AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
John,

That was a good explanation, appreciate it.
(07-13-2015, 10:10 PM)mr_yak Wrote: [ -> ]...You can usually tell when somebody is trying to push some topic en masse. It would be interesting to know who ... and why.

That's easy. There must be some way for Soros to make money from it.
(06-22-2015, 03:04 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]The levels of stupidity continue to reach new heights: First it was the polar ice caps… now it’s BREAD that will shrink due to global warming.

And on top of it all, the absurd amount of intellectual dishonesty keeps chugging along: Earth enters sixth extinction phase with many species – including our own – labelled 'the walking dead'.

These idiots from the Church of Environmentalism have absolutely no shame.

I wonder if SunsetTommy is still out there fighting the good fight? Or is he finally just been worn down by these idiots?

Ha ha ha, NEVER!

I have been beating them up at Facebook for many months now. Many are so dumb and incredibly IGNORANT, that even BUZZ appears slightly rational in comparison. I sometimes wonder if they are programmed bots since their replies are STUPID!

It is the place to argue with warmist morons these days. I learned a lot from it such as showing just how feeble CH4 and CO2 is compared to Water Vapor in absorbing IR.
What I post here NO warmists has ever seen,From a comment at WUWT

"bones
April 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm

CO2:



CH4:



Water Vapor:



For well mixed atmospheric gas constituents, the fraction of beam absorption per meter of gas column by each type of molecule at a given wavelength will be proportional to the molecule’s cross-section at that wavelength and also proportional to the number of molecules of that type. These have to be summed over the earth surface thermal emission bands in order to see which molecules absorb the most energy. Water vapor, because of its great numbers of molecules is dominant, but there is significant absorption by both CO2. The low numbers of CH4 result in much less energy absorbed by it. It has a fair sized cross-section but very low numbers.

LINK
So Facebook is where you have been hanging out, eh? The bane of all good forums. Its so easy to just "cut and paste" pics all over everything and call it intellectual conversation. S4
(07-20-2015, 12:12 AM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]So Facebook is where you have been hanging out, eh? The bane of all good forums. Its so easy to just "cut and paste" pics all over everything and call it intellectual conversation. S4

He he,

They don't even do that half the time. They post garbage from Guardian,SS, and various blogs. I often post from official sources,the IPCC, Satellite data and so on, with some explanation on why they are wrong.

I rarely post from a blog and never from a newspaper. I have posted stuff from here with back links to here.

I have tried THREE times now to get a number of the members to join the Forum I create for free that would allow far better posting with all the snotty garbage moderated out, but they stay at Facebook a poor format for detailed conversation.

I go there only because I was asked to go there to help the skeptics out.
For people, such as you and myself, who have no problems with a keyboard, most people have never learned how to type. Plus they are using that stupid, tiny smart phone, or a tablet, which doesn't have a decent keyboard. So they are encouraged to get lazy and cut corners. And places like Facebook fit the bill admirably.

Facebook is for the intellectually lazy, who are not into deliberative thinking. I'll be glad to see it finally fold.
This guy makes a fairly strong case that the cholesterol cops and the climate cops are operating on the same premises:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/cho...r-you.aspx
(07-21-2015, 02:29 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]This guy makes a fairly strong case that the cholesterol cops and the climate cops are operating on the same premises:

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/cho...r-you.aspx

He's absolutely right here.

Could you please post this on another thread, the "Alzheimers: Coconut Oil, And Other Healthy Alternatives" over on the Health section. All these things are healthy alternatives that have been demonozed for far too long.
did it
And speaking of that presentation by Professor V. Zharkova, mentioned right here, there is this follow-up in Astronomy Now.

Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030

This is the one area where the Russians have been getting things right for some time now.

Quote:Dr Helen Popova responds cautiously, while speaking about the human influence on climate.

“There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity. The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. People first appeared on the Earth about 60 thousand years ago. However, even if human activities influence the climate, we can say, that the Sun with the new minimum gives humanity more time or a second chance to reduce their industrial emissions and to prepare, when the Sun will return to normal activity”, Dr Helen Popova summarised.
Delingpole is once again swinging for the bleachers.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE VENAL, WEIRD AND CREEPY TO WORK IN CLIMATE SCIENCE. BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS…

And his main thrust is toward this guy: Faith-based science comes a cropper: The United Nations global warming chief cooks his own goose.

But the fun and games doesn't stop there:

Rajendra Pachauri finally sacked, TERI does not cite the sexual harassment allegations as reason for exit

Ahh, and all for the allure of that warm, and moist, little gadget located between the thighs. S13

Good Riddance!
I wonder if anyone in India believes this nonsense? I think they assume they will get a big paycheck if they go along with it.
Allegation of fraud here. Is this valid data?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015...d-at-noaa/
(07-28-2015, 11:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Allegation of fraud here. Is this valid data?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015...d-at-noaa/

The only person who perhaps knows all the details is Tommy. I'm sure JW is also fairly up on it. But NOAA has been "Cherry Picking". They don't factor in all the temperatures as they should. Rather, they take the highest temps, combine them, and then take the average of just those temps. That's clearly fraud, and even if it is illegal, who is going to be sent to jail for that fraud?

Your honest and benevolent Big Government at your service. S22
(07-28-2015, 11:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Allegation of fraud here. Is this valid data?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015...d-at-noaa/

Hey Palladin:

Here is just one reference statement from NOAA

Quote:Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN CONUS temperatures are well aligned with recent measurements from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). This network was designed with the highest standards for climate monitoring and has none of the siting and instrument exposure problems present in USHCN.

Note closely the easily confused acronynms: USCRN and USHCN. One they say has the highest standards for climate monitoring while the other they admit does not and requires "adjustments" of some manner in order for them to accept the results. (Indeed, that referenced page of mine is mostly an explanation/justification of their adjustments.)

So, yes, their "adjustments" to the usHCn data are arguably as suspect as they are arbitrary.

One might wonder why the primary network of temperature data used and reported by NOAA isn't the U.S. Climate Reference Network (usCRn) since it was designed with the "highest standards for climate monitoring". The answer appears clear: it does not reflect the warming they want to have portrayed.
(07-20-2015, 11:20 AM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]For people, such as you and myself, who have no problems with a keyboard, most people have never learned how to type. Plus they are using that stupid, tiny smart phone, or a tablet, which doesn't have a decent keyboard. So they are encouraged to get lazy and cut corners. And places like Facebook fit the bill admirably.

Facebook is for the intellectually lazy, who are not into deliberative thinking. I'll be glad to see it finally fold.

(07-29-2015, 12:07 AM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-28-2015, 11:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Allegation of fraud here. Is this valid data?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015...d-at-noaa/

The only person who perhaps knows all the details is Tommy. I'm sure JW is also fairly up on it. But NOAA has been "Cherry Picking". They don't factor in all the temperatures as they should. Rather, they take the highest temps, combine them, and then take the average of just those temps. That's clearly fraud, and even if it is illegal, who is going to be sent to jail for that fraud?

Your honest and benevolent Big Government at your service. S22

I did for a time, but now given up on ALL data sets except the Satellite temperature data.

Here is what it looks like from 1990: [Image: trend]

Which is BELOW the minimum level the IPCC set in 1990 of .15C per decade warming.

From 1997: [Image: trend]

Slight cooling which is well below the mid range of .20C warming per decade.

From 2001: [Image: trend]

Obvious COOLING trend, in direct contradiction to the 2007 IPCC report,where they state: "For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

LINK

That is about a .40C warming after 14+ years.

S13

Here are the links in order for the charts showing how it was plotted,

1990: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...1990/trend

1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...1997/trend

2001: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...2001/trend
The true cause of the change in weather patterns that Obama ignores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=19&v=JQiuz-9TD4I
(08-05-2015, 11:47 AM)WarBicycle Wrote: [ -> ]The true cause of the change in weather patterns that Obama ignores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=19&v=JQiuz-9TD4I

Nice video, WB, but you tricked me -

I was sure you were going to show something relating to all the hot air that comes from Liberals!

S2
James Delingpole continues to hammer the nail, right on the head.

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE HOAX THAT COSTS US $4 BILLION A DAY
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27