We’re experiencing Earth’s Hottest Weather in 120,000 Years, and it’s just getting Started

[EMH]

Why should anyone rely on “facts” with no evidence?

LOL!!!

NO EVIDENCE of "abrupt climate change"

NO EVIDENCE to back up the claim that ocean currents change the climate

NO EVIDENCE to back up the claim that "temperature data from ice cores" is accurate

NO EVIDENCE that 2.5 mile thick glacier on Chicago was only 75k years old

NO EVIDENCE that Antarctica has been on the south pole for the past 90 million years

NO EVIDENCE of "glacial/interglacial" which is blown away by the fact that both Antarctic and Greenland ice GREW during the last so-called "interglacial"

NO EVIDENCE that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes warming

NO EVIDENCE of ocean rise

NO EVIDENCE of a breakout in cane activity

NO EVIDENCE of a "climate crisis" at all

 

[Crick]

That’s precisely where the Theory starts to falls apart!

The theory is supported by a great deal more than this.

Put aside the now $3 trillion annual price tag

The price tag for collecting data is not $3 trillion.

and just look at the math and statistics.

I have been doing so for quite some time. So have the 97% of climate scientists who accept the theory.

There is no dataset to have any confidence in the numbers from 1850, 60, 70, 1900, even 1930!

On what do you base that? Uninformed assumptions. You've made no examination of that data whatsoever. The scientists have.

Why should anyone rely on “facts” with no evidence?

What is a fact with no evidence? Scientists have decided that 1850 is the limit for having sufficently accurate and representative instrument data for the estimation of global temperature. Many types of proxy data are available between 1850 and the present and they validate the results. Before 1850, scientists have restricted themselves solely to proxy data. That decision is reasonable and there is ZERO evidence that that decision has created any bias in the data. You have certainly presented none.

The modern dataset relies heavily on deep ocean temperatures, when do we have any reading at all on that?

NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth and Hadley all use SST, not deep ocean temperatures. SST values were formerly recorded from wooden buckets drawn up the side. Later, temperatures were recorded manually and then automatically by powered ocean going vessels, who used sea water for cooling.

Here is a good NASA article that talks about how global temperatures are calculated and the history of data collection. It's not too long and I think you'll find it interesting.

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

science.nasa.gov

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The price tag for collecting data is not $3 trillion.

The price tag for the idiotic left-wing solutions are at least $3 trillion a year.

 

[EMH]

The price tag for collecting data is not $3 trillion

All the government should do is collect and distribute data. It should not fund "studies" for liars to fudge data for politicized purposes.

The data collection part is actually quite cheap. The trillions are what the Co2 FRAUD is STEALING...

 

[Crick]

Frank? Did you give it a look?

Here is a good NASA article that talks about how global temperatures are calculated and the history of data collection. It's not too long and I think you'll find it interesting.

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

science.nasa.gov

 

[EMH]

Frank? Did you give it a look?

"Scientists have been building estimates of Earth’s average global temperature for more than a century,"

and the "estimates" are always off the scale biased towards "warming" that does not exist.


"But before 1880, there just wasn’t enough data to make accurate calculations, resulting in uncertainties in these older records."

THAT at least is a confession all should digest. Prior to 1880, we do not have ACCURATE data, yet the "ice core temps" are cited as accurate even though THERE IS NO WAY TO MEASURE THEIR ACCURACY, and let's face it, they are claiming they have an entire planet's average temp from a layer of ice on one spot... not believable.



and no mention of the 2005 FUDGE JOB of the atmospheric temps showing NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE DESPITE RISING Co2

 

[Crick]

Here is a good NASA article that talks about how global temperatures are calculated and the history of data collection. It's not too long and I think you'll find it interesting.

The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records - NASA Science

Ensuring the accuracy of Earth’s long-term global and regional surface temperature records is a challenging, constantly evolving undertaking. There are lots of reasons for this, including changes in the availability of data, technological advancements in how land and sea surface temperatures are...

science.nasa.gov

Frank? You wrote several posts on this very topic. I have to conclude you have an interest. This article is, like, a page and a half. It has information you should find interesting and informative. It discusses the difficulty of dealing with sparse, manually collected data. Give it a read.

 

[abu afak]

Frank? You wrote several posts on this very topic. I have to conclude you have an interest. This article is, like, a page and a half. It has information you should find interesting and informative. It discusses the difficulty of dealing with sparse, manually collected data. Give it a read.

Frank doesn't believe in science. "GodDidIt" is his answer to everything.
He is a 100% Troll in the science sections.
Ding the same though he tries to hide it with Faux Science/graphs. Read his religion section dogma.

`

 

[Crick]

Frank doesn't believe in science. "GodDidIt" is his answer to everything.
He is a 100% Troll in the science sections.
Ding the same though he tries to hide it with Faux Science/graphs. Read his religion section dogma.`

I never knew Frank was religious at all. I have seen ding's posts in the religion forums.

 

[ding]

Frank doesn't believe in science. "GodDidIt" is his answer to everything.
He is a 100% Troll in the science sections.
Ding the same though he tries to hide it with Faux Science/graphs. Read his religion section dogma.

`

I've forgotten more science than you ever knew and please learn how to write a coherent paragraph.