Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

SCIENCE! NBC Affiliate's Attempt to Link NY-Area Earthquake to Climate Change Is Beyond Parody

 

FTA:

 

Because of the Dem/Media's "always be closing" mentality, you just knew somebody would try to make climate change enter the chat. Perhaps it was inevitable: 

 

 

Absolutely embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp/2024/04/05/nbc-news-attempt-to-link-ny-area-earthquake-to-climate-change-is-beyond-parody-n2394789

 

 

 

 

Somewhere, a liberal is devising a magma tax to offset the effects of magma magmatizing.  

[Orlando Buffalo]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:14 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

So you’re referring to the GLOBAL mean surface temperature, which I think is currently ~59 degrees F. It’s calculated by taking the average of enough LOCAL mean surface temperatures across the planet. These local data points are about equally spaced from each other and form a spherically symmetrical pattern. The number can be calculated manually, but most computers trivially find it with numerical integration techniques. Each data point representing each local mean surface temperature is similarly found by calculating local temperature averages across equally spaced time increments, over the course of a full year.

 

The annual delta of Earth’s mean surface temperature is what tells us the net heat trapping from the greenhouse effect. You can never rely on local mean surface temperatures to give you the full story because global warming is never uniform. Western New York could be experiencing an unusually cold year under global warming conditions, while Florida and Brazil and the Middle East and Russia and Antarctica could all be experiencing unusually warm years. If you’ve ever seen global annual heat maps, you’ll see a mix of hot and cold spots but overall much more heat.

 

But that’s just the surface temperature. There are also temperature measurements for the ocean and for the different layers of the atmosphere.

 

My new challenge to all the anthropogenic climate change skeptics here: explain why our troposphere is heating up while our stratosphere is cooling??

 

Throughout most of Earth’s history, we know that climate has been dependent on interactions with the Sun: either from solar weather variations or from the periodic peculiarities of Earth’s motion about the Sun. The exceptions have been geothermal activity like volcanoes and related atmospheric composition changes. So if the current observed global warming is related to planetary interactions with the Sun, then the atmospheric heating should be uniform. But it’s not. Why is that??

 

FYI: for those who want to suggest cloud coverage, keep in mind that cloud effects vary greatly by type, height in the sky, and time of the day (reflective during the day and insulating at night). Climate data indicates that these effects can quickly cancel each other out, so evidence for any longstanding cloud-related positive feedback loop that initiated global warming is highly unlikely.

Can you show me all the studies of ocean temps and the stratosphere from the 1920's? As you stated much of the temp data is derived from computers, which have only been largely useful and accurate for 30 years. Secondly why have the overall predictions laid out by Al Gore in his crap movie been wrong? We have plenty of snow, hurricanes have not gotten worse, and temps are within 1* of that time frame. As we argued once before the very fact that they do not have the actual raw numbers from prior to 2008 but only the "fortified numbers" makes the whole thing absurd, scientists don't get to cull numbers at their choosing. The fact that they remove the 5% that disagrees with the assessment on a topic that is about small changes is crazy. If I took away my bottom 5% of students I would be the top teacher in the county easily every year.

 

This is from the group that does the research

"The CRU told some skeptical researchers it couldn't send them the original raw data because "data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." This explanation raises legitimate questions about how the lost original data were manipulated to produce the "value-added" data.  

Later, University of East Anglia Pro-Vice-Chancellor Trevor Davies stated, "It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are skeptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years." See above about data interdependence." 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Does San Francisco have any nearby wet markets in case this gets wonky? 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:35 AM, Orlando Tim said:

Can you show me all the studies of ocean temps and the stratosphere from the 1920's? As you stated much of the temp data is derived from computers, which have only been largely useful and accurate for 30 years. Secondly why have the overall predictions laid out by Al Gore in his crap movie been wrong? We have plenty of snow, hurricanes have not gotten worse, and temps are within 1* of that time frame. As we argued once before the very fact that they do not have the actual raw numbers from prior to 2008 but only the "fortified numbers" makes the whole thing absurd, scientists don't get to cull numbers at their choosing. The fact that they remove the 5% that disagrees with the assessment on a topic that is about small changes is crazy. If I took away my bottom 5% of students I would be the top teacher in the county easily every year.

 

This is from the group that does the research

"The CRU told some skeptical researchers it couldn't send them the original raw data because "data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." This explanation raises legitimate questions about how the lost original data were manipulated to produce the "value-added" data.  

Later, University of East Anglia Pro-Vice-Chancellor Trevor Davies stated, "It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are skeptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years." See above about data interdependence." 

 

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy??

 

Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted??

 

I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere.

 

So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature?

 

A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed.

 

My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy??

 

Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted??

 

I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere.

 

So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature?

 

A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed.

 

My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

I find it funny you are throwing around the concept of conspiracy theory when you believe that if I simply give the government money they will control the weather. I will also point out that requesting a peer reviewed study when you admit the raw data is not available is absurd. 

[The Frankish Reich]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Sigh.]

I am someone who believes we are experiencing global climate change. (Actually not a "belief"; it's a fact.) And I believe the evidence shows that a significant part of that is human-created. Exactly how large a part, I don't know.

 

But I'm also a climate optimist. One big reason: geoengineering. Yes, there are risks. There are also risks associated with doing nothing and hoping that nature reverses course all by itself.

 

That's why it's depressing to see people putting geoengineering into the category of what "woke scientists" (see above) do. It's kind of the opposite. It's "we're looking for a way to cancel out greenhouse gas emissions so that we don't have to shut down the fossil fuel economy to prevent the worst impacts of global warming." I'm for it; you should be for it. But here we have "if the government is doing it is is automatically suspect and bad." 

 

[Roundybout]

23 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Conservatives consistently uphold Ralph Emerson’s take that the root of all fear is ignorance 

[L Ron Burgundy]

2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Conservatives consistently uphold Ralph Emerson’s take that the root of all fear is ignorance 

This thread is like a debate with flat earthers.   

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

13 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Conservatives consistently uphold Ralph Emerson’s take that the root of all fear is ignorance 

Did conservatives also tell you Santa isn't real. Good God man, hatred isn't healthy.

[L Ron Burgundy]

10 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Did conservatives also tell you Santa isn't real. Good God man, hatred isn't healthy.

I dont see anything resembling hate in his post.  Not sure why you'd even take it that way.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy??

 

Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted??

 

I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere.

 

So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature?

 

A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed.

 

My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

I think you've presented an interesting theory but how many years of data do we have relative to the age of the Earth?  A 100 years or less of temperature data from all these temperature gathering stations over the course of about 4.5 billion years?  Let's say 1 billion years as an inhabitable place.   If my math is correct that's .0001% of Earth history.  Is that a sufficient sample size to represent the potential historical record?  Although we don't have specific temperature readings we know from other geological records and events the Earth has been a lot hotter and a lot cooler before Humans appeared on the scene.  So by definition something else, geological events like volcanoes, played a key role in climate variations.

 

Now I'm not saying the theory you've laid out is incorrect.  It may very well be correct.  There's simply insufficient information available to validate it as the only explanation.

 

I'm also curious about the placement of temperature monitoring equipment.  I have a thermometer near my deck and in the Summer it can be 100 degrees but if I take the thermometer and walk about 40 feet south to a row of shade trees the temperature there can be 68 degrees on the same day at the same time.  Not only are there regional variances in temperature readings on Earth but variances down to the local level inside a 3/4 acre lot.       

Edited April 8 by All_Pro_Bills

[Orlando Buffalo]

Frankish and I agree a lot on the idea that climate change is something we simply have to learn to deal with, especially since we know man does affect the climate since there are 7 billion of us here. I though see the government more along the lines of the oil embargo of the 70s than actually doing anything useful. We can pretend that California can handle 20 million electric cars in 10 years but without a greatly improved electric grid that is not happening. In the past 50 years I have been told the earth was overpopulated at 3.5 billion, we were gonna run out of oil several times, and acid rain was coming. I was just told by@ComradeKayAdamsthat the ozone is in great shape so that is another problem government promised to fix, never did anything but still no issue. 

Edited April 8 by Orlando Tim

[BillStime]

 

[Doc]

33 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Same scientists who said the Wuhan vaccine was 100% safe and would prevent you from getting and spreading Wuhan virus.

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Same scientists who said the Wuhan vaccine was 100% safe and would prevent you from getting and spreading Wuhan virus.

You're still alive, right? 

[Orlando Buffalo]

8 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Do you intentionally put up stupidly incorrect posts? Is someone paying you to be this dumb?

[Doc]

8 hours ago, BillStime said:

You're still alive, right? 

 

I could just as easily have been alive without the vaccine.