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.
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.
And this baseless conspiracy theory has been exposed as nonsense over and over and over again, yet fake 'skeptics' still keep regurgitating it over and over again like clockwork.
"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.
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.
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.
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?
Someone said 10%. That seams the correct order of magnitude to me.
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.
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.
It takes one to know one
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.
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.
Classic Dunning Kruger effect and conspiracy ideation.
"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.
ya and you can't read. What is lies? The corrected data? Or the uncorrected data?
That is the question.
The lies are from the blogger in your link and they are repeated by the tabloid journalist and you and other fake 'skeptics'.
Clearly, you just don't want to know the facts about why adjustments are made to raw data and why the data would be useless otherwise.
There is not a man in the mood, which is exactly my point.
What is painfully obvious is that I do not agree with you. Your conjecture about what I know vs. what you know is wholly a reflection of that and not one thing more.
Actually it is more a reflection of what you think you know, vs what qualified climate scientists know.... I defer to the scientists, and my opinion is only that the science is correct.
Science is not based on consensus; it is based on empirical evidence - evidence that is observable, measurable, verifiable. There is no debate about global warming in the scientific community; it's happening, and at an accelerated rate.
There's no debate if you cover your ears, close your eyes and make noise which is what liberals do when you try to talk common sense to them about this ridiculous notion.
Here's one. Fact: the Earth has been continually warming since the last ice age. Agreed or disagreed?
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.
