Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Elim Garak]

I was not making a "per capita" argument. You said Country X should work harder and Country Y should do some work. I posted a counter example of Country X working hard but Country Y wants to only work hard at making their problem worse. Which is much closer to the reality of the situation.

I fail to see your point.

If its not the topic of this discussion then why do you say things like this:

Wanting to make someone work harder on the problem is not the same as making them work harder on the problem.
This is not a discussion on how to make countries work harder.

[Chrysia]

I wasn't bitching about China, even once. My gripe was about the usage of "per capita" for pollution.

Because per capita assessments take the inherent polluting factor of a greater population into account. In a completely equal world where no country has a higher rate of pollution than any other, the large countries will still produce more waste, not because they need to "work harder," but because that's an inherent part of being larger.

[Ivanstone]

I fail to see your point.

Of course you do. So let me spell it out:
China is the world's largest polluter as a country. It creates local health risks via pollution and global risks via global warming. It recognizes this is a problem and is investing heavily in alternative energy. Its still a work in progress.
The United States of America is the world's second largest polluter as a country. Unlike China its current federal government (and many local governments) do not recognize this is a problem because of "economic" reasons. They want to able to pollute more and are unconcerned about local health risks and think that global warming is a hoax. Furthermore, it off loaded a substantial amount of its industry to foreign nations thus increasing those nations pollution. One of those nations is China.

There. Happy? No per capita talk sullying your perfect little world.

[Elim Garak]

Because per capita assessments take the inherent polluting factor of a greater population into account. In a completely equal world where no country has a higher rate of pollution than any other, the large countries will still produce more waste, not because they need to "work harder," but because that's an inherent part of being larger.

Population size and pollution are not connected directly. This is there you are wrong.

Of course you do. So let me spell it out:
China is the world's largest polluter as a country. It creates local health risks via pollution and global risks via global warming. It recognizes this is a problem and is investing heavily in alternative energy. Its still a work in progress.
The United States of America is the world's second largest polluter as a country. Unlike China its current federal government (and many local governments) do not recognize this is a problem because of "economic" reasons. They want to able to pollute more and are unconcerned about local health risks and think that global warming is a hoax. Furthermore, it off loaded a substantial amount of its industry to foreign nations thus increasing those nations pollution. One of those nations is China.

There. Happy? No per capita talk sullying your perfect little world.

That's all great and such but what is your point? Do you think I was claiming something contrary to that?

[Endus]

You have Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth which is indeed malicious disinformation. Painting only the one side (which happens to be the side you disagree with) as horribly in the wrong puts you in fault.

Gore's film is fine. It's an educational piece, rather than a scientific piece of work, is all.

And no, when the two sides are "facts and science matter" and "there's a secret global conspiracy and scientists are all liars!", then we're not talking about two equal sides. You're drawing an obvious false equivalence.

After browsing your links, i found they fail to explain why the adjustments are much more noticeable starting from the early 2000s.

There's no evidence of that. This is the problem; you people literally imagine things in your heads, and expect us to treat them the same as actual facts.

[Chrysia]

Population size and pollution are not connected directly. This is there you are wrong.

Yes, they are. Just because other factors exist doesn't negate the connection between population size and pollution quantity.

Using per capita rates is how you remove population from the equation as a factor. You said earlier we should "remove the pollution that comes from the population as a factor" in order to take genocide off the table as a solution. That's exactly what we're doing but examining per capita rates rather than raw numbers. Looking at raw numbers, genocide will always be the simplest solution.

[Elim Garak]

Yes, they are. Just because other factors exist doesn't negate the connection between population size and pollution quantity.

A country with a huge population can import all the stuff using money generated by domestic service sector, their pollution will be minimal. Another country can export its industry to a third country and import products back. Their pollution will also be minimized despite the population, the third country's pollution will increase of course, even if they have low population.

These are extreme cases to prove to you that population and pollution are not connected directly. Pollution is a complex thing and population plays the minor role in it. Pollution produced by population is also the easiest to address.

[Endus]

A country with a huge population can import all the stuff using money generated by domestic service sector, their pollution will be minimal. Another country can export its industry to a third country and import products back. Their pollution will also be minimized despite the population, the third country's pollution will increase of course, even if they have low population.

These are extreme cases to prove to you that population and pollution are not connected directly. Pollution is a complex thing and population plays the minor role in it. Pollution produced by population is also the easiest to address.

Hypotheticals have nothing to do with practical realities. Population has an obvious direct connection to pollution generated, and it's baffling why you refuse to admit that.

Countries with higher per-capita emissions rates are more wasteful, and have greater capacity to reduce their emissions rates accordingly. That isn't complicated.

[Ivanstone]

That's all great and such but what is your point? Do you think I was claiming something contrary to that?

Pretty much. You've spent the entire thread whining about:
Environmental Charities
Universities
Science

You've pretty much said we should do nothing because:

I don't care about all this climate change thing because I'll be dead long before anything drastic happens either way.
And I don't understand why some people care.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are other people in the world who do care? Has it ever occurred to you that the people who don't care have dubious reasons for doing so?

[Chrysia]

A country with a huge population can import all the stuff using money generated by domestic service sector, their pollution will be minimal. Another country can export its industry to a third country and import products back. Their pollution will also be minimized despite the population, the third country's pollution will increase of course, even if they have low population.

These are extreme cases to prove to you that population and pollution are not connected directly. Pollution is a complex thing and population plays the minor role in it. Pollution produced by population is also the easiest to address.

Population absolutely does not have a minor role in pollution. That service sector still requires power to operate, vehicles to move goods, and construction equipment to build its facilities.

- - - Updated - - -

Hypotheticals have nothing to do with practical realities. Population has an obvious direct connection to pollution generated, and it's baffling why you refuse to admit that.

Countries with higher per-capita emissions rates are more wasteful, and have greater capacity to reduce their emissions rates accordingly. That isn't complicated.

Even with his hypothetical "minimal pollution" would still increase with population and hardly be minimal.

[Louisa Bannon]

This thread is exactly what is wrong with science as it is produced by moneyed interests instead of more objective government funded research. There is pretty good evidence that most scientific "studies" turn up the exact result desired by the people that funded the research, whether that's a corporation with a profit motive or a consumer advocacy group with an agenda of its own. At precisely the point at which human knowledge is so detailed and profound we are losing all ability to trust in the information that is being provided to us.

Personally, I believe in climate change and I think its prudent to handle environmental concerns with all of the best practices that we have at our disposal. You don't shit where you eat and earth is a spaceship with limited resources and abilities to bounce back from stupid human activities.

[Chrysia]

A mis-education piece. He leads you to believe things like the polar bears are drowning and dying out because of global warming. This is contrary to their population doing just fine, and even booming in the past few years.


Well, don't you support both sides? When a scientist does not agree with your view, he/she becomes a liar? Your first post in this thread affirms this!



The first graph shows the revisions with sharp differences after 1998. The website is not from 'us people' but rather by 'you people'.

Gore's piece wasn't made "in the past few years."

Scientists are not immune to lying, no. The vast, vast majority of scientific work done in the field of modern climate change supports the theory that it is anthropogenic in nature.

Yes, there was a sharp correction because the satellite's orbit had decayed, causing incorrect readings. After correcting for the errors created by the decaying orbit, the corrected temperatures showed much greater warming than we'd previously thought.

[buck008]

Yes, there was a sharp correction because the satellite's orbit had decayed, causing incorrect readings. After correcting for the errors created by the decaying orbit, the corrected temperatures showed much greater warming than we'd previously thought.

I don't think most people actually know that instruments that are designed to operate at a certain elevation will give false readings at a lower elevation. Or they do know and are just using that as an excuse to rant about changing readings regardless.

[Endus]

A mis-education piece. He leads you to believe things like the polar bears are drowning and dying out because of global warming. This is contrary to their population doing just fine, and even booming in the past few years.

Not something he stated as if it were a fact, and thus doesn't make it a "mis-education piece". It just means you didn't take the time to understand what was actually being said.

Well, don't you support both sides? When a scientist does not agree with your view, he/she becomes a liar? Your first post in this thread affirms this!

Nope. I don't determine what I believe based on what someone else has claimed. I look at their methodology and information and rationale.

When you do so, it's egregiously clear that climate scientists are on the money, and climate change deniers are, without exception, grossly ignorant of the field, or deliberately and maliciously deceitful.

The first graph shows the revisions with sharp differences after 1998. The website is not from 'us people' but rather by 'you people'.

You're citing an example where they realized their data was being biased, and corrected it, as if that were an example of malicious "alteration".

You complained that my links didn't explain measures, and then linked an article which explained them, and then acted as if it were mysterious and untoward.

Your own source is proving you wrong.

[Garnier Fructis]

Of course -- at some point you end up chasing your tail if you don't accept the data supporting various hypotheses and theories. The only thing distressing about any of this is realizing that what you believe to be the basis of whatever you think or do may be completely wrong.

And you're absolutely wrong about it never accurately describing science. Look at how our understanding of infectious agents has changed over the years. From exorcisms and bleeding humors to "wee beasties" to bacteria, fungi, viruses... you might even add prions to the mix. It's a growing and evolving body of work, and to pretend like humanity has somehow developed omniscience and that we only deal in scientific facts negates the potential for new discovery.

I fail to see why you think the history of germ theory contradicts what I wrote. Science clearly progresses, but it doesn't progress in steps that are easily categorized.

My major point is that 'science is never technically settled' is a trivial technicality that ignores the actual progress of science, and is practically useless. To use your example, germ theory 'isn't settled.' Which is a statement that would be met with eye rolls by essentially everyone except freshman philosophy of science majors.

- - - Updated - - -

Scientists are not immune to lying, no.

Clearly, or we wouldn't have the crap in the OP's link.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think most people actually know that instruments that are designed to operate at a certain elevation will give false readings at a lower elevation. Or they do know and are just using that as an excuse to rant about changing readings regardless.

I think it's worse. I don't think most people know that instruments typically have systematic errors.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends who is in charge of the government. One side can gain votes by making it an issue. But it will take more email leaks to find this out.

All that we're going to get from email leaks is what we got last time: someone leaks some emails that they don't understand, and then morons who don't understand what they're reading kick up a big fuss.

[Gutpile]

That's about all that level of nonsense deserves. Your avatar's shirt is meant to be ironic, right?

Why do people get infracted for posting pictures like this but it's ok for moderators?

[unfilteredJW]

Why do people get infracted for posting pictures like this but it's ok for moderators?

Report it.

Or bitch about it, rather than discuss the topic.

[Gutpile]

Report it.

Or bitch about it, rather than discuss the topic.

Nah, I'd rather do what I did, thanks.

[Endus]

Why do people get infracted for posting pictures like this but it's ok for moderators?

Images aren't against the site rules. Posting image spam without it being relevant to discussion and without contributing to the thread is.

[Gutpile]

Images aren't against the site rules. Posting image spam without it being relevant to discussion and without contributing to the thread is.

Bullshit. I've been infracted for posting the exact type of thing.