Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,500 of 1926

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #1401

    Default The TRUTH. The greens hate the green.

    The earth is getting greener. Plants are growing better and faster all over the world.

    It flies in the face of "climate science" so nobody wants to admit something good is happening.

    The so-called "greens" hate it.
    The scientists won't admit it.
    Stanford's 20 year jasper ridge project says in numerous scientific articles it won't happen.
    Google "climate change crop failure" and get thousands and thousands of articles predicting crops will fail as they reach record high yields year after year.
    Go to google scholar and google scientific papers about "CO2 plant yield" and read THOUSANDS of scientific papers saying the benefit of increasing CO2 won't happen.

    Why are the scientists lying? No aspect of climate science is more obvious than this as empirical evidence continues to refute the spectacular lies from the "climate scientists". A parallel universe of fantasy and nonsense written in the scientific journals.

    Here's a video from NASA about the greening of the earth infused with the usual climate lies. Like smog from a chimney which isn't CO2...............

    Last edited by MrCombust; 14-03-2019 at 11:31 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  2. #1402

    Default The TRUTH. The CBC lies to you every day.

    It's important that people know the CBC lies about climate change every day. When you learn the truth it's just embarrassing.

    "Miami could disappear within a generation."

    Show me a tide gauge that shows that.

    "
    Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms have increased five-fold over the past 50 years"

    Could you show me the evidence of this ********?

    "Clive Hamilton is an Australian public intellectual who's written books about global warming, among them: Requiem for a Species and Defiant Earth."

    Yeah, standard "we're all gonna die" threat. Die of what? Does everybody just drop dead when the temperature rises?

    "The denial about climate change is widespread and profound. In fact, a term has been coined for it: "climate change denial disorder""

    No, it's not a disorder, it's called evidence. There's no evidence everybody is going to die if the temperature rises.

    "many now believe that stories about climate change are "fake news" or a "Chinese hoax"."

    Wow, CBC got one right.

    "The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity", by James Hansen

    "we're all gonna die" chant, again. Everybody join in...."we're all gonna die", "we're all gonna die", "we're all gonna die,........

    I wish someone would tell me how we're all gonna die when Canada becomes more like Florida. Far more people die in a Canadian winter than a Canadian summer.

    Published in 2009, from Wikipedia.................
    "Hansen says that we immediately need to cut back atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions such that atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at 350 ppm or less,"

    CO2 is now at 400 ppm, so I guess we've already blown by this "last chance". But now in 2019 we have "12 years left to save the planet", so I guess James Hansen from 2009 was wrong. I'm confident in 12 years we'll get another "last chance", the historical record on "last chances" is that they get reset every couple of years.

    Thanks CBC. You got any reporters with the balls to ask rudimentary credibility questions?

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/are-w...ange-1.4277614

    Empirical evidence, tide gauge from Jacksonville Florida
    Miami gonna be underwater at this rate of sea level rise?

    Last edited by MrCombust; 15-03-2019 at 03:08 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  3. #1403

    Default

    Must be fake news the billions of dollars new york is spending to protect their manhanttan from rising sea levels...

  4. #1404
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    ^^If you can't see the trend toward sea level rise at Jacksonville, Florida in the chart you posted above, you need to get your eyes checked.

    Here is a link to an excellent resource on sea level trends globally. While sea level is rising almost everywhere, the map also shows the phenomena of post-glacial land uplift in some northerly locations. This was discussed upthread when MrCombust posted the sea level guage for Stockholm.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl.../sltrends.html

  5. #1405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^If you can't see the trend toward sea level rise at Jacksonville, Florida in the chart you posted above, you need to get your eyes checked.

    Here is a link to an excellent resource on sea level trends globally. While sea level is rising almost everywhere, the map also shows the phenomena of post-glacial land uplift in some northerly locations. This was discussed upthread when MrCombust posted the sea level guage for Stockholm.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl.../sltrends.html
    Sea levels been rising for 20,000 years. Climate fools look at sea level rise and say "that's because of CO2". It makes me laugh.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #1406

    Default The TRUTH. Report on the brainwashing of kids in school

    When they teach "climate change" in school it isn't under the umbrella of science, it's just propaganda..........

    And this is why I post the truth here. The climate lies are now being taught in our schools. If you're a concerned parent read this report and cry.........

    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...portrait-5.pdf
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-03-2019 at 02:58 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #1407

    Default

    Yes the gwpf who hides who funds and supports them is to be believed over 99.9% consensus of the scientifc community...


    lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob...icy_Foundation

  8. #1408

    Default The TRUTH. The history of scotch, and witches causing climate change.

    It's refreshing when a smart person talks about climate change. Climate change of the past when witches were the cause.

    The climate models that are predicting global warming today are nothing more than superstition/astrology/nonsense. The result is programmed into the simulation before it is "run". Pretending these computer programs somehow predict the future (as the hand of the programmer is ignored) is nothing more than looking into a crystal ball.

    Sally Baliunas educates, and warns us, of calling out witches for cooking the weather. Today we attack "deniers" for not believing our sins of carbon use are causing bad weather.

    Learn about the making of Scotch, and the burning of witches who caused "climate changes" in past epochs............

    But mostly, enjoy listening to an intelligent person talking about climate change.

    How little we've progressed as we consider ourselves 'enlightened".

    Witches, Whisky, and Bad Weather. Sallie Baliunas, PhD (2005)

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

  9. #1409

    Default

    your theory sounds fine until you see the results are following what the 'crystal ball' has foretold

  10. #1410

    Default The TRUTH. Mark Steyn reflects on his climate change battles

    Mark Steyn is a political intellectual and comedian. He was sued by Michael Mann when he called the hockey stick graph a fraud. This video is about the dark, political side of global warming. The vicious attacks you undergo when you question the mantra. Science is open discourse, exchange of ideas, debate, it's not a consensus.

    Learn what the climate machine is doing to make sure you don't oppose them in the media. It's anathema to science. Many responses to my posts reflect the disregard for science as well.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-03-2019 at 05:20 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #1411

    Default

    Yes what a great work that guy is

    Mark Steyn attended the King Edward’s School in Birmingham, U.K., leaving in 1978, at the age of 18. Steyn does not appear to have a college education or any background in climate science. [1], [2]
    https://www.desmogblog.com/mark-steyn

    Now I don't consider myself a big credentialed expert or anything. I simply looked at a graph Michael E Mann hadn't been anywhere near and drew the obvious conclusion. Gave it two minutes' thought, if that. The reason it's taking climate science so much longer to draw that obvious conclusion is because ideology and the ideological enforcers like Mann got in the way.” [6]

    The Phoenix compared him to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, writing that Steyn possesses “a shrill, mocking tone of moral certainty that consigns those who disagree with him to the status of appeasers or even terrorists; and a willingness to distort, misrepresent, and omit facts in order to advance his argument.”

    We should take this guys uneducated opinion... why? He doesn't have a background on climate science, but he, like MrCombust are full of sh!it
    Last edited by Medwards; 19-03-2019 at 02:29 PM.

  12. #1412
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Steyn's a very good writer sometimes. Shame he's such a dink, as well. He was at the center of bunch of human rights tribunals a few years back for articles he wrote for MacLean's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...n%27s_magazine

    In that particular incident, I think he was on the right side of things, at least insofar as it's ridiculous for tribunals to be handing out fines and penalties for what should be protected free speech. That whole mess was a big reason that section 13 of the Human Rights Act was repealed.

    But even there, you could see how massive the chip on his shoulder is.

  13. #1413

    Default

    Why all these posts on the psychology, ideology and airy fairy subjectivity of the scientific community when the data and facts should be enough to debunk their findings and projections.

    On this four decade old debate I have to keep asking what the data collections on the anti-global-warning advocates is showing? Add to that what does their computer programmed forecasts show? If the scientific community is deliberately or guilelessly biasing the results, then the anti group’s coding should reveal the differences.

  14. #1414

    Default

    Have we discovered the truth yet?

    Ps did ya hear Hillary is running a Child Slave Ring out of the basement of a DC Pizza Joint #Truth

  15. #1415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Have we discovered the truth yet?

    Ps did ya hear Hillary is running a Child Slave Ring out of the basement of a DC Pizza Joint #Truth
    Nobody's begging you to be intelligent.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  16. #1416
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^If you can't see the trend toward sea level rise at Jacksonville, Florida in the chart you posted above, you need to get your eyes checked.

    Here is a link to an excellent resource on sea level trends globally. While sea level is rising almost everywhere, the map also shows the phenomena of post-glacial land uplift in some northerly locations. This was discussed upthread when MrCombust posted the sea level guage for Stockholm.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl.../sltrends.html
    Sea levels been rising for 20,000 years.
    Source?

  17. #1417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^If you can't see the trend toward sea level rise at Jacksonville, Florida in the chart you posted above, you need to get your eyes checked.

    Here is a link to an excellent resource on sea level trends globally. While sea level is rising almost everywhere, the map also shows the phenomena of post-glacial land uplift in some northerly locations. This was discussed upthread when MrCombust posted the sea level guage for Stockholm.

    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl.../sltrends.html
    Sea levels been rising for 20,000 years.
    Source?
    Erosion



    Oh, how about more fish. Fish displace water. Fertilize the oceans with carbon and if as MRCombust says, that’s good for growth, then the oceans will fill with more plants and little and big fishies and they will push up the water levels and... cause flooding of cities.

    Plus we’re sucking most of the oil out from under the land so land will subside and the water rise and... cause flooding of cities.

    Plus isn’t carbon black? So it absorbs heat. Heat causes expansion. So let carbon settle on the world’s oceans and they will heat up and expand and... cause flooding of cities.

    Plus if carbon is black and it lands on ice. The ice will melt and run off the land and into the sea and...


    Source: pulled it all out of my ***
    Last edited by KC; 21-03-2019 at 07:55 PM.

  18. #1418

    Default

    Carbon was made up by Hillary so she could kill white jobs and force their kids into here pizza making sex trade.

    Source: 8 chan

  19. #1419

    Default The TRUTH. "Climate" vs "weather".

    "Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years. Climate information includes the statistical weather information that tells us about the normal weather, as well as the range of weather extremes for a location."

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html

    How many "climate" data points do we have from 1989 - 2019?

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

  20. #1420

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    "Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years. Climate information includes the statistical weather information that tells us about the normal weather, as well as the range of weather extremes for a location."

    https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html

    How many "climate" data points do we have from 1989 - 2019?

    One. (1)
    Do you mean (no pun intended) one normal temperature point? You’ll have another for each of wind speed, precipitation, etc. Of course the normal as in mean, says very little about what is normal. Averaging does that. Averages have done as much to destroy people’s understanding of reality as they have done to explain reality.

    Tomorrow you could have a new normal over the same period of 30 years. The the day after a new normal. The old rolling average.

    (I once worked with a gal doing her PhD on jump diffusion. It would be neat if that explained some weather changes.)
    Last edited by KC; 22-03-2019 at 04:31 PM.

  21. #1421

    Default The TRUTH. The climate communists take a page from Stalin's playbook.

    Anybody read 1984? Anybody remember, or read about, how Stalin rewrote the history books?
    Read about how Greenpeace got google's help to erase Patrick Moore.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/gre...k-moore-again/

    Greenpeace doesn't like Patrick Moore so they say.............



    But the opposite is true. It is Greenpeace that no longer represents Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, and their only founding scientist.......
    Greenpeace is even lying about who founded their organization.
    What a sad day for Greenpeace, they are now run by lying climate thugs.
    I myself used to believe in their causes.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-03-2019 at 11:33 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #1422

    Default The TRUTH. Let's review the musings of "the gateway", U of A's student run newspaper.......

    More Edmonton content as promised..............

    What happens when you teach students fairy tales in a place of supposed "higher learning"?

    What grade would you give the gateway if this were presented as "science"? This crap certainly deserves an "A+++", for political activism. Too bad the gateway says this on their website.......... "The Gateway Student Journalism Society is a not-for-profit, apolitical society".

    Let's review a few articles published in "the gateway".

    1) "Clear, practical action plans will motivate people to care about climate change"
    https://www.thegatewayonline.ca/2018...limate-change/

    "Today, humanity faces an existential threat........."

    Starts with the standard "we're all gonna die" threat.

    "........a multitude of ways to deal with environmental decay........", "too many corporations to avoid, too many products to boycott......", "Simple everyday changes like avoiding environmentally harmful products can do wonders for the environment in the long run,"

    Although "climate change" may be part of "environmentalism", "environmentalism" isn't "climate change". Avoiding harmful products, or boycotting corporations will not do "wonders" to help with climate change.

    2)"
    We need to think systemically if we want to halt climate change
    https://www.thegatewayonline.ca/2018...limate-change/

    Individual solutions can only do so much, especially with the fate of the Earth on the line"

    Starts off with the usual "we're all gonna die" if we don't do something.

    [picture of smoke coming out of a chimney]

    Smoke you see coming out of a chimney isn't CO2. This is the usual fraudulent tactic of conflating "climate change" with pollution.

    "Theres a possibility that we can still stave off our impending doom,........" Again?

    "
    damage wrought by large corporations", "corporations must be held accountable."

    So climate change is the fault of corporations? Corporations that build bridges, bring food, build cars, build houses? Not our fault? Heating our houses, using computers, going to University?

    "
    If we dont hold those in power accountable now, we wont get another opportunity later."

    Oh, lovely. A call to arms! Let's attack those in power that are causing "climate change". Lets'pretend we're not heating our houses, driving cars, eating food from California, going to school. Let's pretend "THOSE GUYS" are the ones causing climate change.

    3)"
    UCPs climate denial unacceptable in face of worsening wildfire trends"
    https://www.thegatewayonline.ca/2018...ldfire-trends/

    "An ominous smoke greeted Edmonton on the morning of August 15, symbolizing the worst pollution in the citys history"
    "
    This months smoke is a visceral reminder that climate change is impacting...................."

    How many times has "the gateway" confused smoke with CO2? Three articles, three times.

    "
    are all expected to increase in magnitude and duration due to climate change"

    Well, that's a refreshing change. At least they know these are PREDICTIONS THAT HAVEN'T COME TRUE YET.

    "
    Undeterred by facts, the United Conservative Party continues to deny basic climate science"

    PREDICTIONS AREN'T FACTS, ok?

    " On August 10, Calgary hit a new all-time record temperature of 36.4 degrees Celsius."


    Well I guess that beats the old record highs before Calgary was a city.........


    "Highest temperatures ever recorded in Calgary:


    36.1 C July 25, 1933
    36.1 C July 15, 1919
    35.6 C July 22, 1936
    35.6 C Aug. 3, 1914
    35.3 C July 26, 1984"
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-03-2019 at 01:30 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #1423

    Default

    Source of your figures please? Everything seems to disagree with your findings on google search.

  24. #1424

    Default

    Missed at least one from last year. Of course, it was a record all time high so he omitted it.

    Friday marks hottest day ever recorded in Calgary
    August 10, 2018

    Calgary experienced its hottest day on record as the mercury jumped to 37 C on Friday afternoon.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4382491/f...orded-calgary/
    Also, from the same link, note the number of days well above the average.



    Last edited by kkozoriz; 27-03-2019 at 02:05 PM.

  25. #1425

    Default The TRUTH. Professor Peter Ridd sues his University

    What happens when you tell the truth about climate change in a University? You get fired. No wonder there's a fake 97% consensus.

    Peter Ridd has been studying the great barrier reef for 35 years. For saying it's not dead, he got fired. He's suing his University. Updates are available on youtube.

    Here's his laughable story that should make you cry.

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

  26. #1426
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Much more information here: https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd

    A rebuttal here: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...niversity-says

    Summary: jackass gets fired for being a crappy scientist with a big mouth, proceeds to whine about it.

  27. #1427

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Much more information here: https://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ridd

    A rebuttal here: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...niversity-says

    Summary: jackass gets fired for being a crappy scientist with a big mouth, proceeds to whine about it.
    It's funny how climate advocates constantly scream "SCIENCE" but prefer liar website blogs over an actual scientist.

    You got anything other than a liar blog to show Peter Ridd is wrong and the barrier reef is dead?

    "The 2300 kilometre (1430 mile) Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef system in the world. You can swim, snorkel, dive and sail this living masterpiece."
    https://www.australia.com/en-ca/plac...rier-reef.html
    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-03-2019 at 02:09 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  28. #1428
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Liar website blogs? That's real rich coming from someone whose posts are roughly 90% copy/pasted from Anthony Watts or similar. You're not fooling anyone here.

  29. #1429

    Default The TRUTH. Edmonton, the city global warming forgot.

    More Edmonton content................

    "The highest temperature recorded within the City of Edmonton was 37.2 C (99.0 F), on June 29, 1937."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton

    80 years of global warming. The data is being constantly fudged upwards. The city has grown (causing a heat island effect), since 1937.

    And yet, the 1937 record still holds.

    But who cares about actual data? Data is just an inconvenience to the global warming advocates. Software simulations are where it's at. Software simulations and liar blogs are all the proof they need.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-03-2019 at 04:13 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  30. #1430

    Default

    I really don’t understand why the odd data point matters to you so much. Global warming should create new high temperatures and record highs should result (on the statistical tail). However some past extreme record could stand for a long long time.

  31. #1431

    Default The TRUTH. The foreign, Anti-oil. anti-tar sands playbook

    How Foreign-backed Anti-oil Activists Infiltrated Canadas Government
    The story begins in 2008, when a group of radical American anti-fossil-fuel NGOs created their Tar Sands Campaign Strategy 2.1 designed explicitly to landlock the Canadian oil sands by delaying or blocking the expansion or development of key pipelines. The Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, along with environmentalist charities, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the US-based Tides Foundation, a murky organization that provides cover as a legal laundering service that can funnel donations into activist groups, without revealing the source.


    But the campaigners received a bonus beyond their wildest dreams when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed one of their most dedicated eco-warriors, Gerald Butts (formerly president and CEO of WWF Canada, a Tides campaign partner) as his principal secretary. Mr. Butts used his new powerful position to bring other former campaigners with him: Marlo Raynolds, chief of staff to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, is past executive director of the Tides-backed Pembina Institute. Zo Caron, chief of staff to the minister for natural resources, is also a former WWF Canada official. Sarah Goodman, on the prime ministers staff, is a former vice-president of Tides Canada. With these anti-oil activists at the epicentre of federal power, its no wonder the oil industry, and hundreds of thousands of workers, have plummeted into political and policy purgatory.


    <https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/16/gwyn-morgan-talk-about-collusion-how-foreign-backed-anti-oil-activists-infiltrated-canadas-government/>

    Here is the anti tar sands playbook................

    <http://www.offsettingresistance.ca/TarSandsCoalition-StrategyPaper2008.pdf>

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

  32. #1432
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Because it makes it a lot easier to "prove" your point if you can omit
    or pick and choose data. Or in this
    case, omitting basically all of it except on point to make a linear trendline. And of course, unless we surpass that one trendline (a single point of data), the rest of it can be ignored no matter what it says.

  33. #1433

    Default The TRUTH. Calgary, the city global warming forgot

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Because it makes it a lot easier to "prove" your point if you can omit
    or pick and choose data. Or in this
    case, omitting basically all of it except on point to make a linear trendline. And of course, unless we surpass that one trendline (a single point of data), the rest of it can be ignored no matter what it says.
    " On August 10 2019, Calgary hit a new all-time record temperature of 36.4 degrees Celsius."

    36.1 C — July 25, 1933
    36.1 C — July 15, 1919
    35.6 C — July 22, 1936
    35.6 C — Aug. 3, 1914
    35.3 C — July 26, 1984"

    So, the previous record high was 36.1 in 1919?

    100 years of global warming, the data being fudged upwards, and a city grows up around the thermometer.

    0.3 degrees of warming in 100 years?

    Does that sound like a drastic, exponential rise in temperature?

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

  34. #1434

    Default The TRUTH. North China, the continent global warming forgot

    NASA needs to go to China and show them how to fudge data................

    "Satellite-based regional warming hiatus in China and its implicationHighlights

    •The satellite data is used to investigate regional climate warming.
    •Characterizing the spatiotemporal trends in near-surface air temperature in China.
    A regional warming hiatus is diagnosed for the period 2001–2015 in China.
    •We estimate the land surface temperature-induced warming during the period.
    Greenhouse gases-induced warming is suppressed by natural variability.


    Abstract

    The slowdown in global warming since 1998, often termed the global warming hiatus. Reconciling the “hiatus” is a main focus in the 2013 climate changeconference. Accurately characterizing the spatiotemporal trends in surface air temperature (SAT) is helps to better understand the “hiatus” during the period. This article presents a satellite-based regional warming simulation to diagnose the “hiatus” for 2001–2015 in China. Results show that the rapid warming is mainly in western and southern China, such as Yunnan (mean  standard deviation: 0.39  0.26 C (10 yr)−1), Tibet (0.22  0.25 C (10 yr)−1), Taiwan (0.21  0.25 C (10 yr)−1), and Sichuan (0.19  0.25 C (10 yr)−1). On the contrary, there is a cooling trend by 0.29  0.26 C (10 yr)−1 in northern China during the recent 15 yr, where a warming rate about 0.38  0.11 C (10 yr)−1 happened for 1960–2000. Overall, satellite simulation shows that the warming rate is reduced to −0.02 C (10 yr)−1. The changes in underlying surface, Earth's orbit, solar radiation and atmospheric counter radiation (USEOSRACR) cause China's temperature rise about 0.02 C (10 yr)−1. A combination of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other natural forcing (ONAT, predominately volcanic activity, and atmosphere and ocean circulation) explain another part of temperature trend by approximately −0.04 C (10 yr)−1. We conclude that there is a regional warming hiatus, a pause or a slowdown in China, and imply that GHGs-induced warming is suppressed by ONAT in the early 21st century.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969718331978

    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-03-2019 at 06:10 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  35. #1435

    Default The TRUTH. Antarctica, the (other) continent global warming forgot

    "Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphereAuthor links open overlay panelHighlights



    •We examine climate variability since the 1950s in the Antarctic Peninsula region.
    •This region is often cited among those with the fastest warming rates on Earth.
    A re-assessment of climate data shows a cooling trend initiated around 1998/1999.


    Abstract

    The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54 C/decade during 1951–2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 C/decade during 1999–2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979–2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969716327152



    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-03-2019 at 06:00 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  36. #1436

    Default The TRUTH. Florida under water blamed on climate change

    Florida builds subdivisions below high tide. When they get a high tide they blame it on climate change. Hysterical.

    Compare the nonsense in this video to the Miami tide gauge......




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

  37. #1437

    Default The TRUTH. Alberta, the province global warming forgot.

    Alberta maximum temperature........

    43.3 C*/*109.9 F July 21, 1931
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  38. #1438

    Default The TRUTH. Canada, the country global warming forgot

    Top ten highest temperatures ever recorded in Canada...........

    July 5, 1937 Yellow Grass and Midale, Saskatchewan 45.0 C (113 F)[1]
    July 11 and 12, 1936 St. Albans and Emerson, Manitoba 44.4 C (112 F)[2]
    July 16 and 17, 1941 Lillooet and Lytton, British Columbia 44.4 C (112 F)[3]
    July 5, 1937 Regina, Saskatchewan 43.9 C (111 F)[4]
    July 11, 1936 Brandon, Manitoba 43.3 C (110 F)[5]
    July 21, 1931 Bassano Dams, Alberta 43.3 C (110 F)[6]
    July 27, 1998 Osoyoos, British Columbia 42.8 C (109.0 F)[7]
    July 11 and 12, 1936 Atikokan, Ontario 42.2 C (108 F)[8]
    July 13, 1936 Fort Frances, Ontario 42.2 C (108 F)[9]
    July 11, 1936 Winnipeg, Manitoba 42.2 C (108 F)
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  39. #1439

    Default

    And didn’t those temperatures and the duration lead to an area being called the dust bowl because of what happened to agriculture in the west.



    http://climateandchange.usask.ca/his...history-legacy


    The Heat Waves Of The 1930’s – NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-of-the-1930s/


    1936 North American heat wave - Wikipedia
    Excerpt:

    “The 1936 North American heat wave was one of the most severe heat waves in the modern history of North America. It took place in the middle of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s and caused catastrophic human suffering and an enormous economic toll. The death toll exceeded 5,000, and huge numbers of crops were destroyed by the heat and lack of moisture. Many state and city record high temperatures set during the 1936 heat wave stood until the summer 2012 North American heat wave.[2][3] The 1936 heat wave followed one of the coldest winters on record.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_N...ican_heat_wave

    Bolding mine




    List of extreme temperatures in Canada - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ures_in_Canada
    Last edited by KC; 31-03-2019 at 06:56 PM.

  40. #1440

    Default The TRUTH. "Canada warming twice as fast"

    Big news today, the media is having a festival. Canada is warming twice as fast.

    Here's where you can find the report..................

    https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/

    Let's look for the usual signs of fraud..................

    First of all, note my post below about the 10 highest temperature records in Canada.

    Chapter 4

    "............. Changes in the observing system, such as changes in instruments or changes in location of the measurement site, must be accounted for.............."

    In other words, the report isn't based on actual readings, they've fudged the data.

    "The observing system is also unevenly distributed across Canada, with much of northern Canada having a very sparse network that has been in place for only about 70 years. There is
    very high confidence1 that temperature datasets are sufficiently reliable for computing regional averages "

    In other words, they used a software simulation to fabricate the data.

    So the readings they DO have were fudged to show more warming, and the readings they DIDN'T have were fabricated from the data they fudged. They then release this and say they have "very high confidence". And while they may have a high degree of confidence what they won't do is put error bars on the graphs, or tell the public in the press releases EVERYTHING is based on made up data. Then again, how big an error bar would you put on data that is completely fabricated?

    The new, made up data will be supplied to NOAA and NASA and will become part of the worldwide temperature (GISS) that NOAA and NASA publish.

    Don't forget Ladies and Gentlemen of Alberta and Edmonton, there are satellites that cover all of Canada comprehensively. No need to worry about moved stations, and no need to fabricate data that doesn't exist. But we all know what the satellite data shows.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 02-04-2019 at 01:13 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  41. #1441
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus

    Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions. For example, in the discussion of a 2011 paper by Humlum et al. in our supplementary material, we note,The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.
    We found that the ‘curve fitting’ approach also used in the Humlum paper is another common theme in contrarian climate research. ‘Curve fitting’ describes taking several different variables, usually with regular cycles, and stretching them out until the combination fits a given curve (in this case, temperature data).
    You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.

  42. #1442
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Earth's carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, study says

    Carbon dioxide – the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming – has reached levels in our atmosphere not seen in 3 million years, scientists announced this week in a new study.
    At that time, sea levels were as much as 65 feet higher than they are now, Greenland was mostly green and Antarctica had trees.
    I know it will be easy for certain users to dismiss this because sea levels aren't that high, and Antarctica doesn't have trees. But anyone with a basic level of scientific understanding should be able to grasp that these changes don't happen instantaneously, there will be a lag between current temperatures and CO2 levels. Even if we were to stop emitting now, the current levels of CO2 will continue to raise the earths temperatures.

  43. #1443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Earth's carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, study says

    Carbon dioxide – the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming – has reached levels in our atmosphere not seen in 3 million years, scientists announced this week in a new study.
    At that time, sea levels were as much as 65 feet higher than they are now, Greenland was mostly green and Antarctica had trees.
    I know it will be easy for certain users to dismiss this because sea levels aren't that high, and Antarctica doesn't have trees. But anyone with a basic level of scientific understanding should be able to grasp that these changes don't happen instantaneously, there will be a lag between current temperatures and CO2 levels. Even if we were to stop emitting now, the current levels of CO2 will continue to raise the earths temperatures.
    Basic science (physics) shows us that CO2 doesn't affect temperature much. My tagline below says doubling CO2 will only cause 1 degree of warming. That's basic science, and it's not in dispute.

    125,000 years ago hippos swam in the Thames river. 12,000 years ago camels wandered Edmonton. So how did that happen if CO2 hasn't been this high in 3 million years? Simple. CO2 isn't controlling the temperature.

    Simple facts.

    Trotting out irrelevant facts doesn't change basic physics.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 07-04-2019 at 02:47 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  44. #1444
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Your tagline continues to misquote Wikipedia.

  45. #1445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus

    Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions. For example, in the discussion of a 2011 paper by Humlum et al. in our supplementary material, we note,The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earths climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.
    We found that the curve fitting approach also used in the Humlum paper is another common theme in contrarian climate research. Curve fitting describes taking several different variables, usually with regular cycles, and stretching them out until the combination fits a given curve (in this case, temperature data).
    You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory thats overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 23% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
    The 97% consensus is fake and stupid. Everybody who looks into the surveys knows that.

    If you ever really want to bother, refer to my posts on the fake surveys and the liars that produced them.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #1446
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Resorting to calling scientific consensus fake news? You're getting lazy.

    How 'bout showing some proof that it's "fake and stupid".

  47. #1447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Resorting to calling scientific consensus fake news? You're getting lazy.

    How 'bout showing some proof that it's "fake and stupid".
    Read my posts 30, 46, and 71. But it's real data. Try not to hurt yourself.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 09-04-2019 at 11:36 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  48. #1448

    Default The TRUTH. Global warming strikes the Sonoran desert

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

  49. #1449

    Default The TRUTH. Global warming hysteria vs reality

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

  50. #1450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I really dont understand why the odd data point matters to you so much. Global warming should create new high temperatures and record highs should result (on the statistical tail). However some past extreme record could stand for a long long time.
    "'Longest winter of my life': Edmonton breaks record with historic cold stretch

    "broke their record for most consecutive days of temperatures at or below freezing."

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/longes...etch-1.3885288
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  51. #1451
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Big news today, the media is having a festival. Canada is warming twice as fast.

    Here's where you can find the report..................

    https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/

    Let's look for the usual signs of fraud..................

    First of all, note my post below about the 10 highest temperature records in Canada.

    Chapter 4

    "............. Changes in the observing system, such as changes in instruments or changes in location of the measurement site, must be accounted for.............."

    In other words, the report isn't based on actual readings, they've fudged the data.

    "The observing system is also unevenly distributed across Canada, with much of northern Canada having a very sparse network that has been in place for only about 70 years. There is
    very high confidence1 that temperature datasets are sufficiently reliable for computing regional averages "

    In other words, they used a software simulation to fabricate the data.

    So the readings they DO have were fudged to show more warming, and the readings they DIDN'T have were fabricated from the data they fudged. They then release this and say they have "very high confidence". And while they may have a high degree of confidence what they won't do is put error bars on the graphs, or tell the public in the press releases EVERYTHING is based on made up data. Then again, how big an error bar would you put on data that is completely fabricated?
    The above post is so full of lies and misrepresentations. I frankly don't wish to waste my time countering them one by one. Instead I will quote directly from page 125 of the report cited by MrCombust:

    The annual average temperature in Canada increased by 1.7C (likely range 1.1C 2.3C) between 1948 and 2016 (updated from Vincent et al., 2015; Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1), roughly twice the increase observed for the Earth as a whole (0.8C for 19482016 according to the global mean surface temperature dataset produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,UK, HadCRUT4 [Osborn and Jones, 2014]).

    Warming was not uniform across seasons, with considerably more warming in winter than in summer. The mean temperature increased by 3.3C in winter, 1.7C in spring, 1.5C in summer, and 1.7C in autumn between 1948 and 2016 (see Figure 4.4 and Table 4.1). The changes in temperatures are significant at the 5% level (i.e., there is only a 5% possibility that such changes are due to chance). As well, warming was unevenly distributed across the country. The largest increases in the annual mean temperature were in the northwest, where it increased by more than 3C in some areas.

    Annual mean temperature over northern Canada increased by 2.3C (likely range 1.7 C3.0C) from 1948 to 2016, or roughly three times the global mean warming rate. Warming was much weaker in the southeast of Canada,where average temperature increased by less than 1C in some maritime areas. Winter warming was predominant in northern British Columbia and Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and western Nunavut, ranging from 4C to 6C over the 19482016 period. Spring had a similar warming pattern, but with smaller magnitude. Summer warming was much weaker than that in winter and spring, but the magnitude of the warming was generally more uniform across the country than during other seasons. During autumn, most of the warming was observed in the northeast regions of Canada (mainly in northern Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and northern Quebec).
    One additional observation. No software simulations were used to fabricate data. Computing regional averages refers to combining data points based on actual measurement with the acknowledgement that fewer of those data points exist in northern Canada compared to southern Canada (see Figure 4.1 on page 122 for a map of the observing stations).

  52. #1452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I really don’t understand why the odd data point matters to you so much. Global warming should create new high temperatures and record highs should result (on the statistical tail). However some past extreme record could stand for a long long time.
    "'Longest winter of my life': Edmonton breaks record with historic cold stretch

    "broke their record for most consecutive days of temperatures at or below freezing."

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/longes...etch-1.3885288
    Exactly. In a much hotter world of the future, the once in a thousand year oddity could still create record lows etc. That’s the nature of some kinds of volatile states.

    Benjamin Graham once said of stock market prices something to the effect that: in the short term the market is a voting machine and in the long term it is a weighing machine.

    That comment has a nice mental feel to it and does reflect the nature of information educating people over time. However, we are never in that long term, we are always in the short term and can never escape living in the moment. You can see the influence of the moment in people’s misunderstanding of volatility, cycles, etc.

  53. #1453

    Default

    I’ve posted other things on c2e from Taleb. One, about food, would also be very relevant to potential scientific bias in any fear mongering about climate change.


    However I see that he’s directly addressed climate change here:

    (Note: he’s the author of Fooled by Randomness)


    Nassim Taleb. Climate Change Risk.
    Scroll to:
    “Climate models and precautionary measures”
    https://www.thendobetter.com/investi...te-change-risk


    Further discussion:

    Climate models and precautionary measures – Climate Etc.
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/05/c...nary-measures/
    Last edited by KC; 10-04-2019 at 05:43 PM.

  54. #1454

    Default

    Here is one for MrCombust

    Global warming is caused by US Postal rates



    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/sho...ostal-charges/
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #1455

  56. #1456

    Default

    ^ Climate change deniers and flat earth society members want immediate legislation to protect then from the impending threat of the black hole that is 55 million years away.

    They are requesting $4 Billion dollars to be spent on special high intensity light bulbs to deflect the black hole or at least make it a shade of grey.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  57. #1457
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    No but 1.7 is. And 2.3 is nearly triple.

    edit: the comment this replied to is gone.
    Last edited by Channing; 11-04-2019 at 06:45 AM.

  58. #1458

  59. #1459

    Default The TRUTH. Tabloid science.

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Big news today, the media is having a festival. Canada is warming twice as fast.

    Here's where you can find the report..................

    https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/

    Let's look for the usual signs of fraud..................

    First of all, note my post below about the 10 highest temperature records in Canada.

    Chapter 4

    "............. Changes in the observing system, such as changes in instruments or changes in location of the measurement site, must be accounted for.............."

    In other words, the report isn't based on actual readings, they've fudged the data.

    "The observing system is also unevenly distributed across Canada, with much of northern Canada having a very sparse network that has been in place for only about 70 years. There is
    very high confidence1 that temperature datasets are sufficiently reliable for computing regional averages "

    In other words, they used a software simulation to fabricate the data.

    So the readings they DO have were fudged to show more warming, and the readings they DIDN'T have were fabricated from the data they fudged. They then release this and say they have "very high confidence". And while they may have a high degree of confidence what they won't do is put error bars on the graphs, or tell the public in the press releases EVERYTHING is based on made up data. Then again, how big an error bar would you put on data that is completely fabricated?
    The above post is so full of lies and misrepresentations. I frankly don't wish to waste my time countering them one by one. Instead I will quote directly from page 125 of the report cited by MrCombust:

    The annual average temperature in Canada increased by 1.7C (likely range 1.1C –2.3C) between 1948 and 2016 (updated from Vincent et al., 2015; Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1), roughly twice the increase observed for the Earth as a whole (0.8C for 1948–2016 according to the global mean surface temperature dataset produced by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,UK, HadCRUT4 [Osborn and Jones, 2014]).

    Warming was not uniform across seasons, with considerably more warming in winter than in summer. The mean temperature increased by 3.3C in winter, 1.7C in spring, 1.5C in summer, and 1.7C in autumn between 1948 and 2016 (see Figure 4.4 and Table 4.1). The changes in temperatures are significant at the 5% level (i.e., there is only a 5% possibility that such changes are due to chance). As well, warming was unevenly distributed across the country. The largest increases in the annual mean temperature were in the northwest, where it increased by more than 3C in some areas.

    Annual mean temperature over northern Canada increased by 2.3C (likely range 1.7 C–3.0C) from 1948 to 2016, or roughly three times the global mean warming rate. Warming was much weaker in the southeast of Canada,where average temperature increased by less than 1C in some maritime areas. Winter warming was predominant in northern British Columbia and Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and western Nunavut, ranging from 4C to 6C over the 1948–2016 period. Spring had a similar warming pattern, but with smaller magnitude. Summer warming was much weaker than that in winter and spring, but the magnitude of the warming was generally more uniform across the country than during other seasons. During autumn, most of the warming was observed in the northeast regions of Canada (mainly in northern Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and northern Quebec).
    One additional observation. No software simulations were used to fabricate data. Computing regional averages refers to combining data points based on actual measurement with the acknowledgement that fewer of those data points exist in northern Canada compared to southern Canada (see Figure 4.1 on page 122 for a map of the observing stations).
    "The annual average temperature in Canada increased by 1.7C (likely range 1.1C –2.3C)"

    How much did Canada warm? Between 1.1 and 2.3? 1.1C isn't double 0.8C. I guess they just averaged the "likely" range and got double. But is Canada warming at 1.7? Or not? I guess it makes for a good tabloid headline if you arbitrarily use 1.7.

    People that do this aren't scientists, have no business disseminating the data, writing reports, drawing conclusions, or advising policy makers.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 11-04-2019 at 01:55 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  60. #1460

    Default

    It's hard to understand how some parts of Canada may be affected differently than others parts, sometimes providing a range and then using an average to show the trends across the country. But if math is hard, maybe climate science is a subject you should leave for people who have the proper studies and certifications and education for...

    Although math may be hard, math can be fun:
    Range: https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitio...atistics-.html
    Average: https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/average.html

    Hopefully you can put 2+2 together here, but as proven above in your own posts, I dont have much hope., but rather/maybe/highly likely you'll continue to ignore my hard challenging posts to you cause it's easier for you to just recycle the same gibberish and bullshittery you have been since your inception here, and call all the esteemed scientists around the world liars...

  61. #1461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It's hard to understand how some parts of Canada may be affected differently than others parts, sometimes providing a range and then using an average to show the trends across the country. But if math is hard, maybe climate science is a subject you should leave for people who have the proper studies and certifications and education for...

    Although math may be hard, math can be fun:
    Range: https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitio...atistics-.html
    Average: https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/average.html

    Hopefully you can put 2+2 together here, but as proven above in your own posts, I dont have much hope., but rather/maybe/highly likely you'll continue to ignore my hard challenging posts to you cause it's easier for you to just recycle the same gibberish and bullshittery you have been since your inception here, and call all the esteemed scientists around the world liars...
    Your post is neither hard, nor challenging. The profanity in your post is another abuse of the forum rules.

    Your links do not address, nor do they validate, the arbitrary selection of a value within a range.

    If Home Depot is selling returned pipe that is 10' to 12' long, does that mean if you buy a pipe it will be 11' long? No. the arbitrary selection of a value is invalid.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  62. #1462
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    I'm not sure you understand what is science, how math works, or who scientists are.

    For references, please read all your posts.

  63. #1463

    Default

    If you cant understand range and averages, I'm at a loss on how to further communicate basic principles of climate that is understood by most people.


    This thread has long run its course and its time to be shutdown

  64. #1464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    If you cant understand range and averages, I'm at a loss on how to further communicate basic principles of climate that is understood by most people.


    This thread has long run its course and its time to be shutdown
    It doesn't matter if I don't understand averages. It's not an average. There's only one Canada. The range is 1.1 to 2.3. They have no idea what the warming rate is. It could even be outside the likely range. To claim they know Canada is warming twice as fast isn't science, but it is fraud.

    I know you want to shut down the discussion. That's what climate change is all about. Making fraudulent claims then refusing to defend, discuss, or validate the data. Followed by name calling, attack and accusation.

    Yes you want to shut down the fastest growing thread on connect toedmonton.

    Profanity, name calling, and attacks you exemplify what climate change science is.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 11-04-2019 at 05:21 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  65. #1465

    Default The TRUTH. 63 excuses for the pause

    The pause in global warming continues. It's not warming as much as expected or predicted.

    This blog keeps a record of the excuses for the pause, including "pause?, what pause?".

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...r-18-year.html

    My two favourite excuses are "Faster trade winds", and "Slower trade winds". Another one of my favourites is "the ocean ate my global warming'.

    1) Low solar activity
    2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
    3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
    4) Montreal Protocol
    5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
    6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
    7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
    Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
    9) Stadium Waves
    10) ‘Coincidence!’
    11) Pine aerosols
    12) It's "not so unusual" and "no more than natural variability"
    13) "Scientists looking at the wrong 'lousy' data" http://
    14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
    15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
    16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
    17) AMOC ocean oscillation
    1 "Global brightening" has stopped
    19) "Ahistorical media"
    20) "It's the hottest decade ever" Decadal averages used to hide the 'pause' [debunked]
    21) Few El Ninos since 1999
    22) Temperature variations fall "roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results"
    23) "Not scientifically relevant"
    24) The wrong type of El Ninos
    25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
    26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
    27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
    2 ENSO

    29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
    30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
    31) "Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason"
    32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important

    33) NAO & PDO
    34) Solar cycles
    35) Scientists forgot "to look at our models and observations and ask questions"
    36) The models really do explain the "pause" [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

    37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
    3 Trenberth's "missing heat" is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
    39) "Slowdown" due to "a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum"
    40) The "pause" is "probably just barely statistically significant" with 95% confidence:
    The "slowdown" is "probably just barely statistically significant" and not "meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change"
    41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:

    The "recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate" because "anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate."
    [Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate]
    42) Trenberth's 'missing heat' really is missing and is not "supported by the data itself" in the "real ocean":
    "it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some...layer of the ocean ... is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic." [Josh Willis]
    43) Ocean Variability:
    "After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That's actually quite impressive progress."
    44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
    " I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do."-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says "knows the data better than I do," says in the very same NYT article that "it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some...layer of the ocean ... is robustly supported by the data itself" - Josh Willis
    45) We don't have a theory that fits all of the data:
    "Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the 'pause'] that fits all of the data" [Andrew Dessler]
    46) We don't have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the "pause" is due to such natural cycles:
    "If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle." [Andrew Dessler]
    47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
    "this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future." [Andrew Dessler]
    4 Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

    It's the Atlantic, not Pacific, and "the hiatus in the warming...should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke" [John Michael Wallace]
    49) The other papers with excuses for the "pause" are not "science done right":
    " If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system." [Carl Wunsch]
    50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway:

    "The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up...How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?"
    51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
    [Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]
    52) 'Unusual climate anomaly' of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
    53) Competition" with two natural ocean oscillations
    54) 'Global quasi-stationary waves' from natural ocean oscillations

    55) Reduced warming in North Atlantic subpolar gyre
    56) Satellites underestimate cooling from volcanic aerosols
    57) Increase in mid- and upper level clouds
    5 Colder eastern Pacific and reduced heat loss in other oceans
    59) A "zoo of short-term trends"
    60) IPCC Synthesis Report excuses for the "pause": volcanoes, solar activity, possible redistribution of heat:


    61) Climate Policies?!



    62) "Global warming causes no global warming"

    63) Global warming will speed up after a "pause" due to "change of fundamental understanding about how greenhouse warming comes about"
    Last edited by MrCombust; 12-04-2019 at 11:27 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  66. #1466

    Default The TRUTH. The double fudge of perfectly good data by software algorithms

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    The above post is so full of lies and misrepresentations. I frankly don't wish to waste my time countering them one by one. Instead I will quote directly from page 125 of the report cited by MrCombust:

    One additional observation. No software simulations were used to fabricate data. Computing regional averages refers to combining data points based on actual measurement with the acknowledgement that fewer of those data points exist in northern Canada compared to southern Canada (see Figure 4.1 on page 122 for a map of the observing stations).
    Jennifer Marohasy explains how the data from a perfectly operational weather station gets double fudged. First by Australia's fudging, then passed on to NASA where the data gets fudged again by software. This double fudged data then becomes part of NASA's "worldwide" GISS record. The Amberley station is a high quality station that has not been moved, and is corroborated by nearby stations. It exhibited a long term cooling trend until the data was fudged in the usual manner, the past got colder, the present got warmer.

    Yes, ALL of the data that makes up NASA's GISS record gets run through the software algorithms. Canada's "twice the warming" record is also a result of software "homogenization".

    NASA's GISS, Australia's ACORN, and many other land based records aren't reliable due to "adjustments".

    You can't have it both ways. IF the original data is trustworthy it doesn't need to be fudged, if the data needs extensive fudging, then the data isn't trustworthy.

    No expensive policy decisions should be made based on this data, in fact, don't use this data to impact your decision to buy a doghouse.

    But of course, our carbon tax is profoundly based on this, and this kind of data

    Last edited by MrCombust; 16-04-2019 at 02:30 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  67. #1467
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Heh, it would appear that Marohasy's main claim to fame was crapping out a really, really bad paper back in 2017 that was promptly ripped to shreds by actual climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennif...esJ_manuscript

    Looks like she ought to stick to biology.

  68. #1468

    Default The TRUTH. Notice the climate thuggery

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Heh, it would appear that Marohasy's main claim to fame was crapping out a really, really bad paper back in 2017 that was promptly ripped to shreds by actual climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennif...esJ_manuscript

    Looks like she ought to stick to biology.
    Marcel ignores the point of the post, i.e., NASA fudging the data, and does a cut'n paste hatchet job on a scientist who has been attacked by the climate thugs. When you question them, they attack you.

    This is a strategy from the 1990's that doesn't work anymore. That's why I started this thread rather than continue with the old thread "Still believe in global warming?".The old thread is a regurgitation of nonsense and memes from decades ago that does not represent current climate science, or even science.

    NASA is fudging the data of perfectly operational weather stations. Everybody knows it. Attacking people who point it out doesn't add integrity to "climate science".

    Marcel is stuck in the memes of liar blogs and decades old hatchet science when it was proposed that "deniers" be tried like war criminals.

    This is the reason I seldom respond to the advocates here.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  69. #1469

    Default

    Looks like MrCombust is in a confirmation bias loop.

    Also, in other news, NASA isn't lying.

  70. #1470
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Liar blogs? Again, the person who you are swallowing a load of BS from is demonstrably either a bad scientist or an outright liar who produces fraudulent work. Why would I believe anything she has to say about NASA supposedly "fudging" data? The fact is, if that was actually happening and if it wasn't scientifically valid, there would be dozens or hundreds of scientists pointing out how bad the science is. You know, just like they have done with Marohasy's crappy past work. She's a joke.

    And again, it's laughably ironic that you complain about other people posting "liar blogs" (when actually I posed a link to a well sourced and cited Wikipedia article), when in fact the majority of what you post here is ripped directly from Watt's Up With That? and other denier blogs, without any citation or sourcing provided.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-04-2019 at 07:55 AM.

  71. #1471

    Default The TRUTH. Hundreds of scientists!????

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Liar blogs? Again, the person who you are swallowing a load of BS from is demonstrably either a bad scientist or an outright liar who produces fraudulent work. Why would I believe anything she has to say about NASA supposedly "fudging" data? The fact is, if that was actually happening and if it wasn't scientifically valid, there would be dozens or hundreds of scientists pointing out how bad the science is. You know, just like they have done with Marohasy's crappy past work. She's a joke.

    And again, it's laughably ironic that you complain about other people posting "liar blogs" (when actually I posed a link to a well sourced and cited Wikipedia article), when in fact the majority of what you post here is ripped directly from Watt's Up With That? and other denier blogs, without any citation or sourcing provided.
    There ARE hundreds of scientists saying NASA is fudging the data. Even NASA says they are fudging the data higher with algorithms.

    If you want a list of the hundreds of scientists go to your liar blogs and look them up. Desmogblog is a compendium. Go there.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  72. #1472
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    "if that was actually happening and if it wasn't scientifically valid"

    Read better.

  73. #1473

    Default

    The data isn't fake...

    It's funny, the skeptics will only ever accept something that agrees with the confirmation bias. Anything else is labeled as liars, data is fake, etc.

  74. #1474

    Default The TRUTH.... 4 minute video gets 500,000 views and growing.

    4 minute video of 5 seasoned climate scientists telling the truth, and laughing at "climate change", goes viral.



    American Meteorological society report.............

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/mwre/50/11




    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-04-2019 at 02:25 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  75. #1475

    Default

    The Heartland Institute and the same clowns in the video that we've all previously shamed/debunked ?? Cute.

  76. #1476

    Default

    Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming


    Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades, the latest data going up to 2018. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 139-year record all have occurred since 2005, with the five warmest years being the five most recent years. Credit: NASA's Earth Observatory. Download still image.
    Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
    AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES


    Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

    "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2


    • American Association for the Advancement of Science
      "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

    • American Chemical Society
      "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

    • American Geophysical Union
      "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

    • American Medical Association
      "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

    • American Meteorological Society
      "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

    • American Physical Society
      "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

    • The Geological Society of America
      "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

    SCIENCE ACADEMIES


    International academies: Joint statement

    "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worlds climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


    • U.S. National Academy of Sciences
      "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

    U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES




    • U.S. Global Change Research Program
      "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

    INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES




    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.13

      Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.14

    OTHER RESOURCES


    List of worldwide scientific organizations

    The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
    http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html
    U.S. agencies

    The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
    https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/upl...-are-doing.pdf

    *Technically, a consensus is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).
    As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

    References​






  77. #1477

    Default The TRUTH. Another spam bomb abuse of the forum

    The forum rules specifically state large volume cut'n paste is prohibited. Climate thugs just want to shut down discussion.

    The climate change statements listed below are all produced by a handful of people in the PR departments of the organizations involved. They all make statements like this to appease the climate thugs.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-04-2019 at 04:47 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  78. #1478

    Default

    you constantly spam bomb this thread.... Are you giving yourself a citation here? Climate deniers are all about "do as I say, not as I do"....

  79. #1479

    Default

    Medwards, I think he's trying to say "Don't cloud the issue with facts"

  80. #1480

    Default The TRUTH. From the Royal Meteorological Society..............

    "How much has urbanisation affected United Kingdom temperatures?"
    Abstract
    "This paper finds through the method of observation minus reanalysis that urbanisation has significantly increased the daily minimum 2‐m temperature in the United Kingdom by up to 1.70 K."

    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co...0.1002/asl.896

    And how much global warming is in the land based record? Less. And that's with NASA fudging the record upwards as well as the heat island effect.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  81. #1481
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets, including NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between their results are so small that only climate scientists could find them noteworthy. They all show pretty much exactly the same amount of global warming over time. But this hasn’t stopped conspiratorial critics from claiming that temperature measurements are somehow manipulated to create the appearance of warming where none exists. (These critics never explain how this cabal of scientists got shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and migrating species to play along.)
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ters-dont-lie/

    The results confirm (yet again) that the surface data is giving an excellent estimate of global changes, counter to the conspiracy theories.

  82. #1482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets, including NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between their results are so small that only climate scientists could find them noteworthy. They all show pretty much exactly the same amount of global warming over time. But this hasn’t stopped conspiratorial critics from claiming that temperature measurements are somehow manipulated to create the appearance of warming where none exists. (These critics never explain how this cabal of scientists got shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and migrating species to play along.)
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ters-dont-lie/

    The results confirm (yet again) that the surface data is giving an excellent estimate of global changes, counter to the conspiracy theories.
    This isn't science. It's fraud and collusion. It's statistically impossible for 5 disparate data sets to track exactly the same.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  83. #1483

    Default The TRUTH. Peter Ridd wins big against his University

    James Cook University in Australia tells the most spectacular climate lies. They fly over the reef in a plane and declare most of it dead. They even publish in scientific journals.

    Tourism to the reef thrives despite the frequent pronouncements from James Cook University that it's dead.

    Peter Ridd, a professor at James Cook University, was monitored, disciplined, and fired for saying the reef isn't dead.

    In a spectacular judgement the court found all 17 counts in Ridd's lawsuit against the University as unlawful.

    All those stories you've heard about the Great Barrier Reef being dead due to climate change? All lies.

    Don't expect the University to recant, climate change is a big source of funding.

    You can read about Peter Ridd here, or on climate change liar blogs all over the internet as a discredited scientist.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/...ridd-wins-big/






    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-04-2019 at 04:35 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  84. #1484
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets, including NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between their results are so small that only climate scientists could find them noteworthy. They all show pretty much exactly the same amount of global warming over time. But this hasn’t stopped conspiratorial critics from claiming that temperature measurements are somehow manipulated to create the appearance of warming where none exists. (These critics never explain how this cabal of scientists got shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and migrating species to play along.)
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ters-dont-lie/

    The results confirm (yet again) that the surface data is giving an excellent estimate of global changes, counter to the conspiracy theories.
    This isn't science. It's fraud and collusion. It's statistically impossible for 5 disparate data sets to track exactly the same.
    Yeah unless they're all sort of tracking the same data (temperature), then you sort of expect all the data sets to more or less match.

    Because that's literally science. The systematic observation of the physical and natural world through observation.
    Last edited by Channing; 20-04-2019 at 09:13 PM.

  85. #1485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets, including NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between their results are so small that only climate scientists could find them noteworthy. They all show pretty much exactly the same amount of global warming over time. But this hasnt stopped conspiratorial critics from claiming that temperature measurements are somehow manipulated to create the appearance of warming where none exists. (These critics never explain how this cabal of scientists got shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and migrating species to play along.)
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ters-dont-lie/

    The results confirm (yet again) that the surface data is giving an excellent estimate of global changes, counter to the conspiracy theories.
    This isn't science. It's fraud and collusion. It's statistically impossible for 5 disparate data sets to track exactly the same.
    Yeah unless they're all sort of tracking the same data (temperature), then you sort of expect all the data sets to more or less match.

    Because that's literally science. The systematic observation of the physical and natural world through observation.
    NASA admits they fudged the data by 0.5 degrees. They actually say that on their website. That means they all fudged their data by 0.5 degrees.

    Did all these guys have weather stations in Africa in 1950? No.

    It doesn't take much to see The Wizard of OZ in global warming "science".
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  86. #1486

  87. #1487
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets, including NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between their results are so small that only climate scientists could find them noteworthy. They all show pretty much exactly the same amount of global warming over time. But this hasn’t stopped conspiratorial critics from claiming that temperature measurements are somehow manipulated to create the appearance of warming where none exists. (These critics never explain how this cabal of scientists got shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and migrating species to play along.)
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ters-dont-lie/

    The results confirm (yet again) that the surface data is giving an excellent estimate of global changes, counter to the conspiracy theories.
    This isn't science. It's fraud and collusion. It's statistically impossible for 5 disparate data sets to track exactly the same.
    They don't track exactly the same. Medwards posted an animated GIF in post #1476 that clearly shows half a dozen of them tracking closely, but not exactly with each other. And once again, do I really have to bring up Berkeley Earth? You know, the one that was funded by the Koch's and Heartland Institute and all the usual suspects to come up with a truly independent temperature record that corrects for all the problems and concerns denialists had with the dozen or more temperature records for NASA/NOAA and so on? Inconveniently it showed basically the exact same temperature trends as all the other records. So obviously the Kochs and the Heartland Institute are all in on the conspiracy, now!

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

  88. #1488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets, including NASA, NOAA, the UK Met Office, and the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between their results are so small that only climate scientists could find them noteworthy. They all show pretty much exactly the same amount of global warming over time. But this hasn’t stopped conspiratorial critics from claiming that temperature measurements are somehow manipulated to create the appearance of warming where none exists. (These critics never explain how this cabal of scientists got shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels, and migrating species to play along.)
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ters-dont-lie/

    The results confirm (yet again) that the surface data is giving an excellent estimate of global changes, counter to the conspiracy theories.
    This isn't science. It's fraud and collusion. It's statistically impossible for 5 disparate data sets to track exactly the same.
    They don't track exactly the same. Medwards posted an animated GIF in post #1476 that clearly shows half a dozen of them tracking closely, but not exactly with each other. And once again, do I really have to bring up Berkeley Earth? You know, the one that was funded by the Koch's and Heartland Institute and all the usual suspects to come up with a truly independent temperature record that corrects for all the problems and concerns denialists had with the dozen or more temperature records for NASA/NOAA and so on? Inconveniently it showed basically the exact same temperature trends as all the other records. So obviously the Kochs and the Heartland Institute are all in on the conspiracy, now!

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
    Why wouldn't they track exactly the same? It's all the same data. Unless you think they all had independent weather stations all over the world.

    "A handful of teams around the world separately maintain surface temperature datasets"

    Japan had weather stations all over Canada in 1910?????

    "*truly independent temperature record"???
    So Berkeley earth went back in time and all around the world setting up weather stations from the 1800's nobody but them knows about??

    LOL. Liar blog climate science.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 23-04-2019 at 11:56 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  89. #1489

    Default The TRUTH. The UNFCC needs more money

    Yup, yet another international climate organization needs more money.

    The charter of the UNFCCC was to "The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations "

    Of course they failed miserably at that. I guess that's why they need $62,000,000 now.

    Don't confuse these guys with the UN, the IPCC, or other organizations that need millions of dollars as well.

    Pay up.

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/20...dget-increase/
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  90. #1490

    Default The TRUTH about polar bears

    Learn about the latest developments in Polar Bears, population, and survival from scientist Susan Crockford. Lord how the climate advocates hate her. She actually tells the truth. Lack of sea ice has had no effect on their population, unless you consider overpopulation an effect.

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

  91. #1491

    Default

    Notes the headline on the right in the video.

  92. #1492

    Default The TRUTH. The climate models fail again.

    Climate models are supposed to predict the temperature 100 years from now. Looks like they got another one of the variables wrong.........................

    Plants are growing faster all over the world, much faster than expected. This results in a massive CO2 sink as plants absorb CO2. The climate liars STILL pretend it's not happening.......

    "Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes"
    "Abstract:
    Our EC estimate is 60% larger than the conventionally used multi-model average (44% higher at the global scale). This suggests that most models largely underestimate photosynthetic carbon fixation and therefore likely overestimate future atmospheric CO2 abundance and ensuing climate change"

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08633-z
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  93. #1493

    Default

    If there is one good bit of news about the whole mess, it is that the alarmists who get more and more extreme in their views, will eventually disappear from our society as they choose not to have children

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/...lone-1.5109015

  94. #1494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by downtownone View Post
    If there is one good bit of news about the whole mess, it is that the alarmists who get more and more extreme in their views, will eventually disappear from our society as they choose not to have children

    https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/...lone-1.5109015
    I think there is legitimate cause for alarm. Fossil fuels will run out. Monumental decisions need to be made. But not on fake science and fake solutions. If they believed what they say about CO2 and warming they'd be promoting nuclear. But they don't want nuclear either.
    9 billion people will use up the fossil fuels quickly. That is a problem.
    Unfortunately we can't have an intelligent discussion until they stop lying and stop showboating.

    The CBC and the lying media in general is a big part of the problem. They actually have thier own version of "science" that has nothing to do with reality.

    Your article is a good example.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 24-04-2019 at 04:29 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  95. #1495

    Default The TRUTH. "An unmistakable downward trend" of 0.6C that got erased..........

    The National Academy of Science reports an "unmistakable downward trend"...........

    http://archive.org/stream/understand...0unit_djvu.txt

    Based on a report published in Nature..................




    But don't expect cooling to show up in NASA's fudged GISS...............


    Last edited by MrCombust; 29-04-2019 at 01:23 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  96. #1496
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    Except if you look at the red points on the scatter plot, it pretty much shows that 0.6 degree drop...

  97. #1497
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    I love how many times he's shown in this thread that he can't even do something as simple as read a graph.

    Did you know when you have different intervals on your scales, it can squish or stretch your plot and make it look a bit different? Groundbreaking stuff.

  98. #1498

    Default The TRUTH. When they tell you "the science is settled"...........

    They're not telling you about papers like this that are continually being published. When climate advocates talk, they pretend papers like this don't exist.

    Their version of "science" is anything with a hockey stick shape. They validate their "science" on the basis of a hockey stick shape.

    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/joc.6097

    "RESEARCH ARTICLE"Climate variations over the southern Altai and Dzungarian Basin region, Central Asia, since 1580 CE"


    Last edited by MrCombust; 02-05-2019 at 01:41 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  99. #1499

    Default

    It's so sad that you can't piece this together, and seems very confused, and instead of trying to understand, you become hostile and call everyone that doesn't support your far-fetched narrative as liars...

    but hey, keep being you, and never change, never learn.

  100. #1500

    Default

    I have it on good authority that we will soon be able to purchase land on the underside of the earth, plans are to connect the top half of the disk with the bottom half.

    Be the first on your block to buy into this amazing possibility.

    Dm me for more details.

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •