It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to lie statistically?

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I'm talking about variance studies between the types of equipment.

Variances between calibrated and un-calibrated equipment.

Who does the calibration, how often is the equipment calibrated?

Variance studies in locations.

Variance studies in time-of-day that the data is collected.

Variance studies in weather patterns correlated to data retrieval.


Show me the data!

You're asking for a whole hell of a lot of time devoted to tracking down this research, and honestly I fail to see what your overall point is. It is not my field of expertise, to be frank.

Inconsistencies with equipment are not going to change the laws of physics, which say three fundamental things:
1) The Earth's atmosphere should be ~255°K (and the atmosphere actually is if taken in whole as I showed over the last several pages).
2) The Earth's surface is ~288°K (this means significant chunks of the atmosphere are much cooler than the 255°K mean).
3) Greenhouse gases cause this redistribution of heat by altering the movement of radiation (indeed, ozone also heats the atmosphere much higher up by intercepting harmful radiation).

I've shown several times that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. An increase in greenhouse gases will increase the effect. This has been backed up with data all over the place.

Are you seeking to cast doubt on the equipment in order to discredit physics?




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: underwerks
Well, my mind is changed

Thank God for those benevolent fossil fuel companies for showing us their products aren't having an effect on our climate.



You can stop calling them fossil fuels, btw. Do you still think oil comes from dead dinosaurs?


From Science Daily


Fossil fuel is a general term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.


www.sciencedaily.com...

So yes - part dead dino (or rino perhaps).



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

How many climate scientists make their earnings in the private sector? How many make their money via government agencies, grants, and programs? We're rejecting the scientific opinions of anyone loosely paid by oil companies (who, by the way LOVE the AGE alarmists because it means they can charge more for their fuels) but we're not questioning the folks who's positions are directly leading to much higher levels of control by these scientist's employers?

God help us all.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.



It doesn't work that way.

Co2 is like a blanket. Solar energy hits earth, warms air, warm air rises, is kept in by Co2. Doesn't block the energy coming in.


So what you're saying is that solar radiation enters the atmosphere at shorter wavelengths, mostly passes through the GHGs, then is absorbed on the earth surface.

This radiation is then emitted at longer wavelengths. In the IR region of the spectrum and is backscattered as it tries to escape the earth. This leads to warming of the lower regions of the atmosphere.

Sounds like physics hokum to me haha (;


edit on 6-8-2017 by melatonin because: corrected because greven is better at physics than me D:



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Still waiting on a source. Extraordinary claims like that require a source, especially when they contradict what is widely accepted.

It seems to me you think radiative forcing of CO2 is not true.

As I wrote before, if you were a Civil Engineer in South Florida I do believe your opinion would be different. Visit that region this fall durring a full or new moon, and you will see coastal flooding, the high tide gushing out of storm drains, streets flooded. It is not erossinkinhe land is not sinking....what could be causing this phenomenon?



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: burdman30ott6

But your scientists are paid for by the Heartland Institute so that's OK? The same "Institute" that has ties to Koch Brothers oil industry money?

Heartland Institute



We should listen to these people as much as we did the tobacco funded scientists.

They all have our best interests at heart D:


The tobacco issue isn't fully resolved. The science doesn't fit with the established positions on the disease, either. Cigarette consumption started to decline in the US AFTER the lung cancer cases began to decline. In all likelihood, the leading cause of lung cancer in the US was from asbestos and radon in building materials, as the cases of lung cancer began to drop precipitously within a couple of years of these two substances being banned federally in most home and office construction. Tobacco became a scape goat because it was a much more compartmentalized and easy to target source for people's illnesses than the massive number of industries and federal agencies which had blessed using asbestos and materials which breakdown and produce radon gas.


I think I'll trust university, government and military (DoD) scientists over corporate-funded "scientists" that are paid to only produce positive results for their corporate benefactors.

I don't like the idea of worshiping and trusting large industries. Corporations aren't beholden to anyone but their shareholders, not the society and planet they exist in.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
It's a victim-mentality.


Which side is using fear mongering again?



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
what could be causing this phenomenon?


I said it already, people building in areas where they shouldn't be building. There's a reason why coastal Indians were nomadic, and that was well before the industrial age.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
And once again, I'm waiting for this to devolve into the taxation issue, because that's really what this is about.

Climate-change deniers don't give two blanks about the world or environment. What they care about is money. Period.

If that means worshiping and hailing corporations for a few more bucks in their pockets...that's what they'll do.

Governments = bad

Corporations = good

That's what it boils to with these anti-science climate change deniers.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.



It doesn't work that way.

Co2 is like a blanket. Solar energy hits earth, warms air, warm air rises, is kept in by Co2. Doesn't block the energy coming in.


So what you're saying is that solar radiation enters the atmosphere at long wavelengths, mostly passes through the GHGs, then is absorbed on the earth surface.

This radiation is then emitted at short wavelengths. In the IR region of the spectrum and is backscattered as it tries to escape the earth. This leads to warming of the lower regions of the atmosphere.

Sounds like physics hokum to me haha (;



*laughs*

Yes, exactly that. Bravo.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.


Please provide a source!



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.

It's not exactly 'reflect' but an increase in greenhouse gases does cause a reduction of solar radiation at impacted wavelengths - more than half of solar radiation is infrared.

The problem is the more energetic radiation which penetrates the atmosphere more easily. This energetic radiation is at shorter wavelengths. The Earth's surface absorbs non-reflected radiation and then must re-emit this energy. However, the Earth emits radiation at much longer wavelengths - and impacted infrared is in turn absorbed by greenhouse gases then approximately half of that is re-emitted downwards.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Climate scientists get their data from equipment.

Climate scientists get their data from volunteers all over who collect the data from equipment.


I question the data.

I don't question the physics.

I think that people are postulating on flawed data.

x + y = 3

Scientists say that x =1 and y = 2.

If what they say is correct, then the answer will always be 3. I don't question the math.


I question whether x is really 1 and y is really 2.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: Painterz
99 percent of climate scientists assure us man made climate change is real.

Almost all of the world's governments assure us it is real and are making plans.

The US dod assures us climate change is a strategic threat.


Some American right wing bloggers, laypeople, and oil company backed outlets claim its all a scam.


So it's a tiny group of people with no climate science qualifications, versus.... The rest of the fricking world....


It's a victim-mentality.

The world vs. them (the climate denier conspiracy folks). They want attention and sympathy because everyone is against them.


I think it is fear - abject terror in fact - it's easier to pretend 'it' isn't there then to face the facts and do something.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kettu
It's a victim-mentality.


Which side is using fear mongering again?


Not fear mongering if true.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


And it's an excellent radiation blocker to boot!


Have you a source for this statement?



CO2 reflects infrared radiation... you can't argue against that from either side of this issue. If you believe the scam, then you must believe that CO2 is reflecting radiation coming upward off the planet and directs in back down... If that's the case, then it is also reflecting the radiation coming in directly from the solar source, keeping much of it from ever reaching the planet's surface to begin with.

It's not exactly 'reflect' but an increase in greenhouse gases does cause a reduction of solar radiation at impacted wavelengths - more than half of solar radiation is infrared.

The problem is the more energetic radiation which penetrates the atmosphere more easily. This energetic radiation is at shorter wavelengths. The Earth's surface absorbs non-reflected radiation and then must re-emit this energy. However, the Earth emits radiation at much longer wavelengths - and impacted infrared is in turn absorbed by greenhouse gases then approximately half of that is re-emitted downwards.


Now I did find an article that said that (not scientist here - but know how to research):

scied.ucar.edu...



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: thesaneone

I am on a cell phone, I've linked the information countless times on here only for it to get drowned in an echo chamber of ignorance, chicken little, and Al Gore jabs.

NOAA is a good start for C02 data, but according to the echo chamber NOAA, NASA, and pretty much all of the scientific world are not to be trusted; while right wing opinion pieces that are funded by fossil fuel interest got it right.



Now it's the cell phone excuse, why didn't you say that in the first place?


edit on 6-8-2017 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I appreciate the science you're bringing into all this - I really do - but I think the disconnect here is more fundamental. It astonishes me that there are literally millions of people out there that choose to ignore experts - *experts* - in their field - a vast majority of them - in favor of these hacks on the web that have obvious ideological motives and very shoddy "science" to back up anything they are saying. I am far from an expert on any of this, but I can understand the science at a high level, and understand that there are some very smart people out there trying to warn us about AGW, its deleterious effects, and the severity to come. What I can't understand is a blind choice to ignore it because of what I can only assume are ideologically rooted feelings.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
And once again, I'm waiting for this to devolve into the taxation issue, because that's really what this is about.

Climate-change deniers don't give two blanks about the world or environment. What they care about is money. Period.

If that means worshiping and hailing corporations for a few more bucks in their pockets...that's what they'll do.

Governments = bad

Corporations = good

That's what it boils to with these anti-science climate change deniers.


Exactly this.

I made a thread 8 years ago on this issue: The Misinformation Machine. What I didn't notice was that the blog post in the OP is sourced from a main actor in the climate denial machine - Marc Morano.

Morano was the dude behind the John Kerry 'swiftboating' political shenanigans. Anyone intersted will notice the same old climate deniers popping up time and again.

They are using tried and tested techniques honed by the tobacco industry. This time they are not playing with individual lives, but the welfare of society as a whole.

Pretty sick, IMHO.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

:rolls eyes:

It truly is a task to add links on my busted old cell phone, but my wife is sleeping and I have nothing better to do.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...


edit on 6-8-2017 by jrod because: Happy now?



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join