Interesting conversation with Grok, defending NOAA adjustments. Grok was wise not to answer my final question, because either way it loses. Either the adjustments are bogus, or UHI is much larger than acknowledged.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 70C At Lisbon
- Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
Recent Comments
- Francis Barnett on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Bob G on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- D. Boss on 70C At Lisbon
- arn on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- D. Boss on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Gordon Vigurs on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Bob G on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Gordon Vigurs on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Bob G on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
- Bob G on Grok Defending The Climate Scam
Of course the temperature record has to be adjusted in a bias manner, because the theory isn’t panning out. changing subjects, very sad flooding tragedy in Texas. turns out the exact same spot experienced a bad flood about 40 years ago and that one killed 10 teenagers.
It really surprises me that so many lives were lost. Isn’t it more than in the recent hurricanes, which span a much larger area? Anyway, Grok, my experience with AI is they don’t understand nuances. I ask programming questions, get answers that don’t seem right, ask again, in a different way, and get a completely different answer. Ask a simple question and it’s faster than looking it up in a book. Ask a complex question, and the answer varies depending on the way you ask it.
you can find a video online that shows how rapidly the water Rose. once you see that video you’ll wonder why the casualty list is so low. it looked like a tsunami. as for Grok, and AI, I’m wondering how is this any different than just asking Google? getting a bias answer off the internet is nothing new. ?
you can find a video online that shows how rapidly the water Rose. once you see that video you’ll wonder why the casualty list is so low. it looked like a tsunami. as for Grok, and AI, I’m wondering how is this any different than just asking Google? getting a bias answer off the internet is nothing new. ?
you can find a video online that shows how rapidly the water Rose. once you see that video you’ll wonder why the casualty list is so low. it looked like a tsunami. as for Grok, and AI, I’m wondering how is this any different than just asking Google? getting a bias answer off the internet is nothing new. ?
Wouldn’t the heat island effect by 1971 justify a downward adjustment rather than an upward adjustment of the raw data? What possible excuse could there be to interfere with the 1899 data?
This adjustment seems further suspect because we usually expect January to be colder than October.
No. you’re fiddling with the records. lol. here in South Central Minnesota our forecast doesn’t even hit 90 in the next 10 days which leads us to the middle of meteorological summer… a bit on the cool side, with no extreme heat. my dad was born in 1916 and recalls when he was a kid the floorboards on their jalopy caught on fire because it hit 114 in southwest Minnesota. that’s a heat wave from the past. seldom happens now
I find it hard to get too excited about temperature anomalies which vary between zilch and bugger all.
Come on… Wooden floor boards ignite at 459 deg F. so 114 F is not going to cause them to catch on fire. Hot exhaust and/or a fuel or oil leak would be more likely.
yes, you’re correct. it’s a story from the past and all good stories have a bit of exaggeration. you know, like that story about the 2020 presidential election being the most fair and secure ever.
For 100+ years there was no need to interfere with data.
But around the time of Al Gores Nobel Prize & Obamas presidency the next level of propaganda was unleashed on plebs and science.
Old temperatures were considered unreliable and old experts have been retroactively declared by modern experts who believe that 0.01 % of co2 will turn the planet into a fireball to be too dumb to read thermometers ( and for some reason those adjustments always benefit the warming narrative, which is impossible in a 50:50 scenario).
The interesting thing is – the more time passes the harder it gets to discover flaws of an old system.
Eyewitnesses are no more, data got lost or destroyed
(even something of way more publicity and importance and only half as old like the moon landing lost a lot of data),
yet nowadays we have acti…experts who suddenly realized how the real data looked like in 1900.
The same kind of experts who declared Hunters laptop to be fake
and who found Iraqs WMDs in a testtube (I still wonder how the, very liquid gas, got into Powells testtube?
I guess some American spy walked into an Iraqy? WMD storage, pulled out a Pipette (but forgot a cam), opened the bomb with a tin opener, extracted 2 drops,dropped them in the tube and walked home – and AGW data adjustment works the same way.
The Guadalupe river has been known as Flash Flood Alley for years.
The reason is that the river has a limestone bed not mud, so it’s like pouring water on a concrete road.
https://www.newsweek.com/flash-flood-alley-has-history-deadly-camp-floods-meteorologist-2095170
Why do people put their own and their children’s lives at risk by camping on the banks of this river?