Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

a reply to: Wayfarer

Of course we can argue about the accuracy of those adjustments, but rest assured the aggregate data being claimed by climatologists is taking that fact into account.

Sorry, I have researched this subject long and deep enough and I strongly disagree with your statement.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

A perfectly valid opinion, and I would be very interested to see the evidence that has lead you to believe that if you would be willing to share.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: bjarneorn
Climate Change is a religion. A pagan religion to be more precise, but a religion in every sense none the less.

Ira deorum vero

And just like all Pagan religions, we need to flog ourselves for our sins, and then repend by paying tribute. We are most certainly reentering the dark ages.

Scienta vincere tenebras. Post tenebras spero lucem.

Man when I did this thread:

GLOBAL WARMonerging? Facts, Myths, Uncertainies and what's to come?

I should have just put Trump in the title.

We ended up with more debate about space alien UFO's than actual climate change discussion.

What a moron. It is shameful so many think man made climate chang is a hoax.

The irony is so many of you right wing think this a hoax to rob from the poor to make the rich richer but completely ignore Trump's tax bill and who benefits from it.

The US will fall if we ignore science and blindly follow people like Trump.

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

a reply to: Wayfarer

Just heading out the door, I'll drop this link again.

appinsys.com...

and this link. Both have to do with the lack of coverage of the meteorological stations. It's really the tip of the iceberg so to speak. But worth looking at.

climateaudit.org...

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'm confused by this response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying looking at one datapoint is in fact a valid assessment of global climate change?

You claim "global warming" ... and more than that, you pertain the period of 150 years. If your preposition has any validity at all, than YES. One datapoint is enough to disprove the hypothesis.

There are local changes occurring, which are the result of magnetic, and magma based shifting of the planet. As well as stellar influence.

period.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Well since barley almost makes beer by itself, that means its a vehicle for anthropogenic global warming, and must be destroyed.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Don't worry about that Canadian, he's a full time liberal that supports his leader paying millions of dollars to a terrorist who killed an american serviceman. Wouldn't give him the time of day if he asked for it.

Climate change "deniers" should not try to deny that climate change is occurring, because it seems clear that it is occurring.

What climate change deniers should concentrate their efforts on is whether or not humans are significantly contributing to climate change. While it does seem there is a connection between climate change and human-related CO2 emissions (from power pants, factories, cars, etc), it is also possible that other natural cycles are at work.

One example is that the other planets in the solar system are also getting warmer, and that seems that it may have something to do with changes of the Sun. So there may be a portion (how significant a portion is the question) of global warming that is attributed to changes in the Sun.

I'm not saying that I personally feel there is no reason to curb our CO2 emission, because I think we do, and I think it does in fact adding to climate change. However, if climate change deniers want to avoid looking foolish by denying the clear fact that average global temperatures are rising, and instead concentrate their efforts on quantifying how much humans are impacting that change, then they should look at other natural causes, which my be cyclical over long periods of time (talking thousands of years).

One result of that specific Sun example could be a natural raising of global CO2 levels. What happens is that the warmer oceans release more CO2. If those ocean temps are being raised by the Sun, then that could result in higher CO2 levels not caused by human activity, but caused by the Sun.

Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

The excuse "Well, it's really cold here so there can't be global warming?"

That is the excuse only the truly ignorant use as 'evidence' global warming is a 'myth.'

originally posted by: Box of Rain
While it does seem there is a connection between climate change and human-related CO2 emissions (from power pants, factories, cars, etc), it is also possible that other natural cycles are at work.

Humans have altered CO2.

And CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

From there its a bit of a downward spiral when trying to have certainties of anything to do with what effect our CO2 is having, especially what effect it will have, and even more so what to actually do about it that 1. doesnt require destroying the global economy (and therefore the physical environment as human poverty is the greatest destroyer of environment) and 2. doesnt require a global dictatorship to enforce it.

In the meantime, while we wait for looming techs that can and will fix it, we have serious undeniable health shattering hot spots in the physical environment here on earth that are being overshadowed by this CO2 thing... ...

this CO2 thing that's too convenient an excuse for 1. the Globalism crowd pushing it to set up a global government and 2. the greedy bastard crowd pushing it to get rich.

People that want to help the environment might ought to look here:

America's 28 Most Polluted Places

World's 10 Most Polluted Places

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: Wayfarer

Just heading out the door, I'll drop this link again.

appinsys.com...

and this link. Both have to do with the lack of coverage of the meteorological stations. It's really the tip of the iceberg so to speak. But worth looking at.

climateaudit.org...

Wonderful. These were both fascinating reads, thanks for sharing!

I will need to take some time to digest and analyze, but my first impression is that the understanding of how the 'biasing/correcting' of temperatures (especially for areas with little/no coverage) are being utilized is contributing to the impression that malfeasance is occuring when in fact I think its more likely that its a byproduct of the mathematical model being used to adjust the values (which itself is being constantly modified as our understanding improves year to year).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For reference (From HL87 re: bias method)

3. SPATIAL AVERAGING: BIAS METHOD
Our principal objective is to estimate the temperature change of large regions. We would like to incorporate the information from all of the relevant available station records. The essence of the method which we use is shown schematically in Figure 5 for two nearby stations, for which we want the best estimate of the temperature change in their mutual locale. We calculate the mean of both records for the period in common, and adjust the entire second record [T]_[2] by the difference (bias) delta T . The mean of the resulting temperature records is the estimated temperature change as a function of time. The zero point of the temperature scale is arbitrary.

A principal advantage of this method is that it uses the full period of common record in calculating the bias delta T between the two stations. Determination of delta T is the essence of the problem of estimating the area-average temperature change from data at local stations. A second advantage of this method is that it allows the information from all nearby stations to be used provided only that each station have a period of record in common with another of the stations. An alternative method commonly used to combine station records is to define delta T by specifying the mean temperature of each station as zero for a specific period which had a large number of stations, for example, 1950-1980; this alternative method compares unfavorably to ours with regard to both making use of the maximum number of stations and defining the bias delta T between stations as accurately as possible.

A complete description of our procedure for defining large-area temperature change is as follows. We divide each of the 80 equal-area boxes of Figure 2 into a 10 by 10 array of 100 equal-area subboxes. (The east-west and north-south dimensions of a subbox are about 200 km; in the polar boxes the equal area requirement for the subboxes causes the polemost subboxes to be noticeably elongated in the north-south direction.) For each subbox we use all stations located within 1200 km of the subbox center to define the temperature change of that subbox. The N stations within 1200 km are ordered from the one with the greatest number of years of temperature record to the one with the least number. The temperature changes for the first two stations are combined, then the third with the first two, and so on, using

delta [T]_[n] = bar[T]_[n] - bar[T]_[1,n-1]
[W]_[n] = (D - [d]_[n])/D
[W]_[1,n](t) = [W]_[1,n-1](t) + [W]_[n]
[T]_[1,n](t) = [[W]_[1,n-1][T]_[1,n-1] + [W]_[n]([T]_[n] - delta [T]_[n])] / [W]_[1,n]

for t without available [T]_[n] . T represents temperature change, t is time, and n identifies the station. [T]_[1,n](t) is an intermediate estimate of the temperature change based on stations 1 through n; these equations are applied repeatedly until [T]_[1,N](t) is obtained, where N is the total number of stations within 1200 km of the subbox center. Here [d]_[n] is the distance of the nth station from the subbox center, and [d]_[n] is used to calculate the weight [W]_[n] by which the nth station temperature change is weighted. [W]_[n] decreases linearly from 1 at the subbox center to 0 at a distance D, where we have taken D = 1200 km as a representative direction-independent distance over which the temperature changes exhibit strong correlation.

(additional reference: ntrs.nasa.gov...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the aforementioned case areas with little/no reporting are utilizing whichever adjacent measurement stations data and interpolated through the above mathematical model to arrive at the concluded value.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I'm confused by this response. Could you please clarify? Are you saying looking at one datapoint is in fact a valid assessment of global climate change?

You claim "global warming" ... and more than that, you pertain the period of 150 years. If your preposition has any validity at all, than YES. One datapoint is enough to disprove the hypothesis.

There are local changes occurring, which are the result of magnetic, and magma based shifting of the planet. As well as stellar influence.

period.

I'm not sure what level of science anywhere that relies on one datapoint as a conclusive counterpoint to any hypothesis/theory. Perhaps we are talking about different things than 'science'?

Could you expound on why you believe climate change is solely the result of magnetic/magma shifting/stellar influence? I'd love to see scientific studies on the aforementioned areas and the conclusions that support your statement.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!


As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Well since barley almost makes beer by itself, that means its a vehicle for anthropogenic global warming, and must be destroyed.

You're trying to pitch an anti-beer stance to a Canadian? Surely, you jest!

If you look at temperatures today at the North and South poles they are hovering right around -4F. Typical winter temperatures for the North Pole is -40F and the South Pole -76, so it is important to remember that just because it is cold right now in the US, it does not mean something is up. (After all, the word doesn't start in New York and end in California)

I know just from observations (sorry not science based, but they still are real), our ice roads around here for shipping supplies up to our northern communities used to open around the end of November, but now we are lucky if we can start shipping by February. I know it is usually safe for me to go out on the little lake I live along by mid November, but the ice has not been suitable until the end of December the last few years. We are also getting tropical storms in Newfoundland which was never heard of up until the last decade. The amount of blizzards along our east coast have been record setting too. We used to never get wood ticks around here, but every spring there are tons, which is a sign of climate change as they fall off of migratory birds which have changed their patterns due to climate change. Deny all you want but something is up in Northern Ontario, Canada. I don't think it takes rocket science to tell you that we can't pollute our planet the way we currently do with out some sort of repercussion either, but that is just opinion. Again what I am telling you is anecdotal evidence based on observation (other than the polar temps), but around here is very real.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.
But yeah 100 yearss from now..

I'm not sure what barley has to do with it, but way to call out those stupid scientists! Good job!

Pretty obvious keyboard error. IS grammar nazi a full time job?

Well, here's the deal. There are a good half dozen grammatical errors in that paragraph. I am merely pointing out the irony inherent in calling out scientists in a barely literate manner. Hey...they made a movie about that!

As to shots at Trudeau? Sure...that's on topic!
But do enjoy the weather.

Then why cant th sameee scintiststss predict th wether,,.? They migt beeee ablw tp spelll gooood but they cannnt predict xhi...