Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ^

    you’re confusing truth with “the TRUTH”... although you’re not the only one - it started 735 posts ago.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

    Comment


    • is TRUTH an acronym for something?
      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Medwards View Post
        is TRUTH an acronym for something?
        Teach Really Upholding Total Heresy?
        "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

        Comment


        • The TRUTH. UAH satellite data update.

          This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

          NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

          Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

          If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

          In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

          www.drroyspencer.com

          Last edited by MrCombust; 23-06-2018, 09:52 AM.
          "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

          Comment


          • ^ The long term upward trend looks pretty clear to me, about 0.3 - 0.4°C since 1979. With 1998-99 being in the middle of that graph, it has no influence on the slope of the trendline, only the intercept. The statistical trend would be identical if 1998 was unusually cold instead of unusually warm. Not to mention that the global maximum in that graph was in 2016, not 1998.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Titanium48 View Post
              ^ The long term upward trend looks pretty clear to me, about 0.3 - 0.4°C since 1979. With 1998-99 being in the middle of that graph, it has no influence on the slope of the trendline, only the intercept. The statistical trend would be identical if 1998 was unusually cold instead of unusually warm. Not to mention that the global maximum in that graph was in 2016, not 1998.
              You do understand the earth's temperature varies naturally, don't you? And if it does, it's not a matter of an "upward trend". It's a matter of demonstrating the trend is being caused by CO2. Pointing to an "upward trend" and saying "CO2 did it", is the same as pointing to rain and saying "CO2 did it". It rained here yesterday, was that caused by man made CO2?
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • The TRUTH. The CBC lies almost daily about "climate change". It's time they got called on it.

                Here's their latest article......................

                "East Coast salt marshes to be restored to battle effects of climate change.
                Restoration a bid to help absorb rising sea levels and storm surges brought on by climate change.

                A strip of Nova Scotia coastline is shown in this undated handout photo.
                The federal government and Saint Mary's University are teaming up to take on one of the worst problems caused by climate change: rising sea levels.
                A sinking dike is shown in this undated handout photo."
                https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ored-1.4721044

                The CBC uses "undated photos" in their article about the damage done by "climate change". Doesn't anybody else find this to be fraud?

                Rising sea levels caused by "climate change"?????

                Let's look at the Halifax tide gauge..................

                Halifax shows the sea has been rising for 100 years or more. Does it look like sea level rise is accelerating due to CO2?
                e to man made CO2?
                Last edited by MrCombust; 25-06-2018, 12:17 PM.
                "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                Comment


                • yes it does

                  /thread
                  A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                    This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

                    NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

                    Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

                    If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

                    In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

                    www.drroyspencer.com

                    Since you keep posting the same nonsense and misunderstandings about satellite data, I'll keep repeating the facts from my response in #687 above:

                    Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface. Satellite data is useful especially in measuring how temperature changes higher up in the atmosphere compared to temperature changes in the earth's land and oceans where people live and on which we depend. The higher the elevation above the earth's surface the less pronounced warming has been with even some cooling observed in the lower stratosphere. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...ture_Trend.jpg

                    GISS is only one of dozens of earth surface temperature time series and not even the most cited one. GISS makes a handy foil for the climate change deniers because of its association with James Hansen.

                    Why don't all the "skeptics" get together and develop their own surface temperature time series? Oh right, former skeptic Richard Muller already did this with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

                    BEST's time series found slightly more warming than most of the other temperature time series because BEST did not make adjustments in station data to remove urban heat islands for instance. Of course, no sooner did Muller report BEST's findings than he was disowned and attacked by the deniers.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                      Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                      This is the latest temperature graph from UAH. If you've been reading my posts you should know that satellite RSS data, and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show a similar trend.

                      NASA's GISS, which is based on land weather stations, shows much more warming. You should also know that land based stations are corrupted by the growing heat island effect as cities grow around land based stations. GISS is also corrupted by NASA's constant fudging of the data. You can argue about the validity of the fudging, but you can't say it's not happening. Earlier versions of GISS are available on the internet and NASA's website. Liar blogs and advocates use GISS exclusively to demonstrate "global warming" as it validates their claims. But some of the most ardent climate advocate scientists no longer use GISS as a reference and have admitted to the now 20 year "pause".

                      Climate advocates look at the statistical warming trend and tell you CO2 is the cause. Skeptics look at the large natural variability and aren't convinced a marginal amount of warming is evidence of a CO2 footprint.

                      If you look at the year 2000 most of the graph to the left is below zero, and most to the right is above. The large 1990's spike of "global warming" is being spread over a growing time period. The "Climate change" literature is being rewritten as the advocates cling to an ever decreasing, and unconvincing trend. Naturally, the liar blogs, and sadly the CBC, will never show you this.

                      In this graph the present temperature anomaly of .2 degrees is .1 degrees above the 1981 anomaly of .1 degrees with the 2016 El Nino (a warming oscillation) continuing to fade.......

                      www.drroyspencer.com

                      Since you keep posting the same nonsense and misunderstandings about satellite data, I'll keep repeating the facts from my response in #687 above:

                      Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface. Satellite data is useful especially in measuring how temperature changes higher up in the atmosphere compared to temperature changes in the earth's land and oceans where people live and on which we depend. The higher the elevation above the earth's surface the less pronounced warming has been with even some cooling observed in the lower stratosphere. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...ture_Trend.jpg

                      GISS is only one of dozens of earth surface temperature time series and not even the most cited one. GISS makes a handy foil for the climate change deniers because of its association with James Hansen.

                      Why don't all the "skeptics" get together and develop their own surface temperature time series? Oh right, former skeptic Richard Muller already did this with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

                      BEST's time series found slightly more warming than most of the other temperature time series because BEST did not make adjustments in station data to remove urban heat islands for instance. Of course, no sooner did Muller report BEST's findings than he was disowned and attacked by the deniers.
                      Satellite data is especially appropriate to global warming. CO2 in the troposphere is where the theory says warming should be the most. The fact that the trend there is lower actually disproves the global warming theory.

                      Not only that, there are a number of papers from prominent climate change scientists and the IPCC that have re-written predictions based on the clear evidence global warming has stopped.

                      Your argument that land based stations are where "people live" is EXACTLY what makes the land based stations inappropriate to use.

                      If you REALLY want to refute satellite data you have to refute............

                      1) Climate change scientists acknowledging the pause. (I've posted a number of papers on that, and I can post more, including the IPCC itself)
                      2) The heat island effect.
                      3) NASA's numerous fudging of the land based record upwards.
                      4) Explain the "invisible shield" between the troposphere and the land temperatures and why they differ.
                      5) Explain why the troposphere "hot spot", (where climate change theory says most of the warming should occur), doesn't exist.


                      "Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface."

                      EXACTLY why satellite data is used instead of GISS...................
                      Yes, that is a GISS weather station you see.

                      Last edited by MrCombust; 25-06-2018, 02:42 PM.
                      "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                      Comment


                      • Doesn't increases in CO2 in the troposphere weaken something allowing more radiation through, which allows more heating on the surface?



                        A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                        Comment


                        • The TRUTH. Here's a video discussion various tricks used to "create" global warming

                          In this video Dr. Jennifer Marohasy describes various tricks used to fabricate global warming. She discusses the Amberley weather station in Australia. A perfectly operational station for many years undergoes a >1 degree fudge by NASA's "homogenization" algorithm. A long term cooling trend is turned into a long term warming trend.



                          "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                            In this video Dr. Jennifer Marohasy describes various tricks used to fabricate global warming. She discusses the Amberley weather station in Australia. A perfectly operational station for many years undergoes a >1 degree fudge by NASA's "homogenization" algorithm. A long term cooling trend is turned into a long term warming trend.




                            this is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup
                            The big news in denierworld this week is obviously the latest (and peer-reviewed) #ExxonKnew study.
                            But before Exxon stole the spotlight on Tuesday, the newest paper of note in the Denivory Tower was one published earlier this month in an obscure and soon-to-be discontinued journal. The paper claims current warming is driven by natural forces, and is not uniquely human-caused.
                            Despite being based entirely on usually denier-derided computer modeling, the study was immediately–and lazily–championed by the climate denial fake news apparatus. Co-author Jennifer Marohasy wrote about the study in an op-ed for the Spectator and at her own blog; her description of her findings was uncritically copy-and-pasted into a Michael Bastasch story at the Daily Caller, reposted at WUWT and TallBloke, praised by James Delingpole at Breitbart and briefly linked to at Drudge (complete with an irrelevant photo of Al Gore).
                            Yet a quick fact check on science Twitter shows the study’s conclusions are “based on inaccurately cited data that's incorrectly scaled & incorrectly aligned in time.” What’s more, even if the authors had used the data correctly, it’s still “essentially just a complicated curve-fitting exercise,” as And Then There’s Physics points out in a short and simple debunking of this complicated exercise. Marohasy et al’s paper tries to use machine learning to find natural patterns in warming unrelated to carbon pollution, and admits that it doesn’t take actual real world physics into account. As And Then There’s Physics concludes, the study uses a “naive approach – that completely ignores [the] physics” that govern the climate system.
                            Given that the study itself admits as much, it’s a bit bizarre that the authors couldn’t have seen these many intelligent criticisms about their artificial intelligence paper coming. Unless, of course, they did, and the allure of fawning fake news coverage and a convenient talking point about the denier-beloved Medieval Warming Period was just too great to resist.
                            There’s also the added bonus that the study was funded by a denier and that the authors work for an Australian industry-funded think tank. Doesn’t take any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, to deduce what’s going on here.
                            You can lead AI to denial, but you can’t make it think.


                            https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/2...-gets-schooled
                            A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                            Comment


                            • The TRUTH. Climate advocates are funny

                              Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                              They talk about science all day long but completely ignore it.

                              NASA fudges that data of a perfectly operational weather station by a full degree of warming.

                              Medwards refutes it by ignoring the topic and reposts cheap slander from a liar blog.

                              " Climate chànge" is what it is. Fake data, lies, and slandering anyone who questions it. The advocates call this "science."

                              I recommend you all go to desmogblog and look at that site for what it is. A cesspool of slandering anyone who questions climate change. Fake science any high school kid could see through.

                              And nothing about why NASA fudged the data of a perfectly operational weather station.
                              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                              Comment


                              • Ever read what you write and look in the mirror and find it funny how applicable it is to you? Are you that naive and ignorant?
                                A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X