Climate Change “Science”

[Waterboy]

I think if Uzbekistan skews your data by 40%, I’m not real confident the study itself had any chance of ever being accurate. Lol. Maybe it’s just me.  One of the biggest hoaxes in history. Even four decades worth of data is nowhere near enough to tell us anything.  

https://timesca.com/journal-retracts-cli...omic-data/

[JimmyinSD]

I think if Uzbekistan skews your data by 40%, I’m not real confident the study itself had any chance of ever being accurate. Lol. Maybe it’s just me.  One of the biggest hoaxes in history. Even four decades worth of data is nowhere near enough to tell us anything.  

https://www.newsmatwitter.com/newsfront/...d/1237288/

Link doesn't work

[Waterboy]

Link doesn't work

Should work now. Got it from another source.

[JimmyinSD]

makes one wonder how many other "scientific" studies contain corrupted data that skews the results? after Covid and several other high profile frauds I have a hard time believing to many claims of innocence when it comes to conveniently incorrect scientific information.

[badgervike]

makes one wonder how many other "scientific" studies contain corrupted data that skews the results?  after Covid and several other high profile frauds I have a hard time believing to many claims of innocence when it comes to conveniently incorrect scientific information.

Yep.  I read a climate change study about 10 years back.  They had long term temperature data from a wide range of measuring stations.  In the study, they adjusted for externalities.  That makes some sense if you've had a monitoring station that was out in the Country but now is being encroached by an urban area (with its corresponding heat).  The problem with the adjustments?  They were all adjustments UP in temperature.  I can make a case for adjusting down measured temperature data due to "externalities", I can't really make a case for adjusting temperature up....but there it was all over this "important" study.  So...you adjust the reported numbers up...and than you're surprised that the subsequent temperatures are going up?  I'll see if I can dig up this peer reviewed gem of a study.

We had a professor here at UW that had tied global warming to reported ice in / out on Lake Mendota which is right in the heart of Madison.  They have anecdotal data on the ice covering the lake that went back to the mid 1800s.  It was maybe a mention from an article in the newspaper, a letter from someone that mentioned the ice, etc.  It was hardly precise but was an indicator of the potential changes.  I went to one of the Professor's lectures.   He went through the data and lo and behold...the earliest reports of the lake being iced over was in the earliest reported years.  The latest ice outs were once again back in the mid to late 1800s.  Now remember..ice in and ice out are highly subjective given the observer as well as the particular area of the lake that was discussed.  At the end of the lecture, I asked him how he accounted for externalities such as the fact that this large city grew up around the lake during that timeframe, the storm sewers that dumped into the lake were installed in the late 1800s and two steam power plants were added in early 1900s .  I was booed by the climate cult doomers for even asking the question.  It told me all I need to know about the study.  The professor tried to answer the question but really didn't have any thoughts about how those things might affect the study.

Take good care of the planet..but do it for the right reasons.

[BigAl99]

Yep.  I read a climate change study about 10 years back.  They had long term temperature data from a wide range of measuring stations.  In the study, they adjusted for externalities.  That makes some sense if you've had a monitoring station that was out in the Country but now is being encroached by an urban area (with its corresponding heat).  The problem with the adjustments?  They were all adjustments UP in temperature.  I can make a case for adjusting down measured temperature data due to "externalities", I can't really make a case for adjusting temperature up....but there it was all over this "important" study.  So...you adjust the reported numbers up...and than you're surprised that the subsequent temperatures are going up?  I'll see if I can dig up this peer reviewed gem of a study.

We had a professor here at UW that had tied global warming to reported ice in / out on Lake Mendota which is right in the heart of Madison.  They have anecdotal data on the ice covering the lake that went back to the mid 1800s.  It was maybe a mention from an article in the newspaper, a letter from someone that mentioned the ice, etc.  It was hardly precise but was an indicator of the potential changes.  I went to one of the Professor's lectures.   He went through the data and lo and behold...the earliest reports of the lake being iced over was in the earliest reported years.  The latest ice outs were once again back in the mid to late 1800s.  Now remember..ice in and ice out are highly subjective given the observer as well as the particular area of the lake that was discussed.  At the end of the lecture, I asked him how he accounted for externalities such as the fact that this large city grew up around the lake during that timeframe, the storm sewers that dumped into the lake were installed in the late 1800s and two steam power plants were added in early 1900s .  I was booed by the climate cult doomers for even asking the question.  It told me all I need to know about the study.  The professor tried to answer the question but really didn't have any thoughts about how those things might affect the study.

Take good care of the planet..but do it for the right reasons.

I don't quite get the point about what you refer to as "externalities" in the examples you cite.  Externalaties is a term used in economics, "externality is a cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's activity", not a term used in physics to label energy sources.  In your audit of the lecture your examples are all man made influences, Delta T into the lake Mendota system.  As a scientist/engineer/learned person you must have had been exposed to Enthalpy and Entropy, heat content and random energy.  Was he using the Enthalpy of small micro system, Lake Mendota, as an example of the effect of introduced energy into a system?

[badgervike]

I don't quite get the point about what you refer to as "externalities" in the examples you cite.  Externalaties is a term used in economics, "externality is a cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's activity", not a term used in physics to label energy sources.  In your audit of the lecture your examples are all man made influences, Delta T into the lake Mendota system.  As a scientist/engineer/learned person you must have had been exposed to Enthalpy and Entropy, heat content and random energy.  Was he using the Enthalpy of small micro system, Lake Mendota, as an example of the effect of introduced energy into a system?

Yea...I had to sit through Thermodynamics....twice.  There were 5 section tests and you could throw out the lowest test score.  After the first 4 tests, I had an "A" average...so I didn't bother attending the class anymore between the 4th and 5th exam.  That irked the professor enough that he failed me due to attendance.  The Dean offered a compromise solution...I could audit the class the next semester and IF I attended every class..I would receive my original A.  If I missed any of the classes, my grade would be docked accordingly.  

In this case, the externalities relate to how the professor accounted for variables outside the study...namely the warmer temperatures related to the now fairly large city surrounding the Lake, how he accounted for the addition of storm sewers and their runoff into the lake (especially in the years when salt was used heavily) as well as the two nearby steam generation plants which also had a warming effect on the nearby lake.  Did he account for wind effects?  Unless you're accounting for those variables, the study is interesting...but meaningless.  For instance, did he make measurements from a less affected nearby location and on the lake and adjust temperature readings accordingly and model when ice on/off would have occurred if the City didn't exist.  Since much of the science was based on anecdotal data, it really wasn't much of a scientific study.  It's tough to base hard science on a letter from one person to another in 1850 when they mentioned the lake had iced over.  The "study"  did get quite a lot of press in scientific type magazines such as nature. I'll find the study and post it.

[BigAl99]

Yea...I had to sit through Thermodynamics....twice.  There were 5 section tests and you could throw out the lowest test score.  After the first 4 tests, I had an "A" average...so I didn't bother attending the class anymore between the 4th and 5th exam.  That irked the professor enough that he failed me due to attendance.  The Dean offered a compromise solution...I could audit the class the next semester and IF I attended every class..I would receive my original A.  If I missed any of the classes, my grade would be docked accordingly.  

In this case, the externalities relate to how the professor accounted for variables outside the study...namely the warmer temperatures related to the now fairly large city surrounding the Lake, how he accounted for the addition of storm sewers and their runoff into the lake (especially in the years when salt was used heavily) as well as the two nearby steam generation plants which also had a warming effect on the nearby lake.  Did he account for wind effects?  Unless you're accounting for those variables, the study is interesting...but meaningless.  For instance, did he make measurements from a less affected nearby location and on the lake and adjust temperature readings accordingly and model when ice on/off would have occurred if the City didn't exist.  Since much of the science was based on anecdotal data, it really wasn't much of a scientific study.  It's tough to base hard science on a letter from one person to another in 1850 when they mentioned the lake had iced over.  The "study"  did get quite a lot of press in scientific type magazines such as nature. I'll find the study and post it.

What was this lecture on economics or environment change over time?  The way you keep using externialies is a red flag for me, the definition is financial impact on someone else because of your actions, it has no other meaning in physics or engineering. Economics is a soft science, like psychology or sociology.  It sounds like your saying man has an direct impact on the environment in his proximity, and the lecturer didn't make that point, correct?

[badgervike]

You're correct in that this in an interchange of environmental and economic costs. The lecture was intended to provide proof of climate change over time and to advocate for corresponding climate change mitigation activities. My question was based on externalities. Building power plants, storm sewers and a city are economic activities. My question was how do those externalities affect the economic economic realities downstream...namely the cost of mitigating temperature effects that may or may not be occurring. I explained the various externalities so it's not as if the question wasn't understood. The reality is that virtually no attempt had been made to normalize the data based on external factors.

[BigAl99]

You're correct in that this in an interchange of environmental and economic costs.  The lecture was intended to provide proof of climate change over time and to advocate for corresponding climate change mitigation activities.  My question was based on externalities.  Building power plants, storm sewers and a city are economic activities.  My question was C  I explained the various externalities so it's not as if the question wasn't understood.  The reality is that virtually no attempt had been made to normalize the data based on external factors.

There are much better arguments vs "proof" of climate change than your anecdotal recollection of an open forum "lecture".  It seems the event was a presentation of opinion rather than a conclusion of scientific based research, hence the booing was an open expression of you missing the point.  Was it a mandatory class lecture or a presentation of opinion, big difference to your argument?.  Your whole position is based on your intellectual gravitas, but any of your citations are woefully lacking and poor use of jargon leaves big red flags.