Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
actually you are wrong this is the source of the lies. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...south-america/ not Christophore Booker. Now who is lying is the Question isn't it? He Accurately reported what his source said. Show me the lie!!!!
Raw data processing is required in most surveys and experiments. At the individual level, data needs to be processed because there may be several reasons why the data is an aberration.
They're not falsifying anything.
If they wanted to get a false higher global temperature, they would simply NOT adjust the raw data from ocean temperatures.
Until you admit that you don't understand how these things work, you're never going to learn anything.
You have repeatedly ignored legitimate explanations (probably because you don't understand them and don't want to), changed the subject and now you're digging up pathetic attacks by a paid PR person.
You have repeatedly ignored legitimate explanations (probably because you don't understand them and don't want to), changed the subject and now you're digging up pathetic attacks by a paid PR person.
Believe what you want.
Emails between the AGW "scientists" have already been exposed. They discussed how to manipulate the data with each other, to further their political cause. AGW isn't real. It's only just a political position.
Every day it's a new theory, and every single one of them blames anything and everything EXCEPT CO2.
"Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. The albedo effect when applied to the Earth is a measure of how much of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space. Overall, the Earth's albedo has a cooling effect. (The term ‘albedo’ is derived from the Latin for ‘whiteness’)." From here The albedo effect and global warming
Now the current climate input from Albedo is for cooling. The relative strength of the input is a function of the amount of ice. Clean white snow is the most light reflective surface on earth. The darkest is the open water leads in Artic and Antarctic Sea ice. Soot is one of the darkest substances on earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
What's amazing about this one is that if it's true, it means that all of the warming since 1850 or so is the product of a runaway greenhouse effect that apparently consists entirely of methane, water vapor and nitrous oxide... since the massive amounts of CO2 emitted by humans is irrelevant therefore the relatively small amounts of CO2 released by feedback loops is also irrelevant.
Not green house gasses. Albedo. Paint the snow black and it stops cooling the climate off. In England metallurgical coke was first used making whisky about 1650. The first steam engine for pumping water out of coal mines was used in 1712. The current warming trend started in about 1730. You can see the soot in the peat bogs in England. So you should've been able to see the soot in the snow on top of the peat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Even if the evidence pointed to this, which it really really doesn't... your theory when taken with your insistence that CO2 isn't a major climate driver falls apart completely as without CO2, there is no explanation for the warming from the 1950s onwards.
Albedo feed back loop. Less snow means less light reflected back into space means less cooling. Water vapor is a big green house gas. warmer air caries more water vapor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
It is simply impossible that the Earth could have warmed that quickly if CO2 isn't the greenhouse gas we've thought it to be for the past century or so.
Again albedo. In the little ice age the permanent sea ice was 35 miles north of the coast of Denmark. If the current Albedo input is for cooling then what would it have been like then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
If you are willing to accept that CO2 is a climate driver, then the feedback loops caused by soot or the sun or simply by the end of the Little Ice Age don't rule out CO2 as a force that is further accelerating the existing feedback loops.
Someone said 10%. That seams the correct order of magnitude to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
And soot isn't even close to being as significant a climate driver as CO2... the glaciers retreated in the 1850s but global temperatures didn't rise significantly until solar activity picked up at the beginning of the 20th century. This solar activity stabilized in the 50s... and still only accounts for around 30 percent of warming.
Thermal inertia and the North Atlantic Conveyor, how many thousand years does that thing take to go around? The difference between weather and climate is time scale. The heat input from the 1850's until 1900 is showing up now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
A moment ago you were whining about something the fake conspiracy that involved manipulating data,
Looking at the raw data vs. the corrected data. One of the three raw data graphs had what looked like an upwards trend with a discontinuity in it. The other two had a down wards trend. So what I think happened is this. They assumed that the discontinuity was an error like using two different thermometers. The first one read higher than the other one did and so they made the line straight. Then they adjusted the other to reporting stations to match the fixe one without much thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
and then when you couldn't be right you started talking about this... and I'm the one who is hard to talk to?
It takes one to know one
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
If I'm hard to talk to, it's probably because I actually try to understand the subject instead of repeating hoaxes and lies and conspiracies and attacks on liberals.
The albedo theory is mine. that the start of the current warming trend was caused by soot input to the snowpack in Europe at the start of the industrial revolution. I'm not saying that others didn't come up with it and maybe ahead of me. But I came up with it independently of anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Fine yes... there are other drivers, but CO2 is the largest, most significant.
So yeah, nothing you say is true... but I would never say it prevents other science deniers from blindly agreeing with you merely because you're on the same side.
So if my theory is right. Then we are headed into an ice age and should do everything we can to avoid it. and a little thing like fixing an error with the data that wasn't an error could mask a cooling trend and waist time we could be spending reversing it.
I do understand what I'm talking about.
Last edited by ContrarianEcon; 02-12-2015 at 11:40 AM..
Reason: fixxing spelling
"actually you are wrong this is the source of the lies. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...south-america/ not Christophore Booker. Now who is lying is the Question isn't it? He Accurately reported what his source said. Show me the lie!!!!" Me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
Glad you have admitted they are lies.
ya and you can't read. What is lies? The corrected data? Or the uncorrected data?
changes in the solar output, changes in the earths orbital path. tiny changes in these can make fairly large changes on earth. remember that the earth orbits the sun between 88 and 93 million miles. a small change of say 1 million miles is going to have a profound effect on the climate.
the surface temperature of the sun is about 10,000 degrees, and again a tiny change there, say one percent, is also going to have a profound effect on the climate here.
changes in the solar output, changes in the earths orbital path. tiny changes in these can make fairly large changes on earth. remember that the earth orbits the sun between 88 and 93 million miles. a small change of say 1 million miles is going to have a profound effect on the climate.
the surface temperature of the sun is about 10,000 degrees, and again a tiny change there, say one percent, is also going to have a profound effect on the climate here.
Your problem is that none of the things you mention are effecting today's climate enough to account for the warming we are seeing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
