Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • After having my own comprehensively washed and fucked in 2011 I would never actively wish that on anyone.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - F X

1
But doing so will remove members' access to their old PMs and rep comments on their profiles.
It can't happen soon enough
2
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?



3
Politics and Current Events / Re: Goddamnit Al
it's justified regardless of the timeline because it doesn't fucking matter. russian bots didn't travel back in time and force franken to harass women.
How do you know?   Maybe time travelling Russians can explain almost everything
4
This is one of many issues that simply doesn't matter to most people.
5
I don't know enough to have an opinion on this
6
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
Well OK then

Thanks
7
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
I guess it could be an accident/software glitch, but if so, that is even more disturbing.
8
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
It was a Socrates thread about evolution. He had just started it.  Several of the regulars here had replied as well.  I don't know the title.
9
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
Really? There are that many topics getting vanished these days? 
10
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Well I agree your input isn't scientific. 
11
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
The irony is that this topic will get memory holed as well.
12
The Soap Opera / Re: Who deleted the topic?
Of course I already did.  If it had been moved there I would never have started this topic.
13
The Soap Opera / Who deleted the topic?
You fuckhead.  I had just replied.



Just move it if you your feelings are butthurt.  But don't delete.  Or move to your private secret forums.

Asshole
14
Just in my lifetime almost everything that I learned in college has been either completely changed, or modified so much the earlier ideas seem primitive and stupid.  Except for physics.  Not much has changed in physics.  But got damn, almost every other field is so different now.  Same for engineering.  Shit that used to be considered beautiful engineering is now so primitive and even stupid sometimes. 

Mankind evolves, and when we all have super computers and a world wide network of super computers, things change fast.

Except for beliefs.  They resist all evidence.

15
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evolution-theory-out-of-africa-dali-skull-china-homo-erectus-sapiens-latest-a8064306.html
Quote
A skull found in China could re-write our entire understanding of human evolution.
That's according to scientists who have examined the important, ancient head and say that it proves the existing theory of how humans came to be is wrong.
I can certainly believe the current theory (like there is just one) is wrong.  The entire history of science consist of being wrong.  Then changing current theory as more evidence and research is carried out.
16
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
I wonder if that's because I wasn't quoting anyone. It was my characterization of your arguments.
I know.  But it's still stupid.  Stick to what is actually on the page.  Science works better that way.
17
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
The Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza board is for the discussion of alternative POVs on science, such as the idea that climate science is bullshit. It's the appropriate forum for this discussion.
Only you have used the phrase "climate science is bullshit"

Thanks for that bit of pedantry.
A search of the entire internet shows how idiotic your claims are.

You are the only person (that Google can find) that has ever even typed out "the idea that climate science is bullshit"

Now that is priceless.
18
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Nonsense.

What would be your preferred approach? Only using data from stations you consider "quality"? Are there enough of those to build a meaningful global temperature record?
I've illustrated before exactly what I think is scientific.  It either doesn't matter, or you handwave it away, or change the discussion.

Dale Enterprise is another station that suffers none of the changes used to justify drastic changes to climate data.  When they switched to an electronic sensor they recorded both the mercury/alcohol thermometers as well as the new electronic sensor.  It's actually on the report to the NWS.  (I have a copy)

This is scientific.
19
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
That adjustment data is out of date of course.  They "adjusted" the station data several more times since then.  But the source to compare them is not currently working.

Just looking at 2017 shows how they change the data they show.  2017 has almost a degree C added to it.
20
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Actual data



What the adjusted data looks like



How can it be so wrong?

Because of the idiot adjustments.



Adjusting quality stations to make the climate data not reflect reality, is not scientific.


21
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
The Alternative Reality Science Extravaganza board is for the discussion of alternative POVs on science, such as the idea that climate science is bullshit. It's the appropriate forum for this discussion.
Only you have used the phrase "climate science is bullshit"
22
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Since Blue Hill can't just be handwaved away, we established that before proceeding, using it as a base to compare with makes it very difficult for the alarmists to just ignore it.

Actual data



What the adjusted data looks like



The fuckhead can't see the problem.  But anyone with a working brain can.



23
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Wrong board.
Nope.  And moving a discussion because you can't argue science is a bullshit tactic.  That much you might understand, but it is doubtful.
24
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Since the last time we discussed this, Hausfather actually wrote what I think is the clearest explanation of the adjustments that I've read yet...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on this...
Quote
While much has been made about adjustments to individual land stations that increase warming, these are often extreme cases cherry-picked to make a point.
...because that is what it appears you are doing in this discussion.
Nonsense.

Quote
Is there anything you can point to in that that you specifically think is bullshit?
Quote
Raw data shows more global warming
That's simply not true.  Or rather, it's meaningless. The actual raw data from quality stations does not show more warning.  Certainly the data from absolute shit stations that are useless because of real issues shows "more warming", but the adjustments used by GISS/NOAA/HADCRUT don't fix that problem.  They actually make it worse.

Quote
Land and ocean temperatures are adjusted separately to correct for changes to measurement methods over time.
Meaningless, since the land changes are bullshit.
Quote
All the original temperature readings from both land-based weather stations and ocean-going ships and buoys are publically available and can be used to create a "raw" global temperature record.
That part is mostly true, and using raw data from quality stations shows clearly why the adjustments are bullshit.

Quote
The figure below shows the global surface temperature record created from only raw temperature readings with no adjustments applied (blue line).
Bullshi figure.

Quote
The red line is the adjusted land and ocean temperature record produced using adjusted data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with the difference between the two in grey.
Nonsense graphic.  Showing the difference (or the adjustments) to the surface stations is not even shown.  It's smoke and mirrors and bullshit.

25
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Looking at  hundred years of data tells us a lot about climate.
Not from just two stations.
Yes, it tells us pretty much everything about climate at that location.  For that hundred years. Unless you use proxy data, it actually is the climate data.
You can actually compare new and old instruments, but you need to actually compare those two things.
Isn't that what they're doing though?
Dude, of course not.  Did you not read anything at all?
They're doing it on a large scale, and you're complaining that it doesn't work at the level of individual stations.
No, what is done is not comparing data from instrument changes with the original instruments at all.
But that's not the point.
There you go again.  You just make up something, and then want to argue your made up thing, rather than provide any evidence, or even reasoning, to support your claim.

It's exactly my point, but you handwave it away and then go on as if just saying something makes it true.  It's priceless.