dramatic change in temperature trend towards warming after genisation.”
" genization" is the process that allows climate scientists to correct for anomalies in raw temperature data. How there can be anomalies in raw data is beyond me.
This latest scandal is even more serious, one in which the BOM has been forced to admit that incorrect temperatures were logged. Naturally, the agency is blaming faulty equipment but Marhosasy is pushing back. According to the Daily Caller she told reporters that the BOM's claims of faulty equipment "are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being 'quality assured' out."
One meteorologist reported watching the BOM data change in real time. Colder temperatures, or temperatures inconvenient to the theory that our planet is warming, either disappeared entirely or were " genized" into a warmer temperature.
Apparently "faulty equipment" turned a temperature recorded elsewhere at 5.54 degrees into 13 degrees.
There is simply no question anymore that Global Warming or Climate Change — or whatever these luddites are calling it today — is a massive fraud.
Why do the people and ins utions like CNN, those who tell us the flooding of Manhattan is imminent, remain in Manhattan, or in CNN's case, invest billions of dollars just blocks away from the "endangered coast"?
Why do these supposedly innocent temperature adjustments always, Always, ALWAYS show the planet is warming. If these were legitimately honest mistakes as opposed to outright tampering, every once in a while wouldn't that mistake result in a mistaken temperature reading that was, you know, lower?
Only re s and simpletons constantly seek for 'booms' oversimplifications as Chris's wont to do.
Normalization is common when you have literally tens of thousands of instruments recording data. The author even admits their ignorance but it doesn't take scientists to understand that not all thermometers are going to read exactly the same in all instances.
It's funny because these dumbasses are the exact same people that were arguing the heat island effect recently. One thing I've learned on this topic is that some people are just too stupid to discuss it with.
Article I posted above confirms WC's theory. Climate change is a hoax. Fear mongering sprinkled with an unnecessary carbon tax. Your little personal jabs you like to incorporate into your posts doesn't change the facts.
We've discussed normalization before WILD CHODE was too stupid to get it then I'm not surprised you can't either. Not all thermometers and not all measuring locations are created equal and you have to adjust them if you can't get that that's your own problem.
Al Gore has a climate "crisis" town hall on CNN tonight.
I'm sure you do.
There is a difference, though, between genuine skepticism, and dogmatic denial of evidence, i.e. denial.
Genuine skeptics generally set some level of evidence for a claim, define terms, and evaluate available evidence. They seek out multiple sources, evaluate those sources, and weigh evidence.
Especially important are sources that challenge your own conclusions.
How often do you read sources that challenge your starting assumptions and conclusions?
LolAl Gore has a climate "crisis" town hall on CNN tonight.
Adjusting a thermometer reading is like lying about your size.
I guess it's a common practice for you.
LOL...
If observations disagrees with the consensus, the observations must be wrong...
It is actually quite valid to discard outliers when sampling data.
That is what real scientists do, although they do try to understand what caused the anomaly.
You did know that, right?
You're so cowed you won't discuss the science anymore. Your left with petty deflections.
If you put accurate mercury, ir, chemical, etc thermometers in the same place they will give slightly different readings.
A reading from the floor is different than on the wall is different than suspended in the air is different than etc.
That is the raw data. The environmental cir stance is key. The trick is to choose an ideal say a ir thermometer suspended in the air oriented at 10 degrees below vertical for example and normalize the data so it is all in those terms.
That means you are comparing apples to apples. You've had this rubbed in your face a dozen times by this point. Your getting dumber with age. Good job.
The IR thermometer is probably the least accurate.
Give me a good 'ol mercury thermometer any day.
Oh...
Meteorological thermometers are not mounted on walls...
One thing that gets me about the electronic ones they use, is the use a temperature to voltage transducer. The more accurate means would be a temperature to current transducer.
I never said they were the most accurate, dim. I was making a point about normalizing a dataset.
You of course cannot Google that so readily so you went for the red herring like the cowardly dimwit everyone knows you to be.
So, you are saying they do change the raw data.
That is bad...
But you have graduated from warming denying.
How about big changes in climate occurring quickly need our attention?
We must assess if there is anything we can do to stabilize our farming, etc... infrastructure for rapid changes?
And, can the process be slowed, stopped, reversed?
The military is already planning for an open Arctic in dealing the Russians. Is this wasted time and money?
You...
Are not an expert in this stuff, you are not even close.
Are you capable of changing your opinion and what does it take?
I can easily state what type of evidence would have to arise to change my belief in biological evolution.
Imo, this is about where you are standing now; evolution is a myth created by liberals who don't like the bible.
Please provide a scientific study(-ies) on the reliability of IR thermometers compared to other methods, with an appropriate data set(s) that supports this statement.
I too, wish to know how accurate the measurements are.
Are you really that stupid to think you have a handle on my thoughts?
LOL...
I don't need to. I know how they work. They give close, but not anywhere near the accuracy required. They are more complicated than a thermister.
Do your own homework.
interesting standard
i happen to know that IR thermometers are actually the most accurate by far. i dont need a study, i know how they work. trust me.
Whatever.
Based on your posting, yes. The evolution example is obviously just that, an example.
+ you have an exalted sense of expertise. It's pretty obvious.
I guess your triumphs in triangulation of a prospective female acquaintance have led to pseudo intellect.
Internet is full of your type. Other than the creepy sleuthing stuff.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
