Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: NthOther

Or it's getting both hotter and colder everywhere simultaneously, an explanation I wouldn't put past the average twit "climatologist".

I always find it funny when people round here think they're more knowledgeable that people who are experts in their field. The number of scientists who believe in Global Warming outnumber those who don't.

Ok prove it without using the BIASED data of 97% this is a flat out lie. Prove it.

a reply to: UKTruth

Given the noise in all these charts I call that similar AND over a similar time frame.

You are still not calculating a trend. But if you're intent on showing a negative trend (an actual trend), try starting with 1940 instead.

How can we be sure that the average temperature over a 10 year period will not be LOWER than it is today?

We can't, entirely. That's too short term. But we can be quite a bit more certain that it won't be lower than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Barring the Sun doing something very unexpected. Barring some very major volcanic eruptions. Barring a large asteroid strike.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: notsure1
Arent we all supposed to be dead from a massive hole in the ozone by now?

This shi is comical.

The ozone hole bs was the first screw job.

What about cigarettes?

I've been smoking all day long and haven't even got any cancer!

What kind of screw job was that?

Other factor are why we get cancer. Cigarettes just aggravate. I was taught in Organic Chemistry that Asbestos is the most likely cause of lung damage and smoking hurts a damaged lung. The molecule for Nicotine is a poison of course but it is the heat and the other chemicals we are exposed to that cause issues.

As a professional Environmental Scientist who collects and quality control raw data from various pollutants I can tell you we are cleaner now than 50 years ago, hands down. The Earth heals and absorbs anything when it is left fallow. It is a recycling conveyor. It is our bodies that may suffer if we breathe too much Carbon Monoxide or suck in Arsenic and Lead in our drinks.

Many people need to take Chemistry and Physic classes so they too can know for themselves rather than depend on a biased set of academia's well paid liars. When you can't know the facts because the subject is not your area of expertise, then you must find someone to trust. Hard for non academic scholars of Chemistry to grasp the mind game being played out. Many scientist like me are speaking out but the system is trying to ignore us while the data keeps showing us to be right. No I am not Dr Roy Spencer but I like his work.

The common man hasn't a clue and as such are easy suckers for fast talking liars who appear important in the media.

Sincerely.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Given the noise in all these charts I call that similar AND over a similar time frame.

You are still not calculating a trend. But if you're intent on showing a negative trend (an actual trend), try starting with 1940 instead.

How can we be sure that the average temperature over a 10 year period will not be LOWER than it is today?

We can't, that's too short term. But we can be quite quite a bit more certain that it won't be lower than it was 10 years ago. Barring the Sun doing something very unexpected. Barring some very major volcanic eruptions. Barring a large asteroid strike.

Wait.What? A 10-year moving average is not a trendline now? Good to know.
There is a clear trend down from the mid 40's to the mid 70's. It's a bit inconvenient, but unfortunately obvious. What are the circumstances that caused it? There may have been some, but would be good to know.

Perhaps we could then move on to explaining why the temperature is historically low.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:

And you're lying through your teeth, or perhaps just ignorant on the issue.

You are taking a picture, showing the last 150 years ... yes, within that time there is a huge rise. Take a picture, that shows earths history and the temperature is falling, not rising. Claiming that our CO2 is causing it, is utter gibberish ... so much rubbish, that it is unbelievable that people swallow it. One volcanic eruption in Iceland, spews more *shet* into the atmosphere, than the ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.

We can only affect our own eco system. And this is the danger we face, not global warming. We face the fact, that we are overpopulated ... and natural eco systems, are shrinking fast. It's not "we" that cause anything, our overpopulation is a result of us NOT BEING MASTERS OF OUR UNIVERSE. We're still animals, that overbreed like rabbits, when the climate is favorable.

Now, how are we going to survive, when the climate changes back ... now, THAT is the right question to ask. You see, TPTB are not doing all they do, because they love you or me. Robotics, technology, is not a product to benefit the poor ... 90% of the population of this planet, will die ... one way or the other. Either in a controlled manner, by TPTB ... or ... in a natural catastrophy. Robotics, is the means which the elite will "keep" their way of life ... afterwards.

Now, THERE is a conspiracy theory worth probing into ...

A much more accurate climate change

Yes the real data looks like that graph. But they can't have too many knowing about facts such as this or the agenda suffers. That is why it is not front and center in discussions by the media outlets, to keep it out of peoples minds that this is the case. Other than my comment, your posting of this will be largely ignored by those duped by the Al Gore and the 97% agreement lies.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
...
With regard to man-made global warming - what happened between 1940 and 1980 in your chart? Did humans decrease industry and CO2 emissions during this time?

Industrial air pollution with aerosols which was increasing up to 1970 and began to decline afterwards due to regulations.

CO2 was lower back then simply because we use to not have motors complete the combustion of the fuel, thus the heavy black particles from cars and especially trucks that had a butt load of CO.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Demanding peer reviewed papers while using blogs as evidence lol.
Back to the OP I guess Trump got his hands on a computer without supervision.

That blog points to peer review papers that are published in Scientific Journals from what I recall. If so, that makes your defense of those liars moot if it points to the ACTUAL papers by real Scientists from a real Uni. It makes Nibbler a user of said material provided by the scientist with the expertise when he references an article discussing a major paper in the field of climate change.

a reply to: UKTruth

What are the circumstances that caused it? There may have been some, but would be good to know.

Yes, it would be good to know. One theory is a rapid ramping up of unregulated industrial sulfate emissions contributed to it.

Perhaps we could then move on to explaining why the temperature is historically low.

You're talking about the low temperatures across most of the United States? Yes, it seems that Arctic air masses have been acting strangely as of late. So yes, some record "daily" lows. That's weather. But there don't seem to actually be as many all time low temperatures being set as "all time" high temperatures. That may be a bit more important to look at.

For the US this year there have been 13 all time low temperature records set, as opposed to 179 all time highs. Maybe the lows will catch up.
Globally, there have been 42 all time low temperature records set, as opposed to 415 all time highs. Maybe the lows will catch up.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Through November, 2017 has been the 3rd warmest year on record.

a reply to: Phage

No, I was actually talking about a much longer period of time.

a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps you should have been more specific. What longer period of historical lows were you referring to.

As has been pointed out to the idiot in chief Trump by numerous meteorologists, whilst the weather in the US is currently below the long term norm; the majority of the rest of the world is currently experiencing temperature above the norm.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: ridgerunner
Glad somebody got it,lol.Seems like a lot of libs just can`t stand it when someone has a laugh on their religion.a reply to: UKTruth

Another "humbug" ... the Global Warming, is also called "Greenhouse effect". You see, the Sun warms up the planet ... not your "breaking wind", and then Sun rays do not escape out of the atmosphere, making them warm the planet further. This is "supposedly" because of "Carbon" dioxide and other emissions, that stay in the atmosphere ... make it thicker, and act as a "cloud" barrier, that will enclouse the heat rays inside.

"Cooling" occurs, when there is lack of cloud barriers.

Sudden cooling occurs, when celestial phenomena occur that "break" a hole in the atmosphere, causing huge amount of air, water to escape from the earth.

Weather phenomena does not occur, because caterpillars are flying around the planet ... they occur, because underneath the crust there is MAGMA, which is Magnetized Plasma ... our stellar body, also known as the Earth is being modified constantly ... by forces stronger than any atomic bomb we can create. The Poles, wander and have wondered way off their magnetic north ...

This is the cause of all our climate and weather changes ... a small rift in the pacific ocean, will cause a dramatic change in underwater currents ... which will change the current, and effect the entire global eco system.

YEP!
^^^^^^^^1000 Stars, I have made threads on this exact stuff....^^^^^^^^^

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Since Watts included UAH data, here's Dr. Spencer's data. I've often wondered why Anthony Watt's chart (with UAH data) does not seem to show the El Nino spike of 1998.

And as usual with examples you attempt to snow the ignorant with, the change within the data statistically is a wash. No SIGNIFICANT values above or below statistical error. We have discussed this many times in the past and you pretend it doesn't exist, over and over. But it is very important when sampling any value of any 'parameter' to have an error 'window' of acceptable data. This data showing such a small percentage of movement verses the whole RANGE of historical Temperature highs and lows proves it is statistically INSIGNIFICANT. Case closed from my perspective. There is no unnatural trend statistically over this not so very large data set we have of 150 years in the other graph, period.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Since Watts included UAH data, here's Dr. Spencer's data. I've often wondered why Anthony Watt's chart (with UAH data) does not seem to show the El Nino spike of 1998.

Matches up nicely with the GISS data - although they use an earlier time period for their baseline to calculate deltas. Most of that chart is noise, not far off the statistical variance of the climate models over 10 year periods.

Yep, exactly my thoughts.

We got this peeple..

originally posted by: TheRedneck



The scientists then look at the results versus the actual occurrences and adjust their algorithms to try again. The more complex the system being investigated, the more times it can take to get it right and the less accurate it will likely be when they do get close. What has happened with Global Warming is that politicians have taken results which were assumed inaccurate and tried to politicize them for political gain, playing on the fears of the uneducated public.

And the uneducated public has eaten it up. Hook, line, sinker, and boat.

A small but important caveat to that, it's not just the politicians that promote the buzzwords, some Global Warming exponents do too. You may know Gavin Schmidt UEA, who has ended up as the head of GISS..that offshoot of NASA, he will not debate, (in public at least) any issues about the subject with other scientists who have a differing viewpoint than he has ie; 'The science is irrefutable' also as a buzzword really. Now, he is the very guy, (amongst others I presume) who do the GW modelling we hear so much about, while he may be qualified in Math, he hasn't a background in climatology or the Earthy stuff although he may have picked up stuff by being with those that have.. no, he's a number cruncher with an acquired ethos that is meant to justify what he does, that's not science though, nor IMO does he use the modelling wholeheartedly to diss GW, what comes out of GISS is always more profoundly for GW than it was before...testing for positive, that's like saying we found God, in about the worst subject that science has to deal with...the weather.
Hansen, his predecessor was a bit tricky too, when he went to testify to congress and promote the idea of GW being dangerous, somehow there was a wheeze by some politco or grouping to turn off the AC in what hot weather at the time..
Anyway, years later and after the UEA e-mail disaster, Hansen got the shove, because despite the official statement that there was nothing being done wrong, the incident didn't go down too well behind doors.
So, for a time at the very least, the science and the politics went hand in hand.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: NthOther

Or it's getting both hotter and colder everywhere simultaneously, an explanation I wouldn't put past the average twit "climatologist".

I always find it funny when people round here think they're more knowledgeable that people who are experts in their field. The number of scientists who believe in Global Warming outnumber those who don't.

Ok prove it without using the BIASED data of 97% this is a flat out lie. Prove it.

I'll do him one better. Here is the founder of the weather.com channel itself, who had Al Gore in his class when he was a teacher, and is a SCIENTIST in the field for over 60 years...who says Global Warming/Climate Change is a load of crap. How's THAT for a scientist being knowledgeable in his field...and he's not controlled by Globalists and their interests like the ones you're talking about. The "data"and graphs from these special interest groups are manipulated and disseminated to the public by the very same "so called" scientists who are being funded by the Government of the US.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Here is the founder of the weather.com channel itself, who had Al Gore in his class when he was a teacher, and is a SCIENTIST in the field for over 60 years

A TV weatherman, you mean, not a scientist. Nor was he a teacher, of Gore or anyone else.
www.heartland.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Here is the founder of the weather.com channel itself, who had Al Gore in his class when he was a teacher, and is a SCIENTIST in the field for over 60 years

A TV weatherman, you mean, not a scientist.

John Coleman - Weather.com Founder Wiki

John Coleman, KUSI News Weathercaster and "Meteorologist"

What is a Meteorologist?

Source

What is a Meteorologist? (the caps/bold lettering is to bring attention to the topic)

A Meteorologist is responsible for forecasting the weather. However, this is not the only task for which a meteorologist is responsible. Meteorologists are also expected to conduct [SCIENTIFIC] research. They also often function in professor roles as educators.

We have to remember, the scientists of his day were still scientists, they just weren't controlled, and funded entirely by our Government to issue lies for political gains. They did "real" research. None of those monkey's that do the weather today or even speak for CNN do any REAL journalism or weather research. The "scientists" that you speak of are nothing more than Government funded, institutionalized parrots that learned (in college) from the very Government that owns those colleges, and pays their salaries.

I've seen you on here quite a bit, and I know that you fight tooth and nail to win an argument, but that doesn't make you always right. It just means that you are going to believe what the Government tells you, like many other brainwashed people and won't take any evidence but theirs to solidify your claims. That's none of my business, but even the weather itself these last few years have disproved any Global Warming. If anything it's gotten colder, and has even had bad snow storms in parts of the country that typically never even sees snow. I think the Government and the Democrats know this...it's why they changed their narrative from Global "Warming" to Climate change. That way they can always be right, because the weather is ALWAYS changing.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

What is a Meteorologist?

When in quotation marks, not a whole lot.

We have to remember, the scientists of his day were still scientists, they just weren't controlled, and funded entirely by our Government to issue lies for political gains.

They also got science degrees and published peer reviewed articles. Did Coleman do that? No?



Nor was he a teacher, of Gore or anyone else.