Donald Trump Speaks Out on Climate Change Hoax

[Tellenbach]

What I was trying to be clear about was that the limits were not just the optics themselves, but also things like satellite position, atmospheric distortions, and ocean waves.

This is the first post where you mentioned limits. In the previous post, you implied there were no limits with electromagnetic radiation.

The principle behind Very Large Arrays of Telescopes is essentially the averaging effect, I was talking about. The whole array gets much better resolutions than a single telescope.

Do you know if an array of satellites was used? If not, then this is a nonsequitur. So how many satellites were used to arrive at millimeter increases in sea level? I'm still waiting for a proof of concept paper that shows millimeter level resolution.

Everything you wanted to know about the spy satellites that might’ve found MH370

If you've used Google Earth, you know that free satellite imagery is already pretty good. Google's systems are capable of incredible resolution — down to less than a meter. Some onlookers report that the real figure is actually about half a meter, and is limited only by government restrictions that prevent the image quality from getting too good.

That's consistent with what Mark Lowenthal, a former intelligence official, thinks, too. According to Lowenthal, president of the Arlington-based Intelligence and Security Academy, commercial satellite imagery can make out objects that are as small as 20 inches across. But Lowenthal notes that according to various press reports military satellites are about twice again as good, capable of resolution down to 10 inches. The Federation of American Scientists has a great side-by-side comparison of the same image sampled at various resolutions.

I suppose it's possible that climate scientists have more advanced hardware than the military, but I doubt it.

Once again. The corrections are similar to taring for the container when you weigh a sample.

And this is the first post where you've acknowledged that they've adjusted the temperatures; we are making some progress. Taring a container does not change the value of the masses recorded. That's not what's being done with temperatures; they are adding additional data points to drive up the average temperature. Also, the adjusted temperatures are now at odds with satellite temperature data which show no warming. Maybe they'll have to adjust the satellite data next, lol.

‘Pause-Buster?’ Scientists Challenge New Study Attempting to Erase The ‘Pause': Warmists Rewrite Temperature History To Eliminate the ‘Pause’

The new study fails to examine satellite data which now shows an 18 year 6 month standstill in global temperatures. Sen. Ted Cruz and others can confidently and accurately continue to state that satellite data shows there is indeed a ‘pause’ of over 18 years. See: June 3 2015: Global warming standstill/pause increases to ‘a new record length': 18 years 6 months’

The statistics involved is high school stuff.

They don't teach short centering in high school and I doubt they teach that in college; most scientists use the t-test to compare differences.

Besides, that still doesn't show, in this thread, the "facts" behind the accusations that McIntyre is making.

McIntyre would respond thusly:

NCDC has been in the business of adjusting the surface temperature record for quite some time. The modus operandi so far has been to get a new paper published describing what NCDC considers to be a new and improved dataset, and since NCDC’s articles are often peer reviewed by other government employed scientists at NOAA, they often don’t get a critical peer review. Certainly, based on the reports I’ve received over the years, few if any skeptic scientists have ever been asked to review an NCDC paper on a new global temperature dataset and the techniques involved.

Fortunately, it is very easy to divine such adjustments by comparing the raw data and the final adjusted data, as shown in the graph below. Note how the past gets cooler, centered around 1915 and the present gets warmer.

"Figure 4 Maturity diagram showing net change since 17 May 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature record prepared by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA. The net result of the adjustments made are becoming substantial, and adjustments since May 2006 occasionally exceeds 0.1oC. Before 1945 global temperatures are generally changed toward lower values, and toward higher values after 1945, resulting in a more pronounced 20th century warming (about 0.15oC) compared to the NCDC temperature record published in May 2008. Arrows indicate two months where the adjustments over time are illustrated in the figure below. Last diagram update: 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum"

NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

"Figure 5 Diagram showing the adjustment made since May 2008 by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in the anomaly values for the two months January 1915 and January 2000. Last diagram update 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum"

 

[Bknight]

What might be worrying to some is that we have other string pullers acting behind the scenes that nobody even expects. That seems scary to me.

Electoral College, anyone? To me, they basically make America an Oligarchy to a certain extent.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

There, FIFY.
(Especially when you consider how *loud* the guy is).

An off-the-wall question, though; if (as I thought I read recently) he really does take *Oprah* as his running mate,
will he be more of a spoiler for the Dems or The Pubs?

I find it unlikely Oprah would be interested in being anyone's running mate, let alone Trump's. It's fairly obvious their ideologies are incompatible.

Electoral College, anyone? To me, they basically make America an Oligarchy to a certain extent.

Is there a thread for this? (I'm not being a topic nazi, I'd just like to contribute to the discussion)

 

[Xann]

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘De

Full article: Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

From the article:

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'
'I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong.'
'Global warming really has become a new religion.'
"I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November...I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.'
'We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.'

 

[Xann]

 

[Bknight]

Is there a thread for this? (I'm not being a topic nazi, I'd just like to contribute to the discussion)

I don't think there's a recent one, no. Probably is one from some point, but it's likely long-dead.

 

[ygolo]

This is the first post where you mentioned limits. In the previous post, you implied there were no limits with electromagnetic radiation.



Do you know if an array of satellites was used? If not, then this is a nonsequitur. So how many satellites were used to arrive at millimeter increases in sea level? I'm still waiting for a proof of concept paper that shows millimeter level resolution.

Everything you wanted to know about the spy satellites that might’ve found MH370



I suppose it's possible that climate scientists have more advanced hardware than the military, but I doubt it.

Thanks again for explaining your reasoning. I think I spotted the disconnect. The things you are talking about are to distinguish features that are in majority perpendicular to the direction that we use radiation. This is where you need lenses and such. The figure of merit would be angular resolution.

When it comes to measuring height, we are generally measuring things parallel to the radiation we use. This does not require that we have lenses, and can do things like measure differences in phases of signals coming in. This is vastly different. As far as the fundamental limits of optics alone in these types of measurement, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_measurement#Interferometer_measurements

And this is the first post where you've acknowledged that they've adjusted the temperatures; we are making some progress. Taring a container does not change the value of the masses recorded. That's not what's being done with temperatures; they are adding additional data points to drive up the average temperature. Also, the adjusted temperatures are now at odds with satellite temperature data which show no warming. Maybe they'll have to adjust the satellite data next, lol.

‘Pause-Buster?’ Scientists Challenge New Study Attempting to Erase The ‘Pause': Warmists Rewrite Temperature History To Eliminate the ‘Pause’





They don't teach short centering in high school and I doubt they teach that in college; most scientists use the t-test to compare differences.



McIntyre would respond thusly:

"Figure 4 Maturity diagram showing net change since 17 May 2008 in the global monthly surface air temperature record prepared by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), USA. The net result of the adjustments made are becoming substantial, and adjustments since May 2006 occasionally exceeds 0.1oC. Before 1945 global temperatures are generally changed toward lower values, and toward higher values after 1945, resulting in a more pronounced 20th century warming (about 0.15oC) compared to the NCDC temperature record published in May 2008. Arrows indicate two months where the adjustments over time are illustrated in the figure below. Last diagram update: 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum"

NOAA/NCDC’s new ‘pause-buster’ paper: a laughable attempt to create warming by adjusting past data

"Figure 5 Diagram showing the adjustment made since May 2008 by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in the anomaly values for the two months January 1915 and January 2000. Last diagram update 19 May 2015. Source: Professor Ole Humlum"

Well, I think we've hit the very basic trust in our sources of data. I mentioned that corrections are needed to be made for a few posts. The scientists explained the very corrections that you are trying to discredit in their papers.

We are at this point going in circles. Since, I say "these are corrections", and you say "these are manipulations". I don't see how we can make progress, unless there are some litmus tests for arguments that will pass.

For me, for something to be a "manuipulation" rather than a "correction", the arguments in the original papers making the corrections for the data would need to be critiqued on the actual merits, not just "look they changed it". There are reasons, from buoy data vs. ship data, land vs. ocean temperatures, readjusting the center on which anomalies are calculated, etc. When I read the original science papers, the corrections seem very much like subtracting out the weight of a container in measurements--Adjusting the data based on known physical issues that require the data to be adjusted.

I am not sure what the litmus test is for you for something to be a legitimate correction vs. a manipulation. If you have no such test, I may suspect that you change your reasoning to fit the conclusion you want to draw. You have been quite reasonable for among those I've had similar debates with, so I still hold hope that you have such a litmus test.

 

[Tellenbach]

When it comes to measuring height, we are generally measuring things parallel to the radiation we use. This does not require that we have lenses, and can do things like measure differences in phases of signals coming in. This is vastly different. As far as the fundamental limits of optics alone in these types of measurement, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length...r_measurements

This is from the wiki link you posted:

Such techniques vary in accuracy according to the distances over which they are intended for use. For example, LORAN-C is accurate to about 6 km, GPS about 10 m, enhanced GPS, in which a correction signal is transmitted from terrestrial stations (that is, differential GPS (DGPS)) or via satellites (that is, Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)) can bring accuracy to a few meters or < 1 meter, or, in specific applications, tens of centimeters. Time-of-flight systems for robotics (for example, Laser Detection and Ranging LADAR and Light Detection and Ranging LIDAR) aim at lengths of 10 - 100 m and have an accuracy of about 5 – 10 mm

We're talking meter level or tens of centimeters level resolution for satellites.

Again, we can avoid all this if you'd just provide a proof of concept paper showing that satellites can accurately measure height differences in the millimeter range on a moving surface.

The scientists explained the very corrections that you are trying to discredit in their papers.

We are at this point going in circles. Since, I say "these are corrections", and you say "these are manipulations". I don't see how we can make progress, unless there are some litmus tests for arguments that will pass.

That is why I referred you to Lindzen's critique of this practice in an earlier post. Do I really have to look it up for you?

Global Warming: The Theory that Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything

From Judith Curry, climate scientist:

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements–ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

Which is correct? The adjusted temperatures or the satellite data?

From Lindzen:

As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the engine itself, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.

That’s putting it mildly.

They also point to another big change in the adjusted data: projecting far northern land temperatures out to cover gaps in measurement over the Arctic Ocean. Yet the land temperatures are likely to be significantly warmer than the ocean temperatures.

I realize the warmists are desperate, but they might not have thought through the overall effect of this new “adjustment” push. We’ve been told to take very, very seriously the objective data showing global warming is real and is happening—and then they announce that the data has been totally changed post hoc. This is meant to shore up the theory, but it actually calls the data into question.
We’ve been told to take very, very seriously the data showing global warming is real—and then they announce that the data has been totally changed.

So if one set of temperature data requires adjustment, what about other sets of temperature data? I do agree that we aren't going anywhere, but the burden of proof is on the side of the climate "scientists", not me. If the adjusted temperatures are correct, then they should explain why the satellite data is incorrect. And if the satellite data is incorrect, then we should disregard every piece of satellite gathered data, including sea level nonsense, no?

 

[ygolo]

This is from the wiki link you posted:



We're talking meter level or tens of centimeters level resolution for satellites.

Again, we can avoid all this if you'd just provide a proof of concept paper showing that satellites can accurately measure height differences in the millimeter range on a moving surface.

We may be going in circles here too? There was a concept slide-set I posted for you after the satellite data.

Here is a Jason 2 paper: IEEE Xplore Abstract - NOAA Ocean Surface Topography Mission Jason-2 project overview

It unfortunately requires either a subscription, payment, or having university access, that's why I posted the more basic telemetry article and the slide set that took the telemetry down to the precission needed.

The wiki I linked for you above had many sections, the ref was was supposed to take you to Interferometer measurements (not the transit time measurements) where we can get nanometer resolution.

Resolution using wavelengths is in the range of ΔL/L ≈ 10^−9 – 10^−11 depending upon the length measured, the wavelength and the type of interferometer used.

Think of it this way, we only need to know the frequency of our em wave and then resolve it's phase to get the finerscale aspect, flight time gives us the coarse grained measurement on top.

Also, I realized I didn't comment about the array of satellites. There were actually a group of satellites, but more importantly, a satellite moving and measuring the same thing from different locations is as good as an array. Hopefully, that is self evident.

That is why I referred you to Lindzen's critique of this practice in an earlier post. Do I really have to look it up for you?

Global Warming: The Theory that Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything

This is neither a primary source (iow, not Lindzen himself), nor an encyclopedic secondary sources. I cannot do the calculations and analysis myself from an article like the one you posted. I am not sure what the physical reasoning is for the skepticism, and I cannot run my own statistics on the data he is skeptical about. All I see are quotes whose context I have little idea about.

My searching of Lindzen online didn't see any article where he properly address the reason for why taking into account ocean temperatures is bad (this is the essence of the correction). Like I said before, seems like a good idea.

From Judith Curry, climate scientist:



Which is correct? The adjusted temperatures or the satellite data?

From Lindzen:



So if one set of temperature data requires adjustment, what about other sets of temperature data? I do agree that we aren't going anywhere, but the burden of proof is on the side of the climate "scientists", not me. If the adjusted temperatures are correct, then they should explain why the satellite data is incorrect. And if the satellite data is incorrect, then we should disregard every piece of satellite gathered data, including sea level nonsense, no?

Neither are completely correct. Every technique has its own issues and and not every satellite based method is the same. Understanding how each sort of measurement works, allows us to know what sort of corrections to make. That is why the physical reasoning behind each argument needs to be examined.

There is uncertainty in individual measurements to be sure, but the trends (once the physics of the instruments are accounted for) is still rather clear.

As for burden of proof. I think the minority opinion has the burden.

But burden of proof is a moot point as long as we are not talking about the physical mechanisms involved leading the proper use of statistics in the correction of measurements. IOW, if we are not talking about the contents of the proof, but only what has been done to data alone, without understanding the reasoning behind it, there is no point even discussing burden.

Here is the actual paper that Lindzen calls laughable. Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus and I find quite reasonable. What specifically is laughable about the corrections made? Let's talk about something specific, so we don't keep going in circles.

 

[Tellenbach]

Here is a Jason 2 paper: IEEE Xplore Abstract - NOAA Ocean Surface Topography Mission Jason-2 project overview

This isn't a proof of concept paper. There is no evidence that we can measure height differences of water using satellites in the millimeter range. If there were, you haven't provided it. Sure, we can measure solid surfaces more accurately; that's obvious.

The wiki I linked for you above had many sections, the ref was was supposed to take you to Interferometer measurements (not the transit time measurements) where we can get nanometer resolution.

Again, not of moving, liquid surfaces.

As for burden of proof. I think the minority opinion has the burden.

So if 99% of people believe in dragons, it's up to the 1% to prove them wrong? I think you are mistaken.

Here is the actual paper that Lindzen calls laughable. Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus and I find quite reasonable. What specifically is laughable about the corrections made?

Curry addressed it. They are diluting good, quality temperature data from buoys with poor quality data from measurements aboard ships; Lindzen points out that temperature measurements aboard ships are wrong because of heat conduction from the ships' engines.

 

[ygolo]

This isn't a proof of concept paper. There is no evidence that we can measure height differences of water using satellites in the millimeter range. If there were, you haven't provided it. Sure, we can measure solid surfaces more accurately; that's obvious.

This seems like special pleading because I have shown you a slide set, and the paper outline the actual functions of the actual systems used to collect the data in question.

I those weren't enough, how about this:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jason-2

Again, not of moving, liquid surfaces.

The liquid surface corrections were also outlined in the slide set I posted initially. The cosine correction are made for this.

So if 99% of people believe in dragons, it's up to the 1% to prove them wrong? I think you are mistaken.

This is counterfactual since the majority of people do not believe in dragons. But if it were in fact true that 99% of people believed in dragons, then yes it is up to the 1% to prove them wrong.

Curry addressed it. They are diluting good, quality temperature data from buoys with poor quality data from measurements aboard ships; Lindzen points out that temperature measurements aboard ships are wrong because of heat conduction from the ships' engines.

All I've see are similar allegations as the one you posted here. Accusations of "poor quality" data being used over "good quality" data without the argument of why one is poorer or better than data. Again, you posted no primary source for me to refer to. I gave you the actual paper that all these people are supposedly referring to.

Can you not summarize the arguments in your own words, do you not trust your own judgement enough to do so? My summary of the argument for what was done is that ocean data does need to be incorporated. What is your summary of why the data should be ignored? What makes it "poor quality" in your eyes in your own words?

 

[Tellenbach]

This seems like special pleading because I have shown you a slide set, and the paper outline the actual functions of the actual systems used to collect the data in question.

When I say proof of concept, this is what I want. You have an Olympic sized swimming pool with a small wave generator in it. Measure the height of the surface using your satellites. Next, introduce a couple thousand gallons of water into the pool. Get another set of height measurements with the satellite. Compare the experimental result of the satellite measurement vs the calculated value. What is the accuracy and precision of the technique. Nothing you've posted has answered these very simple questions. If you don't have any controls, how do you know the measurements are accurate?

Also, from the link you posted:

The mission objectives call for the provision of the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm, and to maintain the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission.

The resolution they claim is in the centimeter range. By "drift", I think they're referring to the standard error or the standard deviation.

But if it were in fact true that 99% of people believed in dragons, then yes it is up to the 1% to prove them wrong.

Then you are suggesting that it's up to the atheists to prove the believers wrong? I think many atheists would disagree with you.

Accusations of "poor quality" data being used over "good quality" data without the argument of why one is poorer or better than data.

The argument is very clear. Temperature measurements aboard ships should not be used because of heat contamination from the ship's engine via conduction. Is it not obvious that the surface temperature of water is very different from the temperature aboard a ship? Furthermore, if they allege that the current temperature stations are inadequate to provide full coverage, is that not also true of land temperatures? I actually agree with them on this point. There aren't enough weather stations to provide an accurate map of global temperatures, so this entire exercise is pointless.

I want a weather station every square kilometer; otherwise, their claims are garbage because of inadequate coverage.

 

[Tellenbach]

Besides, who cares about global warming when we're about to enter an ice age:

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

Does this we mean we can burn more fossil fuels now? This is hilarious; these people can't make up their minds as to how they should proceed in scaring the public. I actually believe the ice age claims more than the global warming hysteria because ice ages are the norm on earth.

 

[andresimon]

He is just aligning with specific pools of capital. Specific interests. Why else would someone who has very little scientific background argue against something that he should not really have a stake in (unless he was running for office) and that is a good bet even if their is a small possibility that global warming is accurate. Not really a question of is or isn't but more so a matter of risk. When science is "divided" and the risks are high the prudent thing to do is settle the argument later and take action now.

- - - Updated - - -

Full Article & Video Here: This Very Expensive Global Warming Bullshit Has Got To Stop

Mr. Trump discusses Al Gore here: Trump Cool to Global Warming

Thoughts? Personally I think Trump is a much more viable GOP candidate than Jeb!, but "Dark Money" may speak differently.

He is just aligning with specific pools of capital. Specific interests. Why else would someone who has very little scientific background argue against something that he should not really have a stake in (unless he was running for office) and that is a good bet even if their is a small possibility that global warming is accurate. Not really a question of is or isn't but more so a matter of risk. When science is "divided" and the risks are high the prudent thing to do is settle the argument later and take action now.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Temperature measurements aboard ships should not be used because of heat contamination from the ship's engine via conduction. Is it not obvious that the surface temperature of water is very different from the temperature aboard a ship? Furthermore, if they allege that the current temperature stations are inadequate to provide full coverage, is that not also true of land temperatures? I actually agree with them on this point. There aren't enough weather stations to provide an accurate map of global temperatures, so this entire exercise is pointless.

So would you suggest that ocean temperatures in the past, when measured by boats, were cooler because ship engines were cooler as well?

Second, it was my understanding that temperatures in the ocean are being monitored by remote buoys. Ship engine temperature should only be considered if the ships are near the buoys whilst data is being recorded. Old/new data taken from ships might need to be ignored for accuracy's sake, assuming you're correct about engine temperatures affecting measurements.

 

[Tellenbach]

So would you suggest that ocean temperatures in the past, when measured by boats, were cooler because ship engines were cooler as well?

It depends entirely on where the thermometer is located, the color of the boat, the construction of the boat (is it wood or metal?), the frequency and location of the measurements (how many temp readings are being taken?), the speed at which the boat is traveling (the wind velocity affects temperatures), etc.

Second, it was my understanding that temperatures in the ocean are being monitored by remote buoys.

That is correct. These buoys are designed to monitor climate conditions so they provide the best data.

Ship engine temperature should only be considered if the ships are near the buoys whilst data is being recorded.

I just want some controls to demonstrate that heat conduction from the engines is not a factor. (Obviously, it is a fact and that's why these clowns included it.)

 

[Luke O]

Yes We Can

 

[Bush]

Does this we mean we can burn more fossil fuels now? This is hilarious; these people can't make up their minds as to how they should proceed in scaring the public. I actually believe the ice age claims more than the global warming hysteria because ice ages are the norm on earth.

Clearly, we need to keep burning fossil fuels to thwart the lowering temperature, while simultaneously not burning fossil fuels so as to stop the rising temperature.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm sure Biff Tannen Donald Trump is going to be president.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

Junk science.