# Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA



## abu afak (Jul 6, 2018)

Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.


*January 18, 2018*
Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 ranked as the Second warmest since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet's long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. *That is second only to global temperatures in 2016.*

In a Separate, independent analysis, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that 2017 was the third-warmest year in their record. The minor difference in rankings is due to the different methods used by the two agencies to analyze global temperatures, although over the long-term the agencies’ records remain in strong agreement. Both analyses show that the five warmest years on record all have taken place since 2010.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2017’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degree Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.

_“Despite colder than average temperatures in any one part of the world, temperatures over the planet as a whole continue the rapid warming trend we’ve seen over the last 40 years,”_ said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.
[......]​


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2018)

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaa

Not this crap again....  Your gods adjusted up several areas that were cooling again....  Funny how that happens in ares where there is no ground based checks available to show your lies..


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 6, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 was one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> 
> 
> *January 18, 2018*
> ...




I don't care.  The sooner man destroys his climate, the sooner he wipes himself out unable to adapt and the sooner he gives the planet back to the innocent animals that the Earth will quickly recover for.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 6, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bwhaaaaaaaaaaa
> 
> Not this crap again....  Your gods adjusted up several areas that were cooling again....  Funny how that happens in ares where there is no ground based checks available to show your lies..



Not this crap that comes from scientific data. Better to have good stuff that some dude made up with money from oil companies.

You'll note that you didn't actually provide an argument. Just a bullshit "fake news".


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Bwhaaaaaaaaaaa
> ...







I would love to see their raw data.  Not the computer derived fiction they shovel to you mushrooms.


----------



## Markle (Jul 7, 2018)

*As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*


*14th February, 2010*

*
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED! 

There has been no global warming since 1995 

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
*
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be. 
[WHAT????]


[…]

*Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.*



Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.


Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like _Science _and _Nature_. 


We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.


Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online


----------



## cnm (Jul 7, 2018)

What a steaming load of denial. No warming since 1995! 

I love it.


----------



## cnm (Jul 7, 2018)

westwall said:


> I would love to see their raw data.


As though you would be able to apply proper corrections. As though Muller at Home - Berkeley Earth didn't have the same curiosity and did something about it, then reinforced the scientific consensus. As though you can't access their source data at Source Files - Berkeley Earth.

But I suppose Muller does fake science too. Oh well.


----------



## cnm (Jul 7, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Does this look normal to you?


Ffs. And that's supposed to be an argument for no warming since 1995?


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2018)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see their raw data.
> ...






"Corrections"  There are several reasons that are legit for corrections.  Can you name them?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2018)

Markle said:


> *As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*
> 
> 
> *14th February, 2010*
> ...


Geeezzzz, these disproved lies again, fabricated to give cover to deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH getting caught actually cooking the data to turn global warming into cooling.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 7, 2018)

That's the new ruse....go back to the 1800's to make your data fit the established narrative. Soon we'll see warming "trends" the go back to the 18th century! Rare to see '95-'18 graphs in here anymore.

I wonder if some of these climate crusader bozos even recognize the fakery with the presentation of the statistics? Any graph can be made to look impressive depending on how much you fuck with each axis.....assholes!


----------



## abu afak (Jul 7, 2018)

cnm said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see their raw data.
> ...


ALL the Warming deniers waste Thousands of posts each year but intentionally/delusionally miss the big picture.
It's like the 9/11 Truthers with their "details":
"WTC fell "too fast" (or "too slow")
"The hole was too small for a plane to make"
"It was a demolition"
"It was an inside job"

Same tactics here.
`


----------



## SSDD (Jul 7, 2018)

The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.  Learn something thunder.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jul 7, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > What a steaming load of denial. No warming since 1995!
> ...



Looks like contrails to me


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 7, 2018)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



That water vapor will mess up your whole day!!


----------



## Markle (Jul 7, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Geeezzzz, these disproved lies again, fabricated to give cover to deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH getting caught actually cooking the data to turn global warming into cooling.



As you know, NO LIES, direct from the head of the source for Global Warming figures.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.


100% wrong. No pause, as we know, and mankind's actions are clearly superseding the gentle, long term trend.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.
> ...


/——/ We need to raise taxes on Hawaiians for their volcanoes polluting the atmosphere,


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.  Learn something thunder.


There hasn't been a real cooling trend for 100 years, some flat trends, but no true cooling trend.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 7, 2018)

Markle said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Geeezzzz, these disproved lies again, fabricated to give cover to deniers Spencer and Christy at UAH getting caught actually cooking the data to turn global warming into cooling.
> ...


Direct from deniers who take everything out of context and then substitute their own dishonest context. Why don't you deniers collect your own temperature data rather than lie about the data collected by honest scientists?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 7, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.
> ...



Lets get some facts into this fantasy your spewing...




 


The over all long term trend is cooling.  What we've seen to date is within normal and natural variation.. When we place the alarmist clap trap into context of the longer trend, there is no emergency of any kind.


Your a fucking idiot and a dupe


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Proxies are NOT reliable trend indicators.


----------



## Pilot1 (Jul 8, 2018)

NASA, and NOAA have NO credibility anymore.  NONE.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> NASA, and NOAA have NO credibility anymore.  NONE.


----------



## Markle (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nice try, bet you thought those facts and misrepresentations had been forgotten.  Too bad.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > NASA, and NOAA have NO credibility anymore.  NONE.


/----/.obozo weaponized them and turned them into political hack agencies


----------



## Pilot1 (Jul 8, 2018)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/.obozo weaponized them and turned them into political hack agencies



They were also caught changing historical temperature data to justify the transfer of wealth and income to "fix" MMGW.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.
> ...




My bet is that you are duped enough to actually believe that regardless of what the long term evidence provides.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.  Learn something thunder.
> ...



You call 100 years long term on a planet that is billions of years old?  Laughing in your face ed...laughing in your face.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Ice cores are considered to be gold standard proxies by climate science and the ice cores from both poles show a long term cooling trend.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



All these people hear some hysterical radical on PBS go off on the earth is on its last legs stuff and the buy all of it hook, line and stinker. They end up in here because nobody in the real world gives a shit, which we know becsuse action on climate change has been non-existent for many years. Bills for climate change action don't even make it to the floor of congress for a vote anymore. The topic is radioactive in Washington. Fortunately for the rest of us, people who think like the climate crusaders in here are fringe in number....a blip on the voting public landscape, thus basically irrelevant.

@www.globalwarmingisghey.com


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


LOL

Yet you use them as proof of your deception.....  now why would that be?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


And how gold are the ice cores from the equator? So Ice cores have a very limited record on GLOBAL temperature.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


No, I'm using the record from direct instrument measurement, but you knew that already.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> I've got some sad news for you, dumb dumb. You're being the victim of a gigantic hoax. The planet's temperature hasn't changed since the French first calculated it's temperature in 1864.
> 
> Their calculations have NEVER been changed and those VERY values for temperature, humidity and pressure, etc
> are the SAME ones ensconced in the INTERNATIONAL PHYSICAL CALIBRATION and REGULATORY STANDARD
> ...


:^)
Funny and Undocumented Diatribe.
I present/Link NASA/NOAA, you pull stuff from thin air.
The "planes falling from the air" (among many others), and the CAPS fest, devastates your credibility.
`


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > I've got some sad news for you, dumb dumb. You're being the victim of a gigantic hoax. The planet's temperature hasn't changed since the French first calculated it's temperature in 1864.
> ...


YOU NEED to SHOW US ALL where the ENERGY CAME FROM to WARM the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE

back up from the 22% COOLING installed by the GREEN HOUSE GASES

when they STOPPED that light GETTING to the SURFACE from TOP of ATMOSPHERE, 

after the GHGs REFRACTED that 22% to SPACE

After the cooling green house gases, FIRST cooling the planet 22%

then SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATING that SAME 22% back so it was "like thay wusn't evun thair, yaW!" 

then SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATING FURTHER ENERGY to the point the ENTIRE COLD NITROGEN OXYGEN ATMOPSHERE * * *AND PLANET SURFACE* * *

were warmed an ADDITIONAL 33 degrees.

SHOW us all that or you're the bumbling public schooler who believed it when government employees told you a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH is a HEEDUR.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 8, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Your graphs Disagree dramatically.
One has temps UP 4 degrees in the last 11K years, the other down.
LOFL.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> YOU NEED to SHOW US ALL where the ENERGY CAME FROM to WARM the ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE
> 
> back up from the 22% COOLING installed by the GREEN HOUSE GASES
> 
> ...


Why do I need to do any of those things?
Is your CAPS button Stuck?
Your last post was completely incoherent, this one a close challenger,

`


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> I've got some sad news for you, dumb dumb. You're being the victim of a gigantic hoax. The planet's temperature hasn't changed since the French first calculated it's temperature in 1864.
> 
> Their calculations have NEVER been changed and those VERY values for temperature, humidity and pressure, etc
> are the SAME ones ensconced in the INTERNATIONAL PHYSICAL CALIBRATION and REGULATORY STANDARD
> ...


The ISA models a hypothetical standard day to allow a reproducible engineering reference for calculation and testing of engine and vehicle performance at various altitudes. *It does not provide a rigorous meteorological model of actual atmospheric conditions.*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Got a rational, scientifically valid reason why the same long term signatures might show up on ice cores from the arctic and antarctic but not be present in the latitudes between?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Do you have a rational valid reason why ice cores found ONLY at the poles are an accurate temperature proxy for the ENTIRE globe?????


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...


repeating your BULLSHIT doesn't make it any less BULLSHIT!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Too funny....

You cant even discern an anomaly graphing from a temperature graphing....  Priceless...


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > I've got some sad news for you, dumb dumb. You're being the victim of a gigantic hoax. The planet's temperature hasn't changed since the French first calculated it's temperature in 1864.
> ...


NOW we see what it's Iike for you, 

REPEATING that THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY and PHYSICAL CALIBRATION STANDARD for THE WHOLE WORLD ISN'T WHAT YOU WISH IT WAS

isn't having something to say. It's another step along the ROAD of DENIAL of the PRINCIPLES GOVERNING the UNIVERSE

so you can SQUEAL that "a COLD BATH HAS to BE  a HEATER, YEW DUN LOOK'T IT UP OWN the INTURTEWBS! "

"yAW!"

What's the name of the law governing atmospheric temperature sh** for brains?

TELL THESE PEOPLE or you're the ILLITERATE HICK I'M TELLING THEM ALL YOU ARE..

NAME it and discuss it at length here 

OR YOU'RE THE IGNORANT HICK I TOLD EVERYONE was so STUPID 

you don't even know what LAW of PHYSICS you're talking about.

We'll wait, hick.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Whenever your DUMB B*&^ @#$ CAN NAME the LAW of PHYSICS you claim IS the one we CALIBRATE ALL OUR FLIGHT/HEAT INSTRUMENTS AGAINST, 

you won't be just another paper hat taco peddling illiterate, who thinks a cold nitrogen bath is a MAGIC HEEDUR.

who's also so stupid YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW what STANDARD GOVERNS EVERY ATMOSPHERIC INSTRUMENT 

on the PLANET. 

LLooLLooLLooLLooLLooLL

"TAIN'T NEETHUR, THAY AIN'T GOT NAIR LAWS LAIK THAT!! IT AIN'T REEL, a COLD NITROGEN BATH'S a HEEDURE yew JIST AIN'T WERKED AT TACO BELL LAWNG UNUFF two UNDERSTAND abowt the 

MAGICALNESS
uv the 
GAISSINESS!!

IT's a POWERUFuL GAiSSiNESS, YAW!!  I don't no nunna the NAMES uh NUNNA THIM LAWS er NUTHIN, BUT 

I KNOW a COLD NITROGEN BATH'S A HEEDUR!!!"'

Does that about sum it up Taco Boy?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



Basic atmospheric physics dude.THere's an accounting for the solar radiation budget and the "back radiation" from the atmosphere is PART of that accounting. It's the LWIR that reduces the planet heat loss from space from LWIR emissions from the atmos that end up hitting the surface and REDUCING the net transfer skyward. 

You MIGHT be atmospheric "chemist" but maybe you've never done the Radiative physics example that's in EVERY atmospheric physics book I've looked at. Sample below. It's the simple SUBTRACTION of opposing fluxes of IR interchange with the sky. Without ACKNOWLEDGING THIS -- you're denying the basics of GHouse theory. Are you denying GHouse theory? 

I'll go dig up the cite if ya want it later.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



What's it like to LIVE like that? "I doant no nuthin bowt nunna thim LAWS, but I NO A COLD NITCHURGIN BATH'S a HEEDUR!!

WHAT else WOOD it BEA? YAW? 

WHAT else, WOOD it BEA?

When you can name the law of thermodynamics governing atmospheric temperature you won't be just another ignorant simp declaring NOBODY'S gonna tell you "A COLD NITROGEN BATH isn't a HEATER." 

HA ha HAH HAH HA HA Ha Ha!!

YOU TURNING OUT LIKE THAT is the reason SOME PEOPLES' PARENTS take them out of those PUBLIC SCHOOL INTELLECTUAL GHETTOS and put them in a school so when they get out, they won't be so dumb they think a COLD NITROGEN BATH's a HEATER.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 8, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


There's no physical theory saying INSULATION BETWEEN a FIRE and ROCK

making LESS FIRELIGHT WARM the ROCK

makes MORE FIRELIGHT warm the ROCK.

WHAT'S the VERY FIRST STEP in CALCULATING the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET?

TELL ME THAT.

WHAT's the VERY FIRST THING YOU DO when you decide you're going to CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of the PLANET?

YOU - went to the PUBLIC schools. Where they taught your grandpa that "DEVIL WEAD'S LIKE HEROIN".

They ALSO told you INSULATION between a ROCK and FIRE making LESS FIRELIGHT reach the ROCK

makes MORE FIRELIGHT reach the ROCK.

No? You come back when you can tell us the FIRST step in CALCULATING the TEMPERATURE of the ATMOSPHERE.

We'll all wait here and see how much you actually know about whether a COLD NITROGEN BATH can be a HEATER.

Also tell me and the readers of this thread, the name of the LAW 
governing atmospheric temperature.

Do it or you're so dumb you don't even know what law of PHYSICS you're talking about.

We'll all wait, 
YOU go find out those two things.

 The FIRST STEP in SOLVING Atmospheric TEMPERATURE

&

the NAME of the LAW of PHYSICS that GOVERNS the TEMPERATURES of GASES - hence the ATMOSPHERE.

YOUR CAREER at TACO BELL
vs
MY CAREER as an ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST and ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION ENGINEER.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 8, 2018)

Shouldn't you rich, white, green-freak, climangelical extremists be starving more third-world people to death? That's all you've accomplished with this nonsense.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 8, 2018)

This thread should belongs either in religion or conspiracy theories.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2018)

Allen Eltor said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Allen Eltor said:
> ...



So you ARE denying GHouse theory. Which BTW -- is active both DAY AND NIGHT when no solar forcing is present. Without the "insulation" you're career would be as a popsicle.

What is this tirade of words and taunts here. There is NO academically trained person that speaks like that. Not in science or any tech discipline. EVERY MATERIAL that can absorb heat radiates LWave IR. Even cold rocks radiates LWIR to a warm rock. Insulated or not. That's basic radiative physics.

Tell me what radiative physics is.. In your own words. WITHOUT the shouting and taunts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Or better yet. As an Atmospheric Chemist with over 8 years of college level discipline -- tell me quickly without googling shit or having a twin cow with the taunting crap, why CO2 is a GHouse gas and CO is not..


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Or better yet. As an Atmospheric Chemist with over 8 years of college level discipline -- tell me quickly without googling shit or having a twin cow with the taunting crap, why CO2 is a GHouse gas and CO is not..



The term GHG means refractive of the class light emitted by the planet, infrared.

Now. You tell me the name of the law, governing the temperature of gases, hence the Atmosphere. Can you do that?

When you can't, what's that say about your level of knowledge on the subject?

And you won't be able to. How do I know? You think the atmosphere heats the planet.

You think a cold nitrogen bath warms the object it's conduction cooling and you think the

light blocking refrigerants in the bath, are what made it a heater.

No,
no,
no.

That's just false. Which is why you can't refer to a single other cold nitrogen/oxygen bath 

in all thermodynamics,

that makes the light-warmed object it blocks 22% of the light to, 

"warmer than if the cold nitrogen bath wasn't cooling it."

Show us - ANY evidence of ANOTHER cold nitrogen/oxygen bath r
aising the temperature of something it conduction chills. 

Take your time. When you can't, tell me what you think the reason for that is.


----------



## Allen Eltor (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Allen Eltor said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Radiative physics is the science of electromagnetic energy moving via the mode referred to as "radiant transfer."

Radiant transfer is when no physical medium exists, and energy moves according to the laws governing Electromagnetic Energy's propagation characteristics.

Now.

You tell the members of this forum the name of the law of thermodynamics written for solving the temperatures of gases

and you won't be the guy claiming you're gonna check the work of a radiation and atmospheric chemist, not even being able to

name of the law of physics governing what you're talking about.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Now Mr. Westwall, with the level of intellect you have displayed on this board, you would not be able to interpret it in any case. And it is not just NOAA and NASA that is stating we are in a rapidly warming world. The nations of the EU, Japan, and China are stating the same from data that they have collected.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > What a steaming load of denial. No warming since 1995!
> ...


Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat.......................................................................................


----------



## westwall (Jul 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...







Good.  Let's see the raw data.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


He’s forgotten that everyone who registers democrat is awarded an honorary PHD in atmospherics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Basic atmospheric physics dude.


So, let me get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Basic atmospheric physics dude.
> ...


The alarmists call them _deniers_.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



*not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus *

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I'm not your mommy.  You need to educate yourself of the basics of this topic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



So you won't be backing up your claim then?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters. MIT and Ga Tech, respectively.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what claim?That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades?  No, that "debate" has been hashed out many times here. Sorry.

But, as a word of advice to someone who appears to know less than nothing about this topic: You should start at the NASA website, and go from there.  Then you wouldn't find yourself asking so many basic questions hat would make a high schooler blush.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.


And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



*what claim?
That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades?*

Yes.
If you can't even say what the consensus is, how can you back up your claim that no paper has differed from the "consensus"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Basic atmospheric physics dude.
> ...



You got nothing better to do than troll me? I was chatting with the now banned human SPAM machine "know it all"..  Trying to see if anything intelligent ever came out. I got the nonsense I expected. Problem over. 

Now what''s YOUR problem with basic GHouse theory? Did you recognize the example in that Atmospheric Physic book for estimating GH "back radiation".. You have an issue with textbooks?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.
> ...




Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year predictions. Without THAT consensus -- everything else is pretty questionable. 

What question do you think has "95% consensus"??  Does it answer the question of temperature or SLRise by 2100???  There IS no 95% consensus on ANY important GW/CC question....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year prediction


False. The models have been surprisingly accurate.


flacaltenn said:


> What question do you think has "95% consensus"?


Wait.. you don't even know?

How can you guys prattle on endlessly about this and yet still not be in possession of the most basic of facts regarding it? How embarrassing...

You should start at the NASA site. There you will find the consensus simply stated. You can also go more in depth.

And stop PMing me. You are the one spreading misinformation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year prediction
> ...



Guess you don't know that we all know that you can't produce even a bit of actual data to support your claims and at this point...impotent one liners is about all you are capable of.  If you have any actual data to dispute his statements...or anyone elses for that matter, by all means step up to the plate hotshot and show some of it.

Of course you won't because we all know that you can't.  You are a skeptics best friend...a blathering, bloviating warmist who demonstrates with every post that you guys can't produce anything like real data to support your beliefs.  Keep on making us skeptics look good.

Back in the early days of this debate, you guys used to argue back with actual data...slowly that tapered off as the data was debunked bit by bit.,,  Now all you have is a heavily massaged and manipulated surface record that is so far from reality that it would be laughable if not for the fact that dupes like you (and they are legion) actually believe it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

"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. " - NASA


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "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. " - NASA



* Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. *

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "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. " - NASA
> ...


For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Of course, it is, as it is a strong position. As one might expect, you can go more into depth on the topic on the website. Or, continue to follow me around,biting at my ankles. I don't mind.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year prediction
> ...



Have never PM'd you. Except for Moderation business. You lie. What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at? Does it provide any guidance for mitigation of the EXTENT of damages by 2100? I know the crap you read. I know the "source" for all this consensus crap. And it doesn't represent any scientific means of "divining opinion" on ANYTHING about GW/.CC.. 

And for the record -- I CONCUR with any "consensus" that says the Earth is warming and man is in SOME PART responsible for the warming. It says NOTHING about the rigor or completeness of all the DOZENS of questions that MUST be answered to get a "total" consensus on Climate Change.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at?


Good grief, look it up yourself! I am not your mommy,!

And I asked you a question first. So stop asking me questions.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at?
> ...




So you don’t even know the answer to that?  If your purpose here is to demonstrate the sheer impotence of warmers these days....well congratulations....job well done.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So you don’t even know the answer to that


Of course I do. What is amazing is you guys, who prattle on endlessly on this topic (yet have zero education, experience, or work in any of the fields) don't know the answer. That level of ignorance, despite the amount of energy you have spent on the topic, is quite a feat.

How would you measure a scientific consensus?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What is the question that has 95% consensus? How was it arrived at?
> ...



You inserted your troll ass into a convo I was having with a Spammer. And you purposely MISINTERPRETED my post and spit out this ridiculous troll bait.. Is THIS the question you want answered?



> are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?



How did what I said in any way in your demented troll constitute a criticism of the members of those fields. I ignored this because I was simply DEFENDING science against a fraud poster. And I did nothing but find out this fraud knows NOTHING about radiative physics. A topic for which I studied and PRACTICED for my entire academic and professional career.  You're question is just bait.

NOW -- answer my questions. 

Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year predictions. Without THAT consensus -- everything else is pretty questionable. Here's the polling data of real opinions of real climate scientists below. Courtesy of Bray and von Storch circa 2015.. 

What question do you think has "95% consensus"?? Does it answer the question of temperature or SLRise by 2100??? There IS no 95% consensus on ANY important GW/CC question....






Can you do the CUMULATIVE response below a SIX on that scale -- Or does your mommy have to do it for you? 

And as a bonus -- Do Climate Scientists think tthat their work has been misrepresented to public and policy makers? By and large -- theres something LIKE a consensus on THAT question.. Eat it...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

ALL claims of consensus go out the window if the PRACTITIONERS of the science don't have total faith in the models. So where is the consensus for confidence in the modeling below?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> ALL claims of consensus go out the window if the PRACTITIONERS of the science don't have total faith in the models.


What a ridiculous thing to say. And the models are accurate,and more accurate than scientists had hoped.

Scientists do not think this way. With noisy, complicated subjects, they find ways to constrain their knowledge and shrink the margins of uncertainty. And this process has progressed to the point that there is overwhelming consensus. You don't have to accept it, and nobody gives a shit if you do. But to think you can beat up Mike Tyson, despite not boxing a day in your life...well, that deserves mockery, from sci etists and laymen alike. It just does. 

But, you are free to challenge the theories by performing science. No, none of you cackling deniers are presenting any real challenge to the theories. You merely present a challenge to smart policy. Good for you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "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. " - NASA



That wasn't a poll. It was based on studies that read abstracts. And it included the ones with NO expressed opinion into the yes category. The worse place to look for opinion is in the abstract of tech papers. Even if they quoted OTHER scientists -- it was counted as their opinion. Even if all the 4 or 8 authors on the papers didn't agree -- it was counted. It's a sham. 

And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science. 
I like my scientific ACTUAL polling on HUNDREDS of questions better. Because it's better science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> That wasn't a poll.


Yes, iknow,as it literally says what it was in the post you quoted.


flacaltenn said:


> And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science


Q00% false. When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. You are wrong to say otherwise, and your cherry picking of words and your incorrect statement quickly reveals your superstition.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say. And the models are accurate,and more accurate than scientists had hoped.



Can you not read graphs? What is the percentage of climate scientists that gave the reliability of models a 6 or 7 for that question.. Shows how dishonest you are about this "discussion thingy"..  What's the percentage that gave very high marks to the modeling?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant



Yes. Extremely Likely  --- that would be. But just plain LIKELY is not very significant is it?  What did write above? Likely or EXTREMELY likely?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Yes. Extremely Likely --- that would be. But just plain LIKELY is not very significant is it?


Irrelevant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That wasn't a poll.
> ...



*When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant. *

75/77. Practically a guarantee. 

DERP!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. Extremely Likely --- that would be. But just plain LIKELY is not very significant is it?
> ...



It IS relevant. What you quoted said Likely. Then you bloviated about EXTREMELY likely. When that's NOT what your phony "consensus" said. It didn't say ANYTHING about projections of temperature or sea level rise or weather consequences or public policy or whether they thought their science was being politicized. The studies I'm quoting ASKED ALL of those questions and actually solicited opinion. It didn't "divine" opinion from reading abstracts of papers and then fudging the results.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


It is not relevant, as the language "extremely.likelyy" was the language used.

I look forward to emailing your claims about the models to a climate scientist. I promise to post the response here, where everyone can read it.

How exciting it must be for you to finally go "pro"!  You should celebrate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



*Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.*

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.



But they did NOT. Not in that NASA quote. 
I don't think you pay much attention to data or details. Perhaps you might do better in a diff forum..

Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you. Where are the mods when you need them?


----------



## Kat (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you


Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent that. Okay,"mod action"... Better?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.
> ...


There's plenty of info out there. If you're open minded.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

And I quote:

"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. "

Go ahead big guy, there's your "red meat"!! Do you have anything else you would like me to pass along in my email?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> There's plenty of info out there. I


In the published science? Yes, I know. And it all points in the same direction.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 9, 2018)

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research. What works is REPRODUCIBLE research that could be validated with additional research to see if the hypothesis is working.

Consensus belongs in the world of Politics.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


...and condescending.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 9, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research


 No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


That 95% number used to be 97% and they had a variety of opinions on cause and severity. 97% was propaganda. Just like he's using. That in itself raises legitimate doubts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is not relevant, as the language "extremely.likelyy" was the language used.



That's not what you wrote. Are you confused? And even if it was --- is man responsible for 60% or 100%? Is man responsible for the GIGANTIC El Nino warmings that add to the temperature anomaly? Or ALL of the cattle farts?

Even it was "extremely likely" -- what does it say about the MAGNITUDE of the consequences?  Don't think it ventures any SCIENTIFIC OPINION on THAT important bit does it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research
> ...



And why should we take you seriously? You're quoting silly generalitities about consensus. I'm giving you the published results of ACTUAL 100 question polling of Climate scientists. There is NO obvious consensus on the IMPORTANT questions of GW science.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 9, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Consensus belongs in the world of Politics.


And that's exactly what the entire issue is.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research
> ...



I see that you can't answer, but have to say that not once have you made a supportable argument about consensus, while you ignore Flacalteen's consensus charts with your empty replies.

You need to get *off* the consensus bandwagon as that is a perfect example of the LOW science literacy thinking from people like you who rely on it so much. People who understand what drives science research would not be wasting time arguing consensus, but published reproducible papers that drives debate.

Consensus positions have been wrong *MANY* many times in the past, surely that should open your eyes to that reality, but you don't because you have no science based arguments to fall on, which is why you push the consensus nonsense so hard.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research
> ...



Did you read the results of the Recent Mann - Curry debate? You ever ask Dr Spencer or Dr Christy at UAH their opinion? Now you'll be lying if you make that statement again. Because you can't say you've never once run into any...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Still pissed that you lied about me PM'ing you
> ...



Well now we're talking I guess.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



He forgot the Oregon Petition Project (31,000 people) , or the 1350+ published papers or the 93 skeptic papers for 2014 and a lot more for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the point being that there are many who don't agree with the IPCC's position on the AGW conjecture.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



_So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with._

_*Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.*_

_That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)_

_The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?_

_No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”_

_That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!_

_A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures._

_Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year._

_The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union._

_In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments._

_Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete._

_Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures._

_About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second._

_In analyzing responses by sub-groups, *Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. *Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says_

*Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. *

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



_“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  _

They really dug deep with this one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There's always a "give-me" question that comes with any scientific consensus.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Ice cores are reliable data for the area from which they are taken. But different areas react differently and one can be cooling while another is warming. Warmer winters for most of the earth now, but not the northeastern US.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Or better yet. As an Atmospheric Chemist with over 8 years of college level discipline -- tell me quickly without googling shit or having a twin cow with the taunting crap, why CO2 is a GHouse gas and CO is not..


And that will happen about the time pigs fly. Burger flippers usually don't even know the difference between CO, and CO2.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Lindzen is not longer at MIT. And most of his work has been falsified, no Iris effect. Also, he stated before Congress that tobacco was harmless. And was paid well for it. The man is whoring his credentials. Judith Curry states that the GHGs are warming the atmosphere, but that the scientists should be good little virgins, and not soil themselves talking policy. Doesn't seem to realize that most have children and grandchildren and are concerned for their future. So, while Curry is respected as a scientist, not so much as a person, and has become a bit of an outcast.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Very simple, the consensus is that GHGs warm the atmosphere and ocean, and if you add more GHGs, you warm the atmosphere more. The details are how much and how fast. So show me articles from peer reviewed journals that dispute any of what I have said.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Or better yet. As an Atmospheric Chemist with over 8 years of college level discipline -- tell me quickly without googling shit or having a twin cow with the taunting crap, why CO2 is a GHouse gas and CO is not..
> ...



Spam flippers might.      Just saying. THAT was an amazing performance we just witnessed..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now. 







http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "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. " - NASA
> ...


The question is, "Does global warming actually exist"  Answer, yes. Next question. Are the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere the cause, or at least a substantial part of the cause? Answer for all the Scientific Societies in the world, yes. Now that is a consensus. Now, can a scientific consensus be wrong. The answer is yes, but very seldom, especially when we understand the basic cause, that being the absorption spectra of the GHGs.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jul 9, 2018)

The Sky is falling....send your contribution and increased cost of living to Rambunctious.com  so I can stop the sky from falling.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Well, if you are open minded enough, your brains fall out. LOL  Plenty of info out there? Alex Jones type info? Present some real scientists, not attention seeking idiots.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 9, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Once again you damage the warmist argument by posting this chart, thank you!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research. What works is REPRODUCIBLE research that could be validated with additional research to see if the hypothesis is working.
> 
> Consensus belongs in the world of Politics.


Reproducible research. Of course. Since several nations have satellites measuring ice, temperatures of the atmosphere, and the oceans, I would say that much reproducible research is being done. Not only that, but that research all indicates that a rapid warming is taking place. And the fact that the GHGs absorb long wave IR has been validated many times in many independent laboratories every since 1858. Consensus in science means that the theory is generally accepted because no one have succeeded in falsifying that theory. Like the theory of Evolution, the theory of AGW is one of the most robust in science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Once again you prove what an idiot you truly are. There is a very strong warming trend displayed on that chart.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Now dumb fuck, are you saying that all the scientists in the world are subsidized by the US Government? If so, why has not the orange clown stopped that? Since all the Scientific Societies of every nation agree that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


*The Oregon Petition Project was and is essentially a fraud to take in dumb fools like you.*

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

In 2001, _Scientific American_ took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[26]

Former _New Scientist_ correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in _Thunderbirds_. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[27][28]

*NAS incident[edit]*
A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_, a scientific journal,[29] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[30] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[30]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[31] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[31]

Robinson responded in a 1998 article in _Science_, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[30] A 2006 article in the magazine _Vanity Fair_ stated:

Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.[32]


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I never said it wasn't warming, but the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.

Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.30C or .15C


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You have all of the lefty propaganda points.
Any truly objective person would recognize the scam because of the politics that are infused.
AGW is a scam and supporting laymen are driven by ego.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I listed two and you did the usual AGW sheep disparagement.
I lived with an EPA scientist in a group house 30 years ago when this scam emerged, usurping the acid rain agenda.
He was on Nightline on ABC scaring people with predictions of AGW-induced calamities.
At the time he owned three cars, all of which predated emission control devices. 
That's when I learned to be skeptical.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The root word of the I in IPCC is _government_.
The Orange clown appointed Pruitt so he is doing _something_ about it. Not that easy to fire fed employees. Especially after thirty years of infiltrating the department with AGW scammers and parasites.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 10, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Your ignorance is showing...in the first 6 months of 2018, 254 papers have been published that question the consensus view of climate change.

These papers generally vary on one of 4 points from consensus science and call the consensus into question,  

1.  Natural process play much more than a "negligible" role in climate change which includes temperature changes, weather events precipitation patterns, etc, and the effects of CO2 on climate change  are far less than imagined, or not existent at all.

2.  Warming, sea levels, ice retreat/melting, hurricane intensity, drought intensity/length, etc in the modern era are neither remarkable, nor unprecedented nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

3.  Climate models are neither reliable, nor consistently accurate and predictions of future conditions or events are little more than wild assed guesses since the error and uncertainty range with which these models project are very large in a non linear system.

4.  That current CO2 reduction policies especially as they relate to the call for increased renewables are generally ineffective and very often harmful to the environment while elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide benefits that the "consensus" is completely overlooking such as a greener planet, increased arable land and increased crop yields.  

Now, should I begin to inundate you with peer reviewed, published papers which call the consensus into question, or would you care to retract your idiot claim that there are no papers which differ far from the consensus?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 10, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Burger flippers usually don't even *know the difference between CO, and CO2*.
> ...


I'll bet YOU do!!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Wow! That is a lot of numbers. 
Don't tell Fort Fun, he's allergic.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 10, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.\
> Homework for you:
> 
> Which number is bigger?
> ...


You gotta just love the hypocrisy of the deniers, a .15C difference is so enormous it completely discredits AWG, but when I showed the combined errors of Christy and Spencer at UAH totaled .21C the denires said that error was insignificant!!!!!

Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.21C or .15C


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 10, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.\
> ...



*Bwahahahahahaha!!!*

Notice his *deflection* from what the IPCC says about Per Decade prediction/projection to what Satellite data currently shows? He moves to whine about something that were fixed over a decade ago.....

The errors which were quickly fixed when brought up was done YEARS ago, such as 13 and more years ago.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


No, Pruitt is no longer doing anything at all in the government. The corrupt asshole got himself fired for even overreaching 
Trump scale corruption.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Now Tommy, me lad, how so? Lowest point to highest point on the chart, -0.5. 1984, to highest point, nearly 0.8, in 2016, gives you around 0.3 per decade. Lowest average, about -0.4, in 1985, to about 0.5 in 2017 gives you over 0.2 per decade. And 0.2 per decade is substantial, as we can see from the shrinking of the sea ice in the north polar cap.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



That's just the justification for further study. There are no conclusions in there ANYWHERE about magnitude or progression of the detected warming. And if there is not consensus about the TOOLS and methods --- we are nowhere even CLOSE to making those prognostications.

I have no problems whatsoever with what you just stated. I'd say that even NECESSARY to justify A LOT of Climate Science. But you know as well I do that so much of this has been misrepresented, over-exaggerated and mangled by the press and political leadership that there needs to be a more cautious approach to MAKING predictions and a HALT to fear mongering.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Hasn't even reached 560ppm which would be the 1st doubling since the Industrial Revolution began. CO2 has some power left to create an atmos heating. But it's logarithmically handicapped. And a doubling nowhere NEAR "doubles the temperature" of the planet. It's about 1.1DegC without all the hysteria of accelerations and runaway feedbacks. And we're not THERE yet. Probably WON'T be there until close to 2060.. Because energy demand is flat -- no where NEAR the projections -- and Nat Gas has put the US back to 1990 emission levels IN SPITE of govt interference in the energy market. 

So neither the "emissions scenarios" NOR the temperature modeling from the 80s and 90s is still in play. YET -- IT LIVES AND BREATHES DOOM and destruction on the Internet. 

Look at how much the 3 El Ninos ADD to that anomaly in the Satellite record. Then look at the DECADAL rate of that whole plot. Which is 0.13DegC/decade something last time I checked. Even tho their Mean contribution is normalize out -- MOST of the records set were during these 3 periods. 

Then go look for the El Ninos in the Surface Temp plots. They've been purged. *They were there in 2000.* But the cooks at the GISS/NOAA kitchens have sifted them out completely. So that what the PUBLIC sees is a LOT scarier and convincing.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses.  Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees. 

It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Pruitt opposed EPA overreach. His successor will, too, thank god.
That will save lives.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


*ebruary 19, 1859
– October 2, 1927*


*Arhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius [1], recent values from IPCC place this
value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. What is remarkable is that through a combination of skill and luck he came within a factor of two of the IPCC estimate. His calculations were important only in a qualitative way in showing that this was a significant effect. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions at his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now generally expected to take about a century.

SVANTE ARRHENIUS: CO2 FORECASTS*

OK.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 10, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You're not really an atmospherics PHD just because you register democrat.
Copying and pasting text from a lefty AGW propaganda site doesn't make you an expert either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Are the nano-particles added to the fuel?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 10, 2018)

One of the moderators deleted my posts showing that geo-engineering using the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates...a program that has been in play since 1997 is responsible for the weather anomalies.

Since when did the mods decide that they were "experts" in this area??? Does this shit look like normal condensation trails to you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 10, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> One of the moderators deleted my posts showing that geo-engineering using the stratospheric aerosol injection spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates...a program that has been in play since 1997 is responsible for the weather anomalies.
> 
> Since when did the mods decide that they were "experts" in this area??? Does this shit look like normal condensation trails to you?
> 
> View attachment 204085 View attachment 204086 View attachment 204087



Yes, that's what water vapor looks like.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 12, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses.  Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.
> 
> It's how I approach most any tool I use in science.


Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones for things like Planetary distance, Geologic age (without Isotopic dating), etc, etc.

That's typical flat earth BS from you to justify your now admittedly backwards ideas.
`


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> 
> 
> *January 18, 2018*
> ...



Let's debate this topic and let the masses decide which of us makes the better argument. I am calling "BULLSHIT" that the every day Johnny Lunchpail is responsible for the weather anomalies because they drive a car to and from work in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet. I will also go as far as to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel but is a abiotic fluid that is second only to water in quantity and artificial scarcities have been used to suck the the fiat currency scrip notes from those that need it. I will also provide proof that fuel efficient carburetor technology where ALL of the fuel is utilized with no emissions has been suppressed.

 I will also provide quotes from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club of Rome as it pertains to their "sustainable development" agenda where the Hegelian Dialectic is put into play....hey, it's in their own words.

Step up, put up or STFU.....it's really that simple.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 12, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Let's debate this topic and let the masses decide which of us makes the better argument. I am calling "BULLSHIT" that the every day Johnny Lunchpail is responsible for the weather anomalies because they drive a car to and from work in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet. I will also go as far as to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel but is a abiotic fluid that is second only to water in quantity and artificial scarcities have been used to suck the the fiat currency scrip notes from those that need it. I will also provide proof that fuel efficient carburetor technology where ALL of the fuel is utilized with no emissions has been suppressed.
> 
> I will also provide quotes from the Iron Mountain Report and the Club of Rome as it pertains to their "sustainable development" agenda where the Hegelian Dialectic is put into play....hey, it's in their own words.
> 
> Step up, put up or STFU.....it's really that simple.


*You "call bullshit" on NASA/NOAA in between posting your Chemtrails Pix BS as the post above? (and 2 others already deleted)*
You're kidding Right Mel!
Now stop hogging the machine and give the other Patients a chance.
Get the **** outa the real sections wack job.
bye.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Good plan.. I approve. So you should stick to basics. Like the ORIGINAL calculations of chemistry, physics and geometry that calculate the RAW warming power at the surface of a trace gas like CO2 --- just like your ancient pals Arrhenius and others did and NOT SPECULATE about Climate Sensitivities factors that have been REDUCED for decades now and are STILL pretty much primitive guesses.  Even Arrhenius had to guess to LEAP from a "power level" of watts/m2 to Degrees.
> ...



*Yes, we should always use 19th C etc calculations instead of more accurate modern ones*

And why use the actual historic temperature data when you can make it more accurate by "adjusting" it?


----------



## abu afak (Jul 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Precisely.
Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. To jibe New gauges with old, different or increased placement of old ones, etc


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



*Because from time to time on any long term msrt, adjustment for accuracy becomes necessary. *

Exactly! We have to adjust temperature records from the 1930s, to make them accurate.

DERP!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



But that's what people in the climate change club say....it flew with people in the public over a decade ago. Now they call bs....so it's part of the reason that in terms of climate change action, we aren't seeing......dick. It's about #50 on the Congressional "to do" list. In other words, nobody is caring and the public thinks temperature monitors in the middle of deserts is ghey!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



And YET at many of the CURRENT surface reporting stations, those measurements are taken on asphalt, within range of huge HVAC equipment or vehicles. Or even in between taxiways and run-up areas at airports. 

So there's NO rush to adjust any of it. It's been documented FAULTY for decades.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 13, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And there it is, the deniers bitch about poorly sited stations, and when these stations are removed from the data record they bitch about making an adjustment to the data. A win, win for worthless lying scum deniers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



If you remove a poorly sited station, do you have to adjust data from the 1930s?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Let's debate this topic and let the masses decide which of us makes the better argument. I am calling "BULLSHIT" that the every day Johnny Lunchpail is responsible for the weather anomalies because they drive a car to and from work in order to eek out an existence on this shitty prison planet. I will also go as far as to prove that petroleum isn't a fossil fuel but is a abiotic fluid that is second only to water in quantity and artificial scarcities have been used to suck the the fiat currency scrip notes from those that need it. I will also provide proof that fuel efficient carburetor technology where ALL of the fuel is utilized with no emissions has been suppressed.
> ...



Not kidding in the slightest and you will avoid an honest debate and exchange of ideas about "climate change" and the U.N's "sustainable development" plan put forth at the Rio conference in 1992. I know more than you......infinitely more...no brag, simply fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2018)

The ENSO is about to go cold again... Cooling of regions 1, 2, and 3 has begun..

This will not make the alarmists happy.....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Actually some of those corrections to the 30's are BECAUSE the siting has been changed. Or that's the excuse. I can't imagine if they are cooling the 30s HOW they find stations that were TOO HOT. Heck -- Air conditioning and central heating wasn't even a thing then. Neither were big airports and big asphalt. 

 It's a real "highly processed" product that they are cooking everyday at GISS and NOAA.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2018)

Salvatore Del Prete


> In the last couple of weeks overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down, Antarctica is having wicked cold, as well as South Africa. In the meantime the Arctic N. of 80 degrees latitude has below normal summer temperatures and to top it off year 2018 is running colder then year 2017 with the month of July to make that difference even more apparent.
> 
> As I have said for many months this is the transitional year. Say goodbye to the fake AGW.
> 
> Low solar moderated by a weakening geo magnetic field should result in overall sea surface temperatures to keep trending down, while the albedo should increase slightly.



The good Doctor is right on the money...


----------



## abu afak (Jul 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Salvatore Del Prete.....
> .........
> The good Doctor is right on the money...


Yup, "Right on the Money"
The Temp is setting records, NOT Dropping/not dropped .7c by decade end. only 17 months to go and this is THE WORST Climate prediction I've ever seen considering it was only a 6-7 year one.

Too Stupid for WUWT! | HotWhopper

*Salvatore Del Prete says (excerpt):
*
*July 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm  expect a -.7 c drop for global temp. by decade end,*
_if solar conditions are as quiet as I think they will be. Higher in the N.H High Latitudes, less in the S.H_​This is what Salvatore is predicting:



​OOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPSSS.
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Salvatore Del Prete
> 
> 
> > In the last couple of weeks overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are down, Antarctica is having wicked cold, as well as South Africa. In the meantime the Arctic N. of 80 degrees latitude has below normal summer temperatures and to top it off year 2018 is running colder then year 2017 with the month of July to make that difference even more apparent.
> ...



1st off your hero should only the Satellite charts. The GISS/NOAA crap is just simply unbelievable anymore. But more than that -- NOTHING about thermodynamics on this planet changes that fast from that small a forcing. Go LOOK at the Maunder Minimum and how long it took to reach a 0.5DegC bottom.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 14, 2018)

Nobody cares about a 0.5 degree drop or rise.

C'mon now...where is there any evidence that people are caring. Maybe some scientists are but they aren't even a blip in terms of numbers! Academia? Also a blip. Hollywood? A blip and nobody takes them seriously. Progressives....a little more than a blip but miles from a true voting block.

Nobody is interested s0ns....discussions of any "increase" in temperature is an exercise no more important than a group navel contemplation session in the bigger picture. It's a hobby for folks who need to be miserable about something, thus rants in the nether-regions of the internet. People out in the real world have places to go and people to see. The scientists have been screaming and lobbing bombs for over two decades....the people consistently hit the snooze button. C'mon now....

When the Arctic becomes a vacation destination for travel agencies, then maybe people will pay attention....how do you miss the memo that watching paint dry is ghey.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 14, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


If the station was poorly sited in the 30s, then yes.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 14, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Again the only data PROVEN to be cooked was the satellite data of Spencer and Christy at UAH. When it was "uncooked" it matched the ground station data almost exactly.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Salvatore Del Prete
> ...


The trend in unaltered data sets began 22 years ago.  So, yes I agree that it is a slow moving sloth. Dr Prete was simply pointing out the empirically observed evidence is becoming undeniable to the point where no further adjustment of it is possible and you still appear credible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Radiosonds say you have it 180 out...  They are in perfect agreement with the satellites.  it is your buds twisting and chewing up the USHCN AND HGCN SITES THAT ARE IDIOTS!..

But I'm sure you wont let empirical evidence dissuade you from your fantasy...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Salvatore Del Prete.....
> ...


The only OOOOPS I see is the one where you fools keep adjusting temps up to try and keep your lie alive...   LOL...  HOTWHOPPER..... Slandering Sou's web site known for flat out lies and fabrications unsupported by empirical evidence...  You should choose more wisely!


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 14, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


You have no empirical evidence, you simply refuse to accept the empirical evidence when it contradicts your built in bias.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 14, 2018)

The climate changes. What are ya gonna do?

Pollution is a problem. But, you know, the government is the worst polluters of all.

Japan had a car that ran on water. River water. Tap water. Rain water. And apparently, even tea would do.

Unfortunately, they got hit with that sudden tsunami shortly after they announced it and we haven't heard much about it since. Heh heh. I guess they learned their lesson.

This from just prior to 2011...


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 15, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Your modeling is pure bias and you call it evidence... When real evidence, empirically observed evidence, is presented you run off crying that the consensus says your models are right.... EVEN WHEN THE FACTS SAY YOUR WRONG!   Screw you and your politically contrived bull shit consensus...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


And where have I ever claimed that I was? All I have ever claimed is that I am a journey level millwright. Now Flacaltenn challenged me to go back to the original scientists for sources. 

A propaganda site? It states exactly what Arrnhenius's research led him to believe. And Arrnhenius was a Nobel prize winning chemist. One of the giants in science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*There you go again, Flacaltenn, telling Westwall sized lies. Yes, the readings on those stations are adjusted for the surroundings. *

Global Temperature Report for 2017 - Berkeley Earth

*Annual Temperature Anomaly*
*Year* *Rank* *Relative to 1981-2010 Average* *Relative to 1951-1980 Average
Anomaly in Degrees Celsius* *Anomaly in Degrees Fahrenheit* *Anomaly in Degrees Celsius* *Anomaly in Degrees Fahrenheit*
2017 2 0.47 ± 0.05 0.85 ± 0.08 0.83 ± 0.05 1.49 ± 0.08
2016 1 0.58 ± 0.04 1.05 ± 0.08 0.94 ± 0.04 1.70 ± 0.08
2015 3 0.44 ± 0.04 0.79 ± 0.08 0.80 ± 0.04 1.44 ± 0.08
2014 5 0.30 ± 0.05 0.54 ± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.05 1.19 ± 0.08
2013 9 0.23 ± 0.05 0.42 ± 0.08 0.59 ± 0.05 1.07 ± 0.08
2012 13 0.21 ± 0.04 0.38 ± 0.08 0.57 ± 0.04 1.03 ± 0.08
2011 15 0.20 ± 0.04 0.35 ± 0.08 0.56 ± 0.04 1.00 ± 0.08
2010 4 0.31 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.08 0.67 ± 0.04 1.21 ± 0.08
Uncertainties indicate 95% confidence range.





In the analysis that Berkeley Earth conducts, the uncertainty on the mean temperature for recent years is approximately 0.05 °C (0.09 °F). Since 2016 was warmer than 2017 by 0.11 °C (0.20 °F), more than double the uncertainty, we regard 2016 as unambiguously warmer than 2017.

When comparing 2017 to 2015, the smaller difference is less than the estimated uncertainty. Based on the best estimates for each of these years, and the uncertainties involved, we believe there is roughly an 80% likelihood that 2017 was warmer than 2015. Consequently, it is likely that 2017 was the 2nd warmest year overall. These uncertainties can be understood using the schematic below where each year’s estimate is represented by a distribution reflecting its uncertainty.





Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study

Read moreabout Charles Koch Admits Climate Change is Happening, Then Denies the Problem

Connor Gibson's blog

5 Comments
*The Daily Show Notes Irony of Koch-Funded Study Affirming Global Warming is Real*
Read time: 1 min
By Steve Horn • Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 11:19

Last night's entire first segment of _The Daily Show_ focused on the recent study funded by the Koch Brothers that confirmed (again) that climate change is indeed a reality - an ironic twist given the Kochtopus' track record of fueling the climate change denial echo chamber with upwards of $55 million.

As described in an earlier piece on DeSmogBlog, “The [Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)] paper, an effort to confirm or debunk whether the urban heat island (UHI) effect was skewing climate records, has affirmed - again - that global temperature records are accurate and worrisome.”

In a manner that only John Stewart and his _Daily Show_ team can, they unpacked the hilarious irony of the whole situation. The segment, roughly ten minutes long, is well worth watching for the laughs alone, especially the McRib-ing of the mainstream media's pathetic coverage of climate science and fixation on corporate advertising ploys. And Aasif Mandvi's interviews, of course. Watch the video below:

*Loved this report.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. And the IPCC estimates depend on what AReport year that was in. Since it's come down by MORE than a factor of 2 since the IPCC first started to calculate the phony number. 

It's phony because the reduction to a single number is a very NON-SCIENTIFIC scalar constant. In REALITY there's not just ONE climate sensitivity for entire fucking planet. The Earth does not have a single homogenized climate zone. And furthermore, it's certainly NOT a single number constant. There are factors for short, medium, long TIME CONSTANTS associated with CSensitivity that Arrhenius probably had NO guesstimation of . It's a full on, spatially and temporally variant system of equations. Otherwise, the modeling is crap. 

So LIKELY, the reason the IPCC only ever hit the LOWEST end of their estimates is because when you actually account for all the variables, the TOTAL effect on the planet surface is MUCH MUCH lower.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 17, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> *There you go again, Flacaltenn, telling Westwall sized lies. Yes, the readings on those stations are adjusted for the surroundings. *



How do you "adjust" for jet blast? Or the hot days when the HVAC blowing on the station pumps the readings? Or the fleet of panel trucks are idling within 20 yards of the station? Those stations need to be decommisioned and MOVED. That's how you "adjust" them.. 

I know that on my home temp stations in the house, If I STAND within 4 feet of them, it pumps the temps up by at least 0.4degF..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 17, 2018)

Well now, since the temperature lags the amount of CO2 by about 30 to 50 years because the oceans create a lot of inertia in the system. Yet, the anomaly for 2017, from only 1951-1981 average was 0.85 C. I expect that by 2030, the anomaly will exceed 1.5, and, maybe, even 2.0. And that anomaly does not represent the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Your link includes IPCC which is effectively a globalist propaganda entity.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, since the temperature lags the amount of CO2 by about 30 to 50 years because the oceans create a lot of inertia in the system. Yet, the anomaly for 2017, from only 1951-1981 average was 0.85 C. I expect that by 2030, the anomaly will exceed 1.5, and, maybe, even 2.0. And that anomaly does not represent the warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution.



The oceans aren't the sole cause of "lag". The atmos itself has a "retention" time constant. And the surface responds to increased CO2 in many other ways. It's QUITE complicated. Which is why I call bullshit when so much effort is put into a single stupid "global" STATIC number. 

I don't take the anomaly numbers from NOAA/GISS seriously anymore. SOMEONE has to come up with more honest accounting since they greatly diverged from agreement with space measurements. And I'll never accept that they CONTINUE to cool the 40s just to make things look scarier.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 18, 2018)

BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been fucking with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them.* It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study.* Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> How do you "adjust" for jet blast? Or the hot days when the HVAC blowing on the station pumps the readings? Or the fleet of panel trucks are idling within 20 yards of the station? Those stations need to be decommisioned and MOVED. That's how you "adjust" them..


You realize that the conditions you describe give LOWER anomalies and when they do what you say, the warming trend will increase, and you will then whine, "they adjusted the data."


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 18, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been fucking with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them.* It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study.* Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.


You are not going to accept any study data, no matter who does it, even if you do it yourself.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 20, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been fucking with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them.* It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study.* Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.


So let's be clear.. YOU are a Conspiracy theorist.
Suggesting NOAA, GISS, etc, are in this plot to fake the rate of warming- if there is warming at all! Right?
And sea level may also Not be rising with a little more help from another couple hundred scientists.
Right?
Then you gotta combine the PLOT with Thousands more scientists Worldwide

You're no better than a 9/11 Troofer.
"Deep State", "Fake News", ATTICA, ATTICA!
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> 97% was propaganda


Wrong. Several surveys of published work get that number and even 98%. And you sound daft, anyway...any of those numbers is an overwhelming consensus comparable to that enjoyed by evolution and relativity theories.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Suggesting NOAA, GISS, et,c are in this plot to fake the rate of warming


Right, it's cometely insane. The only reason these deniers are not embarrassed of themselves is because they can find nodding sycophants on the internet. And that is only the case because of the entire industry which tries to sow doubt in this science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > How do you "adjust" for jet blast? Or the hot days when the HVAC blowing on the station pumps the readings? Or the fleet of panel trucks are idling within 20 yards of the station? Those stations need to be decommisioned and MOVED. That's how you "adjust" them..
> ...



Really? So jet blast, HVAC and asphalt produce LOWER thermometer readings?  Who knew?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been fucking with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them.* It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study.* Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.
> ...



Happens CONSTANTLY. Almost every month the ENTIRE HISTORICAL record changes. All the fucking way back to the 1880s.  I have NASA GISS/NOAA data and graphs from 2006 CLEARLY showing the major El Nino event in 1998..  It's now GONE. Disa -- fucking-- ppeared.  Thousands of folks trying to follow along have the record of all this "data preparation and cooking". 

*NASA's Rubber Ruler

A funny thing happened on the way to determining how hot 2012 has been on a global basis: temperatures changed in 1880.

We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or 1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through June was only the 10th hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.

I thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The entire spreadsheet needed to be updated.

I knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data taken off NASA's web site two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my knowledge).

NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.


In short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed some time between July and September 2012.

Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of faster warming. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted down. That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the data, the more adjustment.*


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 20, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Suggesting NOAA, GISS, et,c are in this plot to fake the rate of warming
> ...



They ARE changing the baselines and temperature data over and over, you are willing to LIE to yourself about it but the evidence is absolute since it all from NASA/GISS themselves.

Their old temperature charts are still floating around that now fully contradicted by their recent ones, they vanished the COOLING from the 1940's-1970's that was once around .5C  now it is about zero, all from the SAME GISS organization!

I and others have posted them here before, but gets resisted because because it shows the deliberate lies they are promoting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> They ARE changing the baselines and temperature data over and over,


And you have no idea whatsoever why, you understand less than nothing about any of this, and you are nothing more than a crazy person on the corner with a bullhorn.

So, keep right on squawking and whining....it affects nothing.

Or, step up to the plate and produce some science. Join a debate at a university. 

Haha, just kidding...you would get laughed out of the room....


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 20, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > They ARE changing the baselines and temperature data over and over,
> ...



I see that you can't be civil or make a decent counter reply, it is clear you have NOTHING to offer here in the way of a mature debate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


You are correct, i have no reply for you of the type you seek. I will leave the thread and leave you guys to your home.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 20, 2018)

Try explaining these big differences:




 

Or this in contrast to NCAR,


----------



## tycho1572 (Jul 20, 2018)

I never thought I’d see the day when democrats would find a way to profit on something that’s been happening for millions of years. lol


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 20, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You can't even scrape the bottom of the barrel!

You CAN"T reply because you have NOTHING to reply with.

Sleep well kid.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > They ARE changing the baselines and temperature data over and over,
> ...



Oh we have a very CLEAR picture of their justifications based on papers published by their scientists like the former political activist in a labcoat, James Hansen, who USED to head GISS. His favorite argument is the Urban Heating effect does not matter. Argued based on the premise that the running baseline used to change raw temperatures into anomaly numbers normalizes the historical growth in UHI. But GISS and et have repeatedly changed the BASELINE as well.

Same with NOAA and their papers. Like the one that PUMPED UP the ocean temperatures by giving EQUAL credibility to  the 18th CENTURY method of using ship intake temperatures. And giving that TERRIBLE data source EQUAL weighting with other available methods.

It's all fluid and ad hoc and the net result is to COOL the past and WARM the present. Hardly EVER does it go "the other way"...

USED to be back about 2005 that ALL these different measurements done by ground or satellite were in FINE agreement. That's NOT the case any more.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 20, 2018)

Let us put everything in perspective:


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 21, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


No, they lower ANOMALIES!!!
Geezzzze no wonder you are afraid to debate, you have no idea how temperature trends are calculated.

Anomalies are measured as the deviation from a 30 year AVERAGE temperature at that site, so if the thermometer is near a heat source the AVERAGE temperature the ANOMALY is measured against will be higher, making the deviation from that average smaller.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 21, 2018)

Kosh said:


> Let us put everything in perspective:


Gee, now all of a sudden it is OK to combine proxy data with direct instrument measurements, as long as you don't get a hockey stick.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 3, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Many things have to be adjusted over time to accopuntr for betteer measurement. 
Things like inter-planetary distance were accurate for the time, but we can now see there mistakes and why and adjust for them.
And see why there numbers needed adjustment.
`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 3, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Let us put everything in perspective:
> ...


Unlike Mann the data is identified and scale noted...  Minor little things that allow educated evaluations...   The only reason Mann choose to hide these facts is to conceal deception of improper applications and to give a false impression of critical and unnatural warming..  When placed in proper context, nothing we have seen is outside natural variation and is therefor not critical or unnatural..

Where is that midtropospheric hot spot?


----------



## abu afak (Aug 13, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Don't you tire of your Worldwide Scientist Conspiracy theory? 
One can always find a "Kellyanne" outlier "alt Graph", but the trend is clear on all fronts. Air, Land Sea, and Sea Level.
`


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



But where are people caring beyond the science? It's not transcending dick! Really....show is some evidence s0n!  If we assume "the science", being decided paves the way for climate action, then why is none occurring? Well duh.....because the people just dont consider it very important in their day to day lives, which of course is not even debatable.  You know how many climate crusaders have come in here over the years on their high horse only to get smacked upside the head for a few months then disappear. Dozens.... they all end up going away because they can no longer take the losing.. One can only take bows in front of a billboard for so long before giving up because folks just whiz right past without noticing. Its gotta suck the big one after awhile.. Skeptics have dominated this forum for 10 years now. When last we saw the scoreboard it was like 142 - 7 in favor of the skeptics. And that was like 3 years ago!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 13, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Don't you ever tire of covering up for the socialist scumbags that are using a non-existent problem to take their freedoms? Do you ever tire of parroting lies and deceptions?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 14, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been fucking with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them.* It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study.* Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.


LOL  Since scientists in other nations are getting the same numbers, I can only assume that you have plenty of tinfoil for your little hats. You have to posit an international conspiracy among all the scientist from all the nations that are studying oceanography, geology, glaciology, climatology, and atmospheric physics. And not a single squealer among them. But I am sure that Silly Billy is glad to have another person on his peer level.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BTW Old Rocks -- I have no doubt the BEST study had all good intentions. But 6 or 8 graduate students are NO MATCH for the building full of Pros at NOAA and GISS that have been fucking with this data for DECADES and cleaning up the internet and all public records behind them.* It's a FORENSICS investigation that's needed, not a science study.* Because not ALL adjustments are known and the BEST team was WAY too quick to make any educated pronouncements and go to the press. The $$$Backers needed the publicity at the time.
> ...



They get the same numbers GoldiRocks, because more than 70% of the earths surface is covered by seas. And NOAA/GISS data is total sum of that 70%..  How could you miss that important explanation?  NOAA/GISS is the starting point for every other major temperature survey on the planet..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 14, 2018)

edthecynic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



I SAID -- they COOL the past.  Have your grandson explain to you why that LOWERS anomalies..


----------



## abu afak (Aug 15, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> *But where are people caring beyond the science?* It's not transcending dick! Really....show is some evidence s0n!  If we assume "the science", .....


This is your usual, and I mean 2000 Times TROLL.
Claiming People don't care in a specific Topical thread in which there IS debate where people DO care.
That's OFF topic.
*If YOU don't Care, Don't post here.*
(like you thankfully don't elsewhere).

You are a "NO ONE CARES" TROLL in almost Every string here.
LEAVE.

An FCT Thread asked what we can do to improve the board?
Get rid of Trolls like you, who have NO content, just mocking idiot emoticons, Stupid flame OPs, and daily saying "No One cares" in every "debate"/thread in which people do care about a given issue.
`
`


----------



## polarbear (Aug 15, 2018)

Moohaha now it`s in oversized font. What`s next ? Asking "Antifa" to mob him ?
The only warming is happening with people who get hot under the collar if the same old temperature graph rubber snake doesn`t freak out everybody any more.
Skook is right, nobody that matters cares about this crap.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 15, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Moohaha now it`s in oversized font. What`s next ? Asking "Antifa" to mob him ?
> The only warming is happening with people who get hot under the collar if the same old temperature graph rubber snake doesn`t freak out everybody any more.
> Skook is right, nobody that matters cares about this crap.


So you're not just an AGW denier, you're a warming denier too?

This puts you in the lower tier of even the clowns in this section.. and along with the creationists in the Sci section.
`


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2018)

abu afak said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Moohaha now it`s in oversized font. What`s next ? Asking "Antifa" to mob him ?
> ...


Haha as if I would want to be in the tier of clowns who you rank high. That would put me in the same category of idiots that award  Maxime Waters  the top rank.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 16, 2018)

Still waiting for Abu Afuk to provide empirical evidence of the Midtropospheric hot spot..


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Still waiting for Abu Afuk to provide empirical evidence of the Midtropospheric hot spot..


That may take a while till he finally figures out you are not talking about a Wi-Fi hot spot.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 16, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Still waiting for Abu Afuk to provide empirical evidence of the Midtropospheric hot spot..



Only when hell freezes over, and then maybe even then he won't anyway.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 17, 2018)

Region 3-4 now getting ready to take a dive...

Not sure where that magical heat went...

La Niña pattern setting up for fall and winter in the US... Its going to be a hard cold one this year for most of the US..


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 17, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> 
> 
> *January 18, 2018*
> ...


can anyone explain what happened to the ice age we were promised in the 70's?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 17, 2018)

Frankeneinstein said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> ...


We had not past the angle of incidence to the sun yet where glaciation occurs.  24.62 degrees.  We have now reached 24.57 and are well past that well known Milankovich cycle point.

Now we have not only the physical angle of the earth but the convergence of all major cycles into a cold phase and a cooling sun.  The warming we have seen is natural response of the earths storage system which is now depleted...  Cooling is here and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do but adapt.

Whether or not we are entering an Ice age this time around remains to be seen, but one major volcanic eruption could easily put us in one now...


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 17, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> We had not past the angle of incidence to the sun yet where glaciation occurs. 24.62 degrees. We have now reached 24.57 and are well past that well known Milankovich cycle point.
> 
> Now we have not only the physical angle of the earth but the convergence of all major cycles into a cold phase and a cooling sun. The warming we have seen is natural response of the earths storage system which is now depleted... Cooling is here and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do but adapt.
> 
> Whether or not we are entering an Ice age this time around remains to be seen, but one major volcanic eruption could easily put us in one now...


You've clearly done your homework [perhaps too much of it]...I appreciate the academic explanation which will require me to break out dictionaries and encyclopedias [thanks a lot] which may have been your intent so as to teach me a lesson as it were...I was just mocking the new snake oil salesmen who are going to give us all air to breath if we just open our wallets and vaults for them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Moohaha now it`s in oversized font. What`s next ? Asking "Antifa" to mob him ?
> The only warming is happening with people who get hot under the collar if the same old temperature graph rubber snake doesn`t freak out everybody any more.
> Skook is right, nobody that matters cares about this crap.


Just an awful lot of people caring a great deal in Washington, Oregon, California, and British Columbia this year as they watch fires consuming their forest, homes, and crops. But then, those are 'losers', right? So they no longer matter. Wonderfully fascist mindset.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Silly Billy, you get more pathetic every day. So why don't you send some of that cooling toward the West Coast of the US and Canada. We need it, because it is hot and on fire. There are people on this board that have been predicting serious cooling for the entire time they have been on the board, and all we have seen is warming. So, Mr. Westwall, where the hell is that cooling?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

Frankeneinstein said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> ...


Can anyone explain why you are so retarded and unable to look that up on the device setting in front of you? You were not promised an ice age by most of the peer reviewed science published in that period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 211086
> 
> Region 3-4 now getting ready to take a dive...
> 
> ...


So Silly Billy is predicting a hard winter. Given the credibility of his past prognostications, better get the swim suits out for December.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > We had not past the angle of incidence to the sun yet where glaciation occurs. 24.62 degrees. We have now reached 24.57 and are well past that well known Milankovich cycle point.
> ...


The slide into a glacial period through the Milankovic Cycles requires tens of thousands of years. And the present amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will negate that influence.






Roy Martin: Milankovitch cycles and Ice Age timings

Note that the downward portion is slow compared to the time it takes for the interglacial to develop.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


"*And the present amount of GHGs in the atmosphere will negate that influence"*

BULL SHIT!

Alarmist clap trap lie....

You want to explain how the earth glaciated with CO2 levels above 4500ppm millions of times? Its idiots like you who believe in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary. Even the graph in your post proves you wrong..

You need to stop playing with your broken models.



 

Then you need to explain why the earths systems did not "runaway" when we had CO2 levels above 7000ppm and it stayed within the earths historical temperature range...  

You alarmists are fucking liars...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Frankeneinstein said:
> ...


REGIONAL WEATHER EVENT...  You think because the current La Niña flow is allowing a blocking high and temps to build in a small region that the whole earth is burning up.  And you choose to ignore the other 87% of the Northern Hemisphere that is below average by 2-7 def F.

The cooling is all over you retard..  Pull your head out of your model and look a empirical observations that have not been warmed up by your failed model.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Can anyone explain why you are so retarded and unable to look that up on the device setting in front of you?


Retarded? very scientific, the liberal academic argument



> You were not promised an ice age by most of the peer reviewed science published in that period.


And some day your kids will be telling others the same thing about global warming...give me an example of what "peer reviewed science" [do you know what a qualifier is"?] was saying...
...left wing educators, newspapers, and television were all claiming scientists were claiming that industrial pollution was going to block out the sun to the point it would trigger a new ice age [the planet has had between 17 and 19 ice ages and an equal number of "global warming" stages]...
...it is obvious to even you now, that was a lie, but what did come of it was a substantially increased budget for the EPA with expanded powers into the businesses and private lives of Americans...now the increase in funds is needed to prop up failing european governments whose economies are sinking into the socialist abyss...no money for you Ivan, If you're looking for a mark scam the canadians.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2018)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone explain why you are so retarded and unable to look that up on the device setting in front of you?
> ...


*Well now, since you have proven yourself a compete fucking idiot, here;*

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.






The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*LOL  Another stinky 'fact' from the ass of our burger flipper.*












*+0.4 for the Northern Hemisphere. LOL*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 20, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Karl Et Al Warmed BS...  The University of Main failed model....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 20, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Another failed appeal to authority...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2018)

LOL  From a burger flipper that claims a degree in Atmospheric Physics.LOL Yes, a link to people who actually study this field, and not an internet pretender, a particular stupid one at that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 21, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  From a burger flipper that claims a degree in Atmospheric Physics.LOL Yes, a link to people who actually study this field, and not an internet pretender, a particular stupid one at that.





 

 

Like I said... No cognitive Ability....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Oh.. Man.... I love me some great "Climate REANALYSIS"... It's comical. And it seems to be all ya got. 

These are NOT primary temperature reported data. They are TOTALLY "REANALYZED" by an algorithm that PREDICTS or backcasts what THEY THINK the temperatures should be. Run by Grad students with no accountability to scientific sharing or reporting.. And you fall for it. Consistently.. 

Use satellites or thermometers unless you're trying to kill me from the comedy of it all....


----------



## mamooth (Sep 30, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> These are NOT primary temperature reported data. They are TOTALLY "REANALYZED" by an algorithm that PREDICTS or backcasts what THEY THINK the temperatures should be.



For Flac, it's conspiracies all the way down.



> Run by Grad students with no accountability to scientific sharing or reporting.. And you fall for it. Consistently..



I wonder why Flac suddenly started babbling about grad students. My guess is that he saw "University of Maine" somewhere on the website, and his cult brain thus assumed U of Maine grad students were running the models they wrote themselves.

Those who aren't braiwashed would have done something unthinkable to Flac. Instead of blindly assuming it was a conspiracy against the cult, they would have taken the time to learn where the data comes from. It takes about 10 seconds. 

---
*Data Source*
The weather maps shown here are generated from the  NCEP Global Forecast System (GFS) model. GFS is the primary operational model framework underlying U.S. NOAA/NWS weather forecasting. The model is run four times daily on a global T1534 gaussian grid (~13 km) to produce 16-day forecasts. Here, we use 0.25°x0.25° (~30 km) output grids available from  NOMADS, and calculate daily averages from eight 3-hourly timeslices starting at 0000 UTC.
---



> Use satellites or thermometers unless you're trying to kill me from the comedy of it all....



The GFS is the basis for most weather forecasting in the USA. It's likely that your local news uses it. And Flac thinks it's "comedy". Flac has devolved so far into conspiracy madness, he defines all weather forecasting as a socialist plot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2018)

People like Flacaltenn can pretend for a while to accept science, but eventually, they go back to being brainless political whack jobs. They simply are unable to handle the fact that things are not as they think they should be. So they ignore the science, and make up lies about the sources, knowing full well they are lies. And not caring that people can now instantly check their lies on the net.


----------



## miketx (Oct 1, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> 
> 
> *January 18, 2018*
> ...


Last week, all week long was on average 20 - 30 degrees cooler here than the same time last year.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 1, 2018)

miketx said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 wasn't one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> ...


SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids
The Chill of Solar Minimum
*Sept. 27, 2018:* The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018, and the sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply dropped. New research shows that Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding.

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface. By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas at the very top of the atmosphere–a layer researchers call “the thermosphere.”

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks, literally decreasing the radius of Earth’s atmosphere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 5, 2018)

toobfreak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there will inevitably be some cooler years or even groups of years in a solid long term warming trend, but 2017 was one of them. The 5 hottest years included 2017 (2nd or 3rd) and have all happened since 2010. So ALL those "Cold-thanner-average-DAY/Week/LOCAL" posts you clowns made last YEAR.. are even worse Garbage now.
> ...


Ah yes, the "New Alamo" for denier fools:

"I just don't care."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 5, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Oh.. Man.... I love me some great "Climate REANALYSIS"... It's comical.


Yes, fools often laugh like rabid hyenas at things they don't understand. It provides cover for the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about.


----------



## karpenter (Oct 7, 2018)

*Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA*

Crops Grow And People Are Fed


----------



## sparky (Oct 7, 2018)

Markle said:


> *As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*
> 
> 
> *14th February, 2010*
> ...



You forgot the rest of the supermarket tabloids .....


----------



## polarbear (Oct 7, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> People like Flacaltenn can pretend for a while to accept science, but eventually, they go back to being brainless political whack jobs. They simply are unable to handle the fact that things are not as they think they should be. So they ignore the science, and make up lies about the sources, knowing full well they are lies. And not caring that people can now instantly check their lies on the net.


_People like Flacaltenn can pretend for a while to accept science, but eventually, they go back to being brainless political whack jobs. They simply are unable to handle the fact that things are not as they think they should be. So they ignore the science, and make up lies about the sources, knowing full well they are lies_.* And not caring that people can now instantly check their lies on the net*.
That`s right people can indeed check out lies on the net, like that phony anomaly globe you posted.
Turns out there are 24 versions (of the "truth"). The most glaring contradictions appear when you dig in the archived pages and compare those with today`s claims.
Global Warming Update
_August 2018 was the fifth highest August temperature since global records began in 1880 at _*0.74°C above the 20th century average of 15.6°C *
Only stupid people would not try and re examine that without  the (fifth highest) hype and inquire  which was the highest. But the AGW propaganda machine  won`t mention that or any other relevant details for good reasons.
But you can find it in the archives what they said when that record was set:
Earth Temperature in 1998 Is Reported at Record High
_As new global high-temperature records have been established in the 1990's, 
they have usually exceeded old ones by mere hundredths of a degree at a time. 
But if the new estimate holds up, 1998 will top the 1997 record by about a quarter of a degree.
According to the numbers announced yesterday, the globe is about* 1.25 degrees warmer *than at the beginning of this century_.
That`s .51 C less for that "alarming" August 2018 than it was for 1998 which included that years colder seasons. If some skeptic would graph that you would scream "cherry picking" but it`s ok for liars and fake science to cherry pick August 2018 and make sensational statements and post red-hot planet cartoonist jpg`s  on the internet.
These so called scientists cant even make up their mind how much warmer we got since the last ice age:
_''This number's amazing,'' said Dr. Philip D. Jones, a climatologist at the University of East Anglia in England, speaking of a field in which records are normally set in fractions. Dr. Jones provided much of the information on which yesterday's announcement was based.
As new global high-temperature records have been established in the 1990's, they have usually exceeded old ones by mere hundredths of a degree at a time.The difference may appear small, but the world is only* 5 to 9 degrees warmer now than in the depths of the last ice age*. According to the numbers announced yesterday, the globe is about 1.25 degrees warmer than at the beginning of this century_.
How much more ridiculous can it get hyping a 0.74 C "increase" which *actually was a 0.5 C decrease* from 1998 while they can`t even determine if that is* 5 or 9 whole degrees* warmer than the last ice age.


*
*


----------



## sparky (Oct 7, 2018)

It's more than just heat, many records are being broken.  

Remember last years '_polar vortex'_?   I do, i had to work out in it

Of course the deniers were all about '_fake science_' , when in fact it was an anomally associated by severe climate changes 

So are all the hurricanes , floods, droughts, winds & rains

Our climate has inherent interconnectability , just like all of nature

~S~


----------

