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.
Can we make the correlation in yet another thread that 100% of the posters who think human caused climate change is a hoax belong to the same political party?
Don't you think it's odd that a question of science should be so obviously delineated by one's politics? That's because it's not a matter of science, but of politics. The Warmists all ignore the science. There is ZERO evidence that co2 causes any warming in the real world. There is ZERO evidence that lowering co2 will cause any cooling. There is ZERO evidence that warming is bad. The Theory of AGW has proven to be WRONG on every prediction it has made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
NASA was created in 1958. They have no need to falsify data to stay in existence.
Natural "cycles" are really "pseudo-cycles." They are artifacts described by the mathematics of Chaos Theory. Chaotic pseudo-cycles are approximate, not exact, so what looks like a cycle of 150 yrs suddenly repeats itself at 100 yrs, that doesn'r disprove the cyclicity.
The "peers" controlling the conversation about climate have defined "climate" as the average of 30 yrs of weather-- pretty stupid or done obviously to advance their own agenda when there's obviously a major 60 yr cycle in the data. (Look it up,)
Don't you think it's odd that a question of science should be so obviously delineated by one's politics? That's because it's not a matter of science, but of politics. The Warmists all ignore the science. There is ZERO evidence that co2 causes any warming in the real world. There is ZERO evidence that lowering co2 will cause any cooling. There is ZERO evidence that warming is bad. The Theory of AGW has proven to be WRONG on every prediction it has made.
Natural "cycles" are really "pseudo-cycles." They are artifacts described by the mathematics of Chaos Theory. Chaotic pseudo-cycles are approximate, not exact, so what looks like a cycle of 150 yrs suddenly repeats itself at 100 yrs, that doesn'r disprove the cyclicity.
The "peers" controlling the conversation about climate have defined "climate" as the average of 30 yrs of weather-- pretty stupid or done obviously to advance their own agenda when there's obviously a major 60 yr cycle in the data. (Look it up,)
There is ZERO evidence that co2 causes any warming in the real world. There is ZERO evidence that lowering co2 will cause any cooling. There is ZERO evidence that warming is bad. The Theory of AGW has proven to be WRONG on every prediction it has made.
The big lie.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous
scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the
primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast
body of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on
society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United
States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise,
and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of
biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to
increase substantially in the coming decades.1
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous
scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. ...
That's the big lie. I've posted the graphs around here previously. They're easy to search for yourself:
The correlation between [co2] and global temps is exactly ZERO. No correlation = no cause/effect.
One more time: [co2] levels have been rising steadily since early 19th century, but temps have been cycling up AND down during that time span. The theoretical GHG effect of co2 is overwhelmed by other factors when it comes to determining weather & climate. (Just like you can ignore aerodynamic effects when dropping a bowling ball from the leaning Tower of Pisa. They're there, but they don't make a measurable difference.)
On longer, geologic times scales, [co2] lags behind changing temps-- a warming ocean releases co2-- (careful when you open that warm bottle of beer, right?) and a cooling ocean soaks it up. The changing [co2] is the result of temp changes, not the cause.
But what motive would they have? If you follow the money, the fossil fuel industry greatly benefits from discounting climate change. NASA and other independent organizations don't benefit either way.
Because the money in climate research is to find evidence for human caused global warming. The ademics and governmemt employees know that the politicians want to see evidence of that because it furthers the ability to push for policies like carbon taxes.
Its the flip-side of your point about their being a monetary incentive for the fossil fuel industry to refute
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. Since 1901, the planet’s surface has warmed by 0.7–0.9° Celsius (1.3–1.6° Fahrenheit) per century, but the rate of warming has nearly doubled since 1975 to 1.5–1.8° Celsius (2.7–3.2° Fahrenheit) per century, according to the international State of the Climate in 2017 report.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and the four warmest years on record have all occurred since 2014. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the history, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten†window shifts forward in time.
By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows. This similarity in temperatures regardless of total emissions is a short-term phenomenon: it reflects the tremendous inertia of Earth's vast oceans. The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn't react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases.
By 2030, however, the heating imbalance caused by greenhouse gases begins to overcome the oceans' thermal inertia, and projected temperature pathways begin to diverge, with unchecked carbon dioxide emissions likely leading to several additional degrees of warming by the end of the century.
About surface temperature
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd. After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart. Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot. To speak of the "average" temperature, then, may seem like nonsense.
However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth's energy budget—how much sunlight Earth absorbs minus how much it radiates to space as heat—over time.
To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend.
Yearly global surface temperature from 1900–2017 compared to the 1981-2010 average (dashed line). The different colors represent different research groups' analysis of the historical temperature record. NOAA Climate.gov graph adapted from State of the Climate in 2017. Details on the datasets can be found in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 in the report.
Across inaccessible areas that have few measurements, scientists use surrounding temperatures and other information to estimate the missing values. Each value is then used to calculate a global temperature average. This process provides a consistent, reliable method for monitoring changes in Earth's surface temperature over time. Read more about how the global surface temperature record is built in our Climate Data Primer.
References
Sánchez-Lugo, A., Morice, C., Berrisford, P., Argüez, A. (2018). Temperature [in State of the Climate in 2017]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(8), S11–S13.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Climate Report for Annual 2017, published online January 2018, retrieved on August 2, 2018 from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713. IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Interactive graph data
Annual global temperature anomalies for land and ocean combined, expressed as departures from the 1901-2000 average. National Climatic Data Center.
The prime directive of all bureaucrats is to preserve their own jobs. The best way to do that is to manufacture a problem that doesn't really exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be solved. If it can't be solved, it will exist forever and the bureaucrat's job is safe forever.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy freak, I'll also point out the UN's Agenda 21. Every American should inform themselves about this document....And in the 2nd UN IPCC report, they told us their goal was to transfer money from industrialized nations to poor nations.
For the "climate scientists," they know that research funds are issued based on the existence and severity of the potential problem under investigation. No problem = no money.... so they never want to prove that there's no problem.
Pinky: What are you doing tonight, Brain?
Brain: Same thing I do every night, Pinky...make plans to take over the world!
This is an outstanding post. Look at all of the unsolvable problems the gubbermint fixates on that create lifetime jobs for bureaucrats: war on poverty, war on drugs, mid-east peace, world policing, etc.
I'll also add that politicians don't want problems to be solved either because if they are unsolved, they can run on the same issues year after year. If you're a Democrat, why would you want to raise up the black population when you can get elected on that year after year? If you're a Republican, why would you want to solve illegal immigration if you couldn't run on it anymore?
Because the money in climate research is to find evidence for human caused global warming. The ademics and governmemt employees know that the politicians want to see evidence of that because it furthers the ability to push for policies like carbon taxes.
Its the flip-side of your point about their being a monetary incentive for the fossil fuel industry to refute
Politicians don't need an excuse to implement new taxes, they do it all the time. And the current administration is comprised of climate change deniers who fully support fossil fuels and lowering of emission standards. In this political climate, it would be more beneficial for climate change researchers to jump on the climate change denial band wagon and obtain funding to disprove climate change.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and the four warmest years on record have all occurred since 2014.....
The high heat capacity of water means that ocean temperature doesn't react instantly to the increased heat being trapped by greenhouse gases.
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd....to calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe.
.
Re: 10 warmest yrs-- as stated previously, the raw data does not confirm this. It took three "adjustments" by NASA-GISS to achieve their agenda.
Re: heat capacity-- do you boil the water for your morning eggs by holding the fire above the pot of water or underneath.? The oceans control the air temp-- "It will be 88 today; colder near the lake."
Re: average temps-- you're right. It's a meaningless calculation. Earlier I pointed out that with fall in the Soviet Union, there arose a problem. Scarce money caused the closing 1800 Siberian reporting stations. How much did that affect the coincidental warming the world seemed to undergo over the next decade? How many stations exist above 30degN or S latitude?
Re: computer models-- the whole AGW argument is based on models. You know what they say about garbage in- garbage out. When you program a computer to tell you 2 + 2 = 5, then we should not be surprised at the answer we get when we ask it "what's 2+ 2? None of the models used the first 20 yrs included input for clouds (!) and they still don't include input for solar activity (!!), yet these are the two very most important factors determining air temps. How do they tell us their cr*p and keep a straight face?
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
. Look at all of the unsolvable problems the gubbermint fixates on that create lifetime jobs for bureaucrats: war on poverty, war on drugs, mid-east peace, world policing, etc.
I'll also add that politicians don't want problems to be solved either because if they are unsolved, they can run on the same issues year after year.
For 20 yrs the Dems ran on the DACA issue. The President finally gave in. The Dems found a lame excuse to go against it just so they could continue to use it again as an election issue. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatTX
Politicians don't need an excuse to implement new taxes, they do it all the time....
But they need some "justification" for a new tax so it won't be seen as arbitrary and tyrannical. Those of us who don't move our lips when we read see right thru them, tho.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-05-2018 at 11:46 AM..
Re: 10 warmest yrs-- as stated previously, the raw data does not confirm this. It took three "adjustments" by NASA-GISS to achieve their agenda.
Re: heat capacity-- do you boil the water for your morning eggs by holding the fire above the pot of water or underneath.? The oceans control the air temp-- "It will be 88 today; colder near the lake."
Re: average temps-- you're right. It's a meaningless calculation. Earlier I pointed out that with fall in the Soviet Union, there arose a problem. Scarce money caused the closing 1800 Siberian reporting stations. How much did that affect the coincidental warming the world seemed to undergo over the next decade? How many stations exist above 30degN or S latitude?
For 20 yrs the Dems ran on the DACA issue. The President finally gave in. The Dems found a lame excuse to go against it just so they could continue to use it again as an election issue. QED.
But they need some "justification" for a new tax so it won't be seen as arbitrary and tyrannical. Those of us who don't move our lips when we read see right thru them, tho.
We all have access to the same data and online information. We interpret it according to which sources we believe.
Justification for new taxes is easily manufactured, by either party. But those of us who realize politicians mainly vote according their own interests, not those of their constituents, see right through them.
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.
