Millions of US homes could be destroyed with rising sea levels

[Kestrel]

From climategate https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#176247927ba6 to Nasagate http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 and many other revelations,this house of cards is crumbling.

Sorry, but anyone who presents Forbes as an authoritative source has lost any credibility in my eyes, likely permanently. Although you already went a long way toward that with your other arguments.

 

[kurt]

Stuff like this is the result of religious & corporate meddling and overall under-funding of public education, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, good grief.

 

[SenorDingDong]

I have no idea why anyone would be opposed to clean energy aside from if you work in the oil industry or another industry dependent on it.

Go put your mouth, next to the exhaust of a running car and breathe it in.

You have your answer on why moving to cleaner sources of energy is worth it.

 

[BNHL]

Which one?

Anyone you want to hang your hat on.

 

[BNHL]

Sorry, but anyone who presents Forbes as an authoritative source has lost any credibility in my eyes, likely permanently. Although you already went a long way toward that with your other arguments.

I guess I could see your list of what you deem credible and work from that.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Anyone you want to hang your hat on.

I don't hang my hat on one. I hang my hat on a grouping of temperature records. So do climatologists. Physicists, statisticians, and a myriad of other scientific disciplines also use groupings of data to get to their conclusions.

Do you even know how to science?

 

[BNHL]

I don't hang my hat on one. I hang my hat on a grouping of temperature records. So do climatologists. Physicists, statisticians, and a myriad of other scientific disciplines also use groupings of data to get to their conclusions.

Do you even know how to science?

All recordings have a margin of error. So what are they in the studies you believe? Or do you just believe the recordings that were not part of the recording stations on asphalt on hills etc.and other ridiculous locales. As for water temps,what is the recording margin of error?

 

[Leafsdude7]

All recordings have a margin of error.

Yes. And using multiple recordings reduce that margin of error to reasonable levels.

So what are they in the studies you believe?

As I said, you'll have to name some. The undertaking for me to produce all the studies I "believe" (I prefer to use the word accept, but whatever) and their stated margins of error (which, as a requirement of science, is pretty much required) would be way too much for me to ever be able to accomplish in any reasonable time frame.

Or do you just believe the recordings that were not part of the recording stations on asphalt on hills etc.and other ridiculous locales.

What makes the locales "ridiculous"?

As for water temps,what is the recording margin of error?

My question is the same with your original question: which data set?

 

[BNHL]

Yes. And using multiple recordings reduce that margin of error to reasonable levels.



As I said, you'll have to name some. The undertaking for me to produce all the studies I "believe" (I prefer to use the word accept, but whatever) and their stated margins of error (which, as a requirement of science, is pretty much required) would be way too much for me to ever be able to accomplish in any reasonable time frame.



What makes the locales "ridiculous"?



My question is the same with your original question: which data set?

They were collecting data from locations such as airport tarmacs,black asphalted hilltops,enclosed shelters,places that were considered heat sinks. As far as "margins of error" being reduced by multiple collections,an average could never be less than the smallest margin of error. The very fact that different studies and groups (NASA runs high and NOAA usually in the middle) come up with different temperatures is an eye opener and some year to year recordings fall within the margin of error or the margin of error is greater. And a lot of the recordings are interpolated or estimated and no one covers the entire earth. Good thing to keep in mind,this is a science forum on a Hockey page (amateur hour).

 

[Leafsdude7]

They were collecting data from locations such as airport tarmacs,black asphalted hilltops,enclosed shelters,places that were considered heat sinks.

And...?

As far as "margins of error" being reduced by multiple collections,an average could never be less than the smallest margin of error.

Sure. Do you know that the smallest margin of error on temperature data is around 0.01*C?

The very fact that different studies and groups (NASA runs high and NOAA usually in the middle) come up with different temperatures is an eye opener

Not really. Of course there's going to be differences in data recording. As you said so yourself, all recordings have a margin of error. There's going to be differences.

The fact is this is why there are multiple temperature readings. By doing so, errors are mitigated by multiple data sets, as it exposes biases and gives better statistical outputs.

and some year to year recordings fall within the margin of error or the margin of error is greater.

Sure. That's not unexpected. Climate cannot be measured on a year-to-year basis. Doing so do not account for natural weather variance. The studying of climatological data has shown you need 5 and 11 years of climate data to properly filter out those natural variances (5 years for natural weather patterns and 11 years for sun activity).

And a lot of the recordings are interpolated or estimated and no one covers the entire earth.

1) Recordings are not estimated. Calculations and readings are precise. If they were estimated, they wouldn't have margins of error.

2) Why does they need to "cover the entire earth"?

Good thing to keep in mind,this is a science forum on a Hockey page (amateur hour).

Not sure how that is relevant. You should still be able to understand how to critically examine data and claims. Being an amateur just means you shouldn't be expected to create data and studies of your own, not that you shouldn't be expected to understand and critique data and studies created by experts.

 

[BNHL]

And...?



Sure. Do you know that the smallest margin of error on temperature data is around 0.01*C?



Not really. Of course there's going to be differences in data recording. As you said so yourself, all recordings have a margin of error. There's going to be differences.

The fact is this is why there are multiple temperature readings. By doing so, errors are mitigated by multiple data sets, as it exposes biases and gives better statistical outputs.



Sure. That's not unexpected. Climate cannot be measured on a year-to-year basis. Doing so do not account for natural weather variance. The studying of climatological data has shown you need 5 and 11 years of climate data to properly filter out those natural variances (5 years for natural weather patterns and 11 years for sun activity).



1) Recordings are not estimated. Calculations and readings are precise. If they were estimated, they wouldn't have margins of error.

2) Why does they need to "cover the entire earth"?



Not sure how that is relevant. You should still be able to understand how to critically examine data and claims. Being an amateur just means you shouldn't be expected to create data and studies of your own, not that you shouldn't be expected to understand and critique data and studies created by experts.

It's relevant as a reminder that you are an amateur,not a professional climatologist. Anything you or I say is an amateur second,third or fourth hand interpretation. I find studies to fit my narrative and you find studies to suit your narrative. You don't perform studies,you are not unbiased,you are not without agenda. You are gullible and can be led,as can I. Everything I write is nearly verbatim from the NOAA and other sites,and you deny or support in accordance with your agenda. Talking with you is pointless as I'm only talking to an amateur numbers reader who I disagree with based on my own amateurish beliefs. Gotta go,it's nice and sunny out.

 

[Leafsdude7]

It's relevant as a reminder that you are an amateur,not a professional climatologist. Anything you or I say is an amateur second,third or fourth hand interpretation. I find studies to fit my narrative and you find studies to suit your narrative.

And my studies are from reputable sources and yours are not. This is not suiting a narrative, this is basic rational thought. This is why my personal opinions and biases are not relevant.

I mean, you could use this argument to defend any position held. You could defend a flat earth, creationism, homeopathy, anti-vaccines, and on and on with it.

The fact is science works via peer-review and the strength of peer-review for any given science journal determines its reputation. Studies that reject human-caused climate change are typically published in journals like Energy & Environment, Climate Research and Pattern Recognition in Physics, which have been shown to have faulty peer-review processes, or in journals like The Astrophysical Journal, which doesn't have a climatological board, because they know their faulty research will not pass critical peer-review of established climate journals. The handful that do get published in legitimate, reputable climate journals are either never replicated in further studies (and, in fact, studies attempting to replicate them often result in significantly different results) or are refuted after peer-reviewed for subtle mistakes that were missed by peer-review.

Meanwhile, journals like Science and Nature get their reputation and their impact from only publishing papers with significant peer-review and which often get replicated repeatedly. The fact that the majority of papers which are published in these journals support human-caused climate change should be "an eye-opener" to anyone who actually understands how science works (and you don't need to be a professional for that).

Everything I write is nearly verbatim from the NOAA

[Citation Needed]

Talking with you is pointless as I'm only talking to an amateur numbers reader who I disagree with based on my own amateurish beliefs.

It's interesting that you say this in place of defending your claims now that I've repeatedly asked you to. Very suspicious to me. It's almost as though you know your claims aren't defensible and you know you have to back out of our discussion to save face.

 

[jdhebner]

Well said leafsdude. Someone needs a lesson in what constitutes a reliable scientific sources.

 

[kurt]

Again, lol irl.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Again, lol irl.

That's a perfect reasonable response. BNHL should be thankful I'm taking the time I am to educate him.