The GIG is up on the IPCC and the tweaked NASA data

a reply to: Kali74

Or is it just plain old logic you have a problem with?

Ditto!

second

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
Just to add (sorry, I know it is a little off topic), as convinced as I am that the "warming" thing is a scam, deforestation is however a really serious problem. Effort shall be redirected there!

I could not agree more with this observation.. Hear hear.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kennyb72

Or is it just plain old logic you have a problem with?

I think it is logic that these alarmist who are crowing about CO2 have used that has made it easier for me to explain the problems to those who would like to be more open minded as to the trace nature of that gas. We will continue to wonder what those types think about that Car in my OP?

a reply to: Kali74

Civilization is dependent on fossil fuels, there is no comparison to anything from the past. The food supplies are not grown locally for the masses, they travel thousands of miles. You are comparing a transition of slaves and workers growing food locally to food grown thousands of miles away and being transported. You are also under the assumption, that everyone will just give up fossil fuels, and assume that not a single person will decide to hold on to the war machines that run on them. I have a feeling, there will be one person who decides not to go along with stupidity, and dominate the world because they are the only ones with war machines run on fossil fuels. Possibly North Korea, is that your plan, to pave way for North Korea to rule the world?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Kali74

Civilization is dependent on fossil fuels, there is no comparison to anything from the past. The food supplies are not grown locally for the masses, they travel thousands of miles. You are comparing a transition of slaves and workers growing food locally to food grown thousands of miles away and being transported. You are also under the assumption, that everyone will just give up fossil fuels, and assume that not a single person will decide to hold on to the war machines that run on them. I have a feeling, there will be one person who decides not to go along with stupidity, and dominate the world because they are the only ones with war machines run on fossil fuels. Possibly North Korea, is that your plan, to pave way for North Korea to rule the world?

A very good point. I see this scenario in a similar discussion about gun control. Probably not the least bit coincidental that the same left leaning group in the gun control crowd who think we can stick weapons back into "Pandora's box" seem to be on the CO2 will destroy the planet so we must tax us to hell or we all die team.

I think for my next thread, since the alarmist are giving me crickets on it from my OP, I will rehash this car they drove across the USA. Apparently the students who work on this car for their grade in class, need to demonstrate once and for all that anyone CAN USE an alternative power source derived from the combustion of H2 which is split from H20 using solar panels as a power source. Obviously, they are tying to answer the question for those who cant get past the fallacy that they still think it takes " too much energy to get H2 out of the water than you get from it". Since, the Sun provides the initial kick that issue is solved for them.

a reply to: Justoneman

I will rehash this car they drove across the USA. Apparently the students who work on this car for their grade in class, need to demonstrate once and for all that anyone CAN USE an alternative power source derived from the combustion of H2 which is split from H20 using solar panels as a power source.

That sounds brilliant, I hope they can get to commercialise that.

a reply to: Justoneman

Obviously, they are tying to answer the question for those who cant get past the fallacy that they still think it takes " too much energy to get H2 out of the water than you get from it".

The fallacy is in claiming that using the car's alternator to produce H2 does any good. It's pretty obvious that using solar panels is not the same thing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Obviously, they are tying to answer the question for those who cant get past the fallacy that they still think it takes " too much energy to get H2 out of the water than you get from it".

The fallacy is in claiming that using the car's alternator to produce H2 does any good. It's pretty obvious that using solar panels is not the same thing.

Bless you. You finally say something but of course your going to be Mr. Negative. Did is say alternator? They use the device the space station uses to create Oxygen to breath because, as I KNOW you know, it also produces H2. Then they capture the H2 and run it through a combustion engine modified from an existing Nissan of North America product they had available down the road from the University. You would do every member of ATS a favor by studying this car closely and NOT being Mr. Negative.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yes. I know. It's called a fuel cell. They are known to work quite well and there are not a lot of naysayers.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Yes. I know. It's called a fuel cell. They are known to work quite well and there are not a lot of naysayers.

Ok so why the negativism on this common ground? We can use this to solve the problem but i am going to suspect you aren't on board. Please, study that car closely. I am certain we can end the madness concerning the fake paradigm on CO2 and thus the tool that feeds the need for politics(many tics) to allow the rape of the land and my wallet.
STAR for you !

Phage, I had a long discussion with my meteorologist today about the smoothing of these temperatures. NASA supposedly does this to "match" the data from the other sites in the vicinity, which this altering to match business is disturbing despite his opinion to the contrary, like yours. He is the ONLY one out of literally hundreds in my building of Engineers and Physicist still clinging to your argument. We have been hashing it out among ourselves B4 he came along and he is the new guy fresh from the indoctrination of college. Now with that going he is naturally shy and confused as to how SO MANY can feel this way who have some serious training in the field. I will sit down by him and ask, "why do you still feel this way"? And we go on for some time till we have to get back to work. Since he still believes that we are going to burn up the planet still despite the apparent old school scientific approach to this by our peers he is frustrated by the volume of dissenters among us because we aren't just Joe Blow we are the real deal.

Today when i broached the concept that we have upgraded our probes we use in the field in our office to superior equipment that might read more accurate, he was then in doubt But he fired back that the data from Australia that was also smoothed (or whatever you would like to call it) had showed it changed and cooled the data from the original. So the smoothed data at one region was in my favor what did I think? (well i think that the odds should give me some like that eventually, I would hope)

Are you aware of this cooling of the data after they analysed it for Australia?

I am sure it was in the news SOMEWHERE because he was saying I sent him the links.

a reply to: Justoneman


Here is a demonstration of the differences between the raw data and the adjusted data.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Are you aware of this cooling of the data after they analysed it for Australia?

No. Who are "they?"

Ah. Maybe this is what you're talking about:

They said Australian Research Council Centre data on extreme temperature trends showed the warming trend across Australia looked bigger without homogenisation. Adjusted data showed a cooling trend over parts of northwest Australia, which wasn’t seen in the raw data.

But guess what? Here's what it looked like for Australia on the whole:
www.bom.gov.au...


www.theaustralian.com.au... 1227044313807?nk=9f12f9c9a3d7843b56429d961672491b

originally posted by: Justoneman
I will sit down by him and ask, "why do you still feel this way"? And we go on for some time till we have to get back to work. Since he still believes that we are going to burn up the planet still despite the apparent old school scientific approach to this by our peers he is frustrated by the volume of dissenters among us because we aren't just Joe Blow we are the real deal.

but do you believe that we as humans are having no impact on the environment and are free to carry on as we are?? it sounds like you are so im curious..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman


Here is a demonstration of the differences between the raw data and the adjusted data.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Are you aware of this cooling of the data after they analysed it for Australia?

No. Who are "they?"

Ah. Maybe this is what you're talking about:

They said Australian Research Council Centre data on extreme temperature trends showed the warming trend across Australia looked bigger without homogenisation. Adjusted data showed a cooling trend over parts of northwest Australia, which wasn’t seen in the raw data.

But guess what? Here's what it looked like for Australia on the whole:
www.bom.gov.au...


www.theaustralian.com.au... 1227044313807?nk=9f12f9c9a3d7843b56429d961672491b

sorry "they" would be NASA.

page not loading for me on the 1st one.

thee second one say error 404 'page not found, but i do appreciate the attempt to meet me here and come to some understanding.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Justoneman
I will sit down by him and ask, "why do you still feel this way"? And we go on for some time till we have to get back to work. Since he still believes that we are going to burn up the planet still despite the apparent old school scientific approach to this by our peers he is frustrated by the volume of dissenters among us because we aren't just Joe Blow we are the real deal.

but do you believe that we as humans are having no impact on the environment and are free to carry on as we are?? it sounds like you are so im curious..

No, you should reread the thread.More like we are focusing in on the wrong thing and politicians are cleaning our wallet over it.

a reply to: Justoneman
Actually, "they" was the BOM of Australia. The adjusted temperatures showed cooling in part of Australia but the warming far outstripped it.

Do you really think the world is not warming?

a reply to: Phage

I think it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It does look like, to me, that the data shows and Ice ball is more likely than naked people running all over the Arctic due to the earth being so warm for at least the end of this ice age (we are , I believe in an inter-glacial period of an Ice age)

a reply to: Justoneman

you said your work buddy is afraid that we are going to burn up the planet.. and you want to correct him on this..

which leads me to believe that you believe at the rate we are going we are having no impact on the environment..

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: Justoneman

you said your work buddy is afraid that we are going to burn up the planet.. and you want to correct him on this..

which leads me to believe that you believe at the rate we are going we are having no impact on the environment..

Well, honestly i am putting the extreme 'burn" in there but heat up ,he feels too much.

Insignificant if we can agree with the Geologist who have for maybe over a century, stated that the Earth has been way colder than today as in "ice ball Earth" and the time of Dinosaurs when no ice was here. We are in the middle of that and we are going to go one way or the other by natural means. I feel our impact is much more in harming wildlife with deforestation and poisoning of our water that cause cancer and mutated animals. Darwin might argue, they must adapt or die. I would argue I love the wildlife and plant life. Surely, if we continue raping the land we might end up a dead, cold world (figuratively).