Human Caused Global Warming

[Kosh]

Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News

Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.

The study, based on an analysis of records from highland regions of Ethiopia and Colombia, suggests that future climate warming will result in a significant increase in malaria cases in densely populated regions of Africa and South America, unless disease monitoring and control efforts are boosted and sustained.

"We saw an upward expansion of malaria cases to higher altitudes in warmer years, which is a clear signal of a response by highland malaria to changes in climate," said U-M theoretical ecologist Mercedes Pascual, senior author of a paper scheduled for online publication in Science on March 6

Once again, ol' Walleyes is exposed as a fraud.

Here is something to show that the AGW cult are frauds and hate real science.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Kosh,
Excuse me for butting in, but you call clouds a greenhouse gas. But later, you admit that clouds reflect sunlight. There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning. Also, high altitude clouds reflect sunlight in pretty much the same was as low altitude clouds. Also, with your graph you seem to dispute the fact that man's activity, as small as it is, is having an impact. Well I have a couple graphs too.View attachment 32898 View attachment 32899

Yes you posted the hockey stick.. It has been debunked over an dover again..

Also something that the AGW cult will deny:

 

[Crick]

How about you show us a peer reviewed study by honest-to-god climate scientists that debunks the hockey stick. Eh?

Meanwhile:

 

[Wyld Kard]

Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.

 

[Kosh]

How about you show us a peer reviewed study by honest-to-god climate scientists that debunks the hockey stick. Eh?

Meanwhile:

In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results. Finally, two Canadian scientists found out the data set used by Mann, and analyzed Mann's statistical approach. They determined that Mann and his team used incorrect statistics to come up with the curve. In fact, it was so bad that the same curve was created even if they inputted a completely random data set. The curve was a function of the statistics used, and had nothing to do with reality. When the Canadian scientists applied the correct statistics, out popped the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum (see above). Worse, a scandal at Great Britain's Climate Research Unit in the late fall of 2009 revealed that the data used in the graph after 1960 was from a totally different and completely corrupted data set. Even if the second data set was not corrupted, combining two radically different data sets (apples and oranges) into one graph negates its scientific validity. Although the Hockey Stick Curve was thoroughly discredited, it continued to be used in publications and media reports for years, and was a main component of Al Gore's video The Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this episode is that even after having his error exposed, Dr. Michael Mann is still a principal scientist in the IPCC and receives millions of dollars from the US government. Tragically, this kind of slipshod research has also been discovered coming out of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since the finding that NASA's temperature data was in error in 2007, other errors are being reported. And of course the big one that the AGW cult ignores: It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now that is what real science looks like vs AGW cult and scriptures that will try and sell their snake oil to the public.

 

[Kosh]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

 

[cultsmasher]

Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News

Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.

The study, based on an analysis of records from highland regions of Ethiopia and Colombia, suggests that future climate warming will result in a significant increase in malaria cases in densely populated regions of Africa and South America, unless disease monitoring and control efforts are boosted and sustained.

"We saw an upward expansion of malaria cases to higher altitudes in warmer years, which is a clear signal of a response by highland malaria to changes in climate," said U-M theoretical ecologist Mercedes Pascual, senior author of a paper scheduled for online publication in Science on March 6

Once again, ol' Walleyes is exposed as a fraud.

Here is something to show that the AGW cult are frauds and hate real science.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Kosh,
Excuse me for butting in, but you call clouds a greenhouse gas. But later, you admit that clouds reflect sunlight. There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning. Also, high altitude clouds reflect sunlight in pretty much the same was as low altitude clouds. Also, with your graph you seem to dispute the fact that man's activity, as small as it is, is having an impact. Well I have a couple graphs too.View attachment 32898 View attachment 32899

Yes you posted the hockey stick.. It has been debunked over an dover again..

Also something that the AGW cult will deny:

Kosh,
You disagree with the "hockey stick" graph. Then you show me another. You won't win many arguments that way.

 

[cultsmasher]

Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.

wildcard,
I think the graphs of crick and I beat yours.

 

[cultsmasher]

How about you show us a peer reviewed study by honest-to-god climate scientists that debunks the hockey stick. Eh?

Meanwhile:

In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results. Finally, two Canadian scientists found out the data set used by Mann, and analyzed Mann's statistical approach. They determined that Mann and his team used incorrect statistics to come up with the curve. In fact, it was so bad that the same curve was created even if they inputted a completely random data set. The curve was a function of the statistics used, and had nothing to do with reality. When the Canadian scientists applied the correct statistics, out popped the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum (see above). Worse, a scandal at Great Britain's Climate Research Unit in the late fall of 2009 revealed that the data used in the graph after 1960 was from a totally different and completely corrupted data set. Even if the second data set was not corrupted, combining two radically different data sets (apples and oranges) into one graph negates its scientific validity. Although the Hockey Stick Curve was thoroughly discredited, it continued to be used in publications and media reports for years, and was a main component of Al Gore's video The Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this episode is that even after having his error exposed, Dr. Michael Mann is still a principal scientist in the IPCC and receives millions of dollars from the US government. Tragically, this kind of slipshod research has also been discovered coming out of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since the finding that NASA's temperature data was in error in 2007, other errors are being reported. And of course the big one that the AGW cult ignores: It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now that is what real science looks like vs AGW cult and scriptures that will try and sell their snake oil to the public.

Kosh,
Denier gibberish. It's all a conspiracy! Science just doesn't work like that. If the observations didn't back up the whole human caused global warming thing, there's a good chance that the vast majority of scientists would acknowledge it. Or at least enough of them to cast some "real" doubt about the whole thing.

 

[Crick]

Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.

Still waiting for a peer-reviewed study by reputable climate scientists that refutes the hockey stick. As to your graphs here Wildcard: the one you have here labeled "before Michael Mann" would probably be 1965 Lamb data from Central England. That would be before widespread access tocomputers and before satellites and their data. Michael Mann's work built on all of that but went further, with far, far more observations, better understanding of proxy-temperature relationships and the ability to handle orders of magnitude more data. Where in god's name would you get the idea that the older data were better? And Mann is not the only one to discover that CO2 and temperature have both shot up radically in the 20th and 21st century. All scientists studying those issues are finding that because THAT IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

If you also think hockey stick graphs have been refuted - and we can use Mann, Bradley & Hughes temperature reconstruction if you like - I'd be glad to discuss it with you. I'll give you a hint: you'll need to look at the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick. But before you come throw that at me, you might want to look up some of the responses to their work that have come out from better qualified statisticians. For instance, the claim that McIntyre has made and that damn near every denier on Earth repeated, that MBH's processing would produce a hockey stick shaped graph out of pink noise has been shown to be complete shite. Mr McIntyre has not been entirely honest in this affair. He plays a great deal more fast and loose with MBHs data than MBH ever did. But don't take my word for it. Go. Read. Learn.

 

[cultsmasher]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.

Sorry about the duplication.

 

[Kosh]

Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News

Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.

The study, based on an analysis of records from highland regions of Ethiopia and Colombia, suggests that future climate warming will result in a significant increase in malaria cases in densely populated regions of Africa and South America, unless disease monitoring and control efforts are boosted and sustained.

"We saw an upward expansion of malaria cases to higher altitudes in warmer years, which is a clear signal of a response by highland malaria to changes in climate," said U-M theoretical ecologist Mercedes Pascual, senior author of a paper scheduled for online publication in Science on March 6

Once again, ol' Walleyes is exposed as a fraud.

Here is something to show that the AGW cult are frauds and hate real science.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Kosh,
Excuse me for butting in, but you call clouds a greenhouse gas. But later, you admit that clouds reflect sunlight. There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning. Also, high altitude clouds reflect sunlight in pretty much the same was as low altitude clouds. Also, with your graph you seem to dispute the fact that man's activity, as small as it is, is having an impact. Well I have a couple graphs too.View attachment 32898 View attachment 32899

Yes you posted the hockey stick.. It has been debunked over an dover again..

Also something that the AGW cult will deny:

Kosh,
You disagree with the "hockey stick" graph. Then you show me another. You won't win many arguments that way.

They have been post on another post already!

 

[Kosh]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

Yep the Erath is in a warming cycle (naturally occurring) yet the AGW cult wants to blame humans.

 

[jc456]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

 

[mamooth]

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

We understand that's a kook conspiracy theory on your part, contradicted by both the data and common sense.

We also understand that since you're so completely brainwashed, you no longer care about the data or common sense. Your cult has commanded you to repeat something, therefore you're going to repeat it, no matter how stupid and crazy it is.

Good luck with your little echo chamber here. The rest of the world is ignoring you. You can keep screaming into your echo chamber here, and you will, but the world will still keep ignoring you. At this point, your only relevance is as an interesting example of cult psychology.

 

[jc456]

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

We understand that's a kook conspiracy theory on your part, contradicted by both the data and common sense.

We also understand that since you're so completely brainwashed, you no longer care about the data or common sense. Your cult has commanded you to repeat something, therefore you're going to repeat it, no matter how stupid and crazy it is.

Good luck with your little echo chamber here. The rest of the world is ignoring you. You can keep screaming into your echo chamber here, and you will, but the world will still keep ignoring you. At this point, your only relevance is as an interesting example of cult psychology.

WiNNiNg though hahahahahahahahah WiNNiNg

BTW, I have more common sense in my little pinky than you have in your entire body. So thanks and have another LoSing day!!!!!

 

[cultsmasher]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

 

[jc456]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment"

 

[cultsmasher]

Oh needed to add this one:

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Kosh,
Temperature doesn't always precede CO2. As the graph shows. And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.View attachment 32901
View attachment 32901 View attachment 32901
Sorry about the duplication.

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

jc456,
Yeah. The graphs is showed were manufactured. Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.

Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, normalization can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of adjusted values into alignment"

jc456,
Statistics has little or nothing to do with it. What matters are the measurements.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.

wildcard,
I think the graphs of crick and I beat yours.

Of course you do. That's because you drank the Kool-aid, dumbass.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I don't agree with you. Accept we don't. All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data. Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.

FINALLY! SOMEONE TELLS THESE MORONS ....

Yet somehow they continue to post those graphs WITHOUT their Sourcing, Data, and methodology. About Thirty years ago a few were asking Mann where his stuff was.... He and Trenbreth went out looking for it and have not returned.