Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

steingar said:
The problem with interpreting climatic data is the fact the the world will be warmer is both clear and incontrovertible. What isn't clear is what a warmer Earth looks like.
Click to expand...
It is also clear and incontrovertible that the world will be colder. It isn't clear how much of each will happen, when, and in what order.
 
Lindberg said:
It is also clear and incontrovertible that the world will be colder. It isn't clear how much of each will happen, when, and in what order.
Click to expand...

We do know the order. Absolute zero comes last.

Once all of this entropy "chills out", anyway. ;)
 
Oddly I'll be in 84 in 2050. I say it's odd because I graduated HS in 1984.

That coincidence has me so freaked out that I'm not going to sell any airplanes or cars, I'm not going to drive or fly less, hell, I'm not going to anything different.

Global Warming, Climate Change, Man-made Client change... call it what you want, and then go recycle yourself. Call me when one of these dicks has a prediction come true.

paflyer said:
What a retard.
Click to expand...
Please don't offend retarded people by lumping them in with these climate-tards.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Technically, it's an Apatosaurus. The Brontosaurus was a name created for a dinosaur that was a case of mistaken identity with the Apatosaurus. There more you know . . . :)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want to make a faux pas if you had to introduce someone to them at a party. Good stuff! :)
 
steingar said:
The problem with interpreting climatic data is the fact the the world will be warmer is both clear and incontrovertible. What isn't clear is what a warmer Earth looks like.
Click to expand...
We know quite well what a warmer Earth looks like. The fossil record is clear enough for the folks who bother looking. Can you say Creataceous Seaway? sure, I knew you could.
 
X3 Skier said:
GIGO verified again.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Or just that clickbait authors need to eat, too... Maslow and all that... some folks can't find a job writing for someplace that has any sort of credibility, they just need groceries.

I feel proud to have sent all of us to their clickbait to feed the author. I'm a job creator! :)
 
BTW, I called the California Physic line and they told me the earth will get warmer. We were cut off and when I called back, they said it will get colder. Surprisingly, the Physic phone number is the same as Columbia University.

Cheers
 
steingar said:
The problem with interpreting climatic data is the fact the the world will be warmer is both clear and incontrovertible. What isn't clear is what a warmer Earth looks like.
Click to expand...
I think it will still be round. Not sure, though.
 
"Climate changes is getting so bad..."

"This is only going to get more common thanks to climate change."

That's not journalism, it's activism.
 
4cab8befeb837ad2cc469e142f9006a2.jpg


They're everywhere! ;)
 
non-GMO, non-gluten balls. What else would you like?
 
Didn't scientists in Australia just get caught cooking the numbers to make it look warmer?
 
PaulS said:
Didn't scientists in Australia just get caught cooking the numbers to make it look warmer?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of the details on that.

Taking the temperature of the Earth is hard.

I think in Australia, they had some readings that were unusually cold, like record cold. This is where I'm not sure: They either threw them out, or capped them at a different temperature, or averaged those locations with others nearby.
 
Matthew said:
I'm not sure of the details on that.

Taking the temperature of the Earth is hard.

I think in Australia, they had some readings that were unusually cold, like record cold. This is where I'm not sure: They either threw them out, or capped them at a different temperature, or averaged those locations with others nearby.
Click to expand...

I guess that's what scientists do now, if the numbers don't match your expectation, change them.
 
PaulS said:
I guess that's what scientists do now, if the numbers don't match your expectation, change them.
Click to expand...
I don't know their motives, maybe they weren't sure the sensors were reading correctly? Dunno - this is the kind of thing that makes it hard. I would like to see them report raw and corrected data side-by-side. Maybe what they did had no effect on the results past a number of decimal points? I don't know.
 
Sheesh. The world is just full of good people trying to do the right thing!
 
There are but two reasons to omit data. Either you have good reason to think it was forged, or that it was collected improperly (for example, a miscallibrated instrument). Other than that data is always correct. It is neither conservative nor liberal, and always tells the truth. Data is always right.
 
Cooter said:
All the numbers are "cooked". Most of this nonsense is based on projections and modeling where various corrections have been made to the readings. These "corrections" always trend towards warmer temperatures.

This might be what you're talking about:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Click to expand...
It might be worth pointing out that that didn't "just" happen - that article is from 2009 and is about "Climategate" - the firestorm around the leaked emails concerning Mann's "hockey stick" graph. And Mann was cleared of research misconduct, though a lot of scientists still frown at the way the graph was done. Definitely not climate science's most shining hour.

I'm not aware of any recent (as in, this year) scandal from Australia involving "cooked" numbers pertaining to global warming. There is a fair amount of controversy over the adjustment of raw temperature readings to account for differences in technology and systematic errors, without people actually cooking numbers. The former is actually a necessary practice, but hasn't been done in the most transparent way and has been accused of introducing a bias that exaggerates the recent warming.
 
I tried looking up some of the details on the recent Australia deal, but it's hard to find anything from what would appear to be a neutral source. What does look like what happened - weather stations in some areas measured temps that were lower than -10C (14F). For whatever reason, the "system" had some sort of filter that was set to a low limit of -10C. Temps that were measured below -10C were recorded as -10C until somehow recording stopped, probably because the temps were out of limits for some amount of time. Not necessarily "cooking" the numbers, but the Australia wx service says they have corrected or removed the s/w filters that caused that problem. My guess: They had some filters in place that someone simply put in as "if temp < -10 then temp = -10" to try to account for a failed temperature sensor. There was probably a better way to do it, or they could have chosen a much different number.

Temperature "adjustments" seem to be common. Temps for every point on earth can't be taken, so fairly large regions need to be averaged and interpolated. But what happens when a recording station that was out in a rural field is now surrounded by a mall? That affects the temps at that station, so how do you adjust out the local terrain influence? If you move that station somewhere else, you've just affected the data that station is recording - how does that affect the average of the area and how to weight the results? It's not trivial, and there is a lot of money at stake which makes it political, too.
 
Matthew said:
I tried looking up some of the details on the recent Australia deal, but it's hard to find anything from what would appear to be a neutral source. What does look like what happened - weather stations in some areas measured temps that were lower than -10C (14F). For whatever reason, the "system" had some sort of filter that was set to a low limit of -10C. Temps that were measured below -10C were recorded as -10C until somehow recording stopped, probably because the temps were out of limits for some amount of time. Not necessarily "cooking" the numbers, but the Australia wx service says they have corrected or removed the s/w filters that caused that problem. My guess: They had some filters in place that someone simply put in as "if temp < -10 then temp = -10" to try to account for a failed temperature sensor. There was probably a better way to do it, or they could have chosen a much different number.

Temperature "adjustments" seem to be common. Temps for every point on earth can't be taken, so fairly large regions need to be averaged and interpolated. But what happens when a recording station that was out in a rural field is now surrounded by a mall? That affects the temps at that station, so how do you adjust out the local terrain influence? If you move that station somewhere else, you've just affected the data that station is recording - how does that affect the average of the area and how to weight the results? It's not trivial, and there is a lot of money at stake which makes it political, too.
Click to expand...
Anthony Watts had a website for surveying and tracking the official surface weather stations for the US measurements. It seems there were many that were installed in such a way to err on the high side. I doubt recall seeing any installations that would err to the low side, and I'm not sure how you would do that. I'm genuinely curious whether the official numbers ever get adjusted downward.
 
Lindberg said:
Anthony Watts had a website for surveying and tracking the official surface weather stations for the US measurements. It seems there were many that were installed in such a way to err on the high side. I doubt recall seeing any installations that would err to the low side, and I'm not sure how you would do that. I'm genuinely curious whether the official numbers ever get adjusted downward.
Click to expand...
I think some of the reports I've seen (again, from sources that seem to have an agenda), are that older data from the early part of the century was adjusted downward and that makes the modern data look like temps have risen.

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

Because this has all taken on almost a religious fervor, it's hard to get a straight answer - even if there are legitimate reasons for making adjustments, they will always be looked on as being "anti-something".

There are different ways that old vs new won't quite match up:

Are newer temperature sensors more sensitive than the old ones used back in the late 1800s? If temps were recorded at local noon every day, were the older thermometers slower to respond and actually reporting the temps from an hour or so earlier in the day (thermal mass of the thermometer itself might make it slow to respond to air temperature changes), vs a modern probe of some type than can measure nearly instant temp changes?

I think ocean temps used to be taken by dropping a bucket overboard, lowering it some number of feet, pulling it up on deck and then dropping in a mercury filled glass thermometer. How different were the results then vs lowering an instrument pack the same depth and measuring directly? Dunno - differences in the way you measure things can make a difference in the results.
 
Matthew said:
Dunno - differences in the way you measure things can make a difference in the results.
Click to expand...
Yep. Sounds like a good reason for a healthy dose of skepticism. When politicians keep saying the time for debate is over, everyone should start paying more attention.
 
PaulS said:
I guess that's what scientists do now, if the numbers don't match your expectation, change them.
Click to expand...
I am a scientist, and I know many more, and work with them every day. Almost none of us change numbers to match our theories. The very few that are found falsifying data are "outed" within the community, and their papers retracted.

I'm sorry that since the data seems to disagree with your beliefs, you need to lump scientists with accountants that cook the books.

I don't mind that you disagree with global warming theory, that is your right. But please don't say that we get numbers we like by manipulating the numbers to match our expectations.
 
Where this enters the world of truly funny is the State of Florida. Anyone who has anything to do with infrastructure has their hands full dealing with the rising sea levels resulting from climate change. At the same time the state government is in utter denial that climate change is even happening.

What I find chilling is I talked to some of these guys many years ago. Most of the stuff they talked about is coming true now.

And you should listen to Captn' Jack. He is utterly correct. Right now one of my Chairmen is under investigation for cooking data. He's as big a shot as they come, and he's in big time hot water. No one is immune. If you're caught cooking data you're done.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I'll be 92 in 2050 if I live that long. If I do I doubt I'll still be flying so I don't really care.
Click to expand...

Pilawt said:
You kids get off my lawn!!
Click to expand...

Yup. I'll be 98 in 2050 and I doubt I'll be flying.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing. Heck, it has been changing since the Earth was formed. Nothing new here. The question was asked about what a warmer world would look like? Just go back a thousand years. Why is Greenland called that? Because it was a lot warmer and they had vineyards there. Colder? Just look at the little ice age that we are still warming from. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over this, unless politicians start making my life miserable over it. Politicians! We really don't need them. What is the definition of politics? Poly - from the Greek word for many. Ticks - a blood sucking parasite.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I am a scientist, and I know many more, and work with them every day. Almost none of us change numbers to match our theories. The very few that are found falsifying data are "outed" within the community, and their papers retracted.

I'm sorry that since the data seems to disagree with your beliefs, you need to lump scientists with accountants that cook the books.

I don't mind that you disagree with global warming theory, that is your right. But please don't say that we get numbers we like by manipulating the numbers to match our expectations.
Click to expand...

I'm just calling it like I see it, scientists seem to be quick to justify and excuse these "mistakes", but honestly they are inexcusable. We are not talking rocket science here, we are talking about temperature measurement, relatively simple stuff. It certainly looks like tampering, it is at least gross incompetence.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
But please don't say that we get numbers we like by manipulating the numbers to match our expectations.
Click to expand...

Maybe YOU don't. But it is naive or either self-serving to say this doesn't go on.
 
steingar said:
And you should listen to Captn' Jack. He is utterly correct. Right now one of my Chairmen is under investigation for cooking data. He's as big a shot as they come, and he's in big time hot water. No one is immune. If you're caught cooking data you're done.
Click to expand...

How far back did it go, what was his motivation?

In other words, people don't always get caught the first time. And I assume he did it for money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top