|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1565883963 Message started by T And T Garage on 08/15/19 at 08:46:03 |
|
Title: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/19 at 08:46:03 July was Earth's hottest month on record July 2019 was the Earth's hottest month on record, federal scientists announced Thursday. The global temperature for July was some 1.71 degrees above average, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. Records date back to 1880. July's heat follows on the heels of what was the hottest June on record. For the year-to-date, 2019 is tied with 2017 as the second-warmest year on record. It's virtually certain 2019 will be one of the 5 warmest years on record, according to NOAA climate scientist Deke Arndt. One of the most notable weather headlines around the globe in July was the record-shattering heat wave that spread across Europe late in the month, AccuWeather reported. France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and the United Kingdom all set new all-time high temperature records. This includes high temperatures of 101.7 degrees in Cambridge, England, and 108.7 degrees in Paris. On the other side of the Northern Hemisphere, Alaska baked under extreme heat, AccuWeather said. On July 4, Anchorage hit the 90-degree mark for the first time in the city’s history. The heat also helped fuel huge wildfires in the Arctic, in such locations as Alaska, Siberia and Greenland. Other climate monitoring groups, including Berkeley Earth and the Copernicus Climate Copernicus Climate Change Service, also said July 2019 was the warmest month on record. Human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are causing the global average temperature to increase at a dangerous rate, unprecedented in human history, according to Climate Signals. Yeah, but this is all some sort of hoax, right conservatives? :-? SMH |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/15/19 at 09:03:05 We're heading for record 107f today, 110f tomorrow. Chrome door handle warning in effect... ;D I think this might be the year that even Conservatives take notice. I can't believe the temps Europe is seeing.... ....they're getting Tucson weather. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/19 at 09:09:21 5741564B53464B50240 wrote:
LOL - and shorts on leather seats! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/15/19 at 16:08:10 Its obvious: "July 2019 was the Earth's hottest month on record, federal scientists announced Thursday." They are paid to say that. They can't be trusted, its fake news. It was colder in my area today than it was last year so global warming isn't happening based off of my observed reality. Ethiopia just this month had 30 million trees begin growing, that should be a clear sign that global warming isn't real, just look at all those trees. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-12-hours-180972760/ |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/15/19 at 16:15:17 0E2E2C24392E4B0 wrote:
LOL - awesome post Eegore! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/19 at 03:51:05 I don't know Anyone who says things aren't changing. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/16/19 at 05:58:12 I know several people who look at the weather each day and say climate change is a hoax. To be fair though nobody on this forum has. On the other end the comparisons are pseudo science or evaluations based off of a very limited scope of information presented in large-scale studies. I have no problem questioning the validity or accuracy of doomsday claims, but to cherry-pick information basically invalidates any argument because if you don't like it, it must not be true. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/16/19 at 06:52:10 The IPCC temperature predictions have not matched actual. On top of that, there are arguments back and forth about which method of temperature data collection methods are the most valid. The Climategate emails were devastating, but mostly ignored and the scandal declared DOA by the MSM. No one on this forum can point to anything in their lives that has been negatively impacted by the minute change in the average global temperature. Nothing. Also, the idea that climate change is the most important security issue facing mankind today is lunacy. Of course it is unreasonable to think that 7 billion people have no impact on climate. Seems reasonable to believe we do. The question is how much, is it a negative impact, and will our natural trajectory of technological improvement remove the elements that potentially cause it? One side, the left, have turned this issue into something akin to a religion with those not fully committed as basically committing apostasy. In response, the other side, the right, has dug it's heals in and will ignore any reasonable discussion. My sense is the religious zealotry is slowly dying out and a more reasonable and logical approach will eventually win out. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/16/19 at 07:00:39 "No one on this forum can point to anything in their lives that has been negatively impacted by the minute change in the average global temperature. Nothing." Growing up in agriculture I can say that for the farmers in my area, there has been change and that change has reduced yield of higher-profit margin crops. This is local temperature and not global average, so maybe this doesn't fit into your assessment. This weather change is very well documented and as such forward-thinking farmers have been able to adjust by utilizing modern weather prediction models. They still grow, they just can't grow the same yield as years prior. Farmers that have not done this have either failed to gain profit, or have sold. Fishing industries have been hit pretty hard too, but I do not know enough to outline specifics. "One side, the left, have turned this issue into something akin to a religion with those not fully committed as basically committing apostasy. In response, the other side, the right, has dug it's heals in and will ignore any reasonable discussion." I agree with this. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/19 at 08:27:19 7D4F48595E4F58674B58412A0 wrote:
LOL - the "logical" approach IS the scientific one that you deem "the left". SMH |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/16/19 at 09:09:12 Ladies and gentlemen let me introduce you to Rev. T and T Garage. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/19 at 09:16:17 6D5F58494E5F48775B48513A0 wrote:
Make fun all you want. You are in the minority when it comes to global warming. But hey, what do you care? You'll be long gone when our children and grandchildren are left to face the consequences. Such compassion. <<<sarcasm |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/16/19 at 09:32:40 But hey, what do you care? You'll be long gone when our children and grandchildren are left to face the consequences. darn, I didn't miss communion this morning did I?.... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/19 at 09:39:14 192B2C3D3A2B3C032F3C254E0 wrote:
Like I said - go right ahead and laugh it off. I'm very comfortable with my position. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/16/19 at 09:54:24 I am laughing. The people who told me Miami and NYC would be under water by now we're comfortable then too. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/16/19 at 10:30:07 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
Yep. Keep on laughing. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/19 at 14:28:14 Keep running in circles hollering the sky is falling. The disastrous consequences were supposed to have already hit. Phhht,, Let's see now, Global WARMING equals what? Increased temperatures? Is that what it means? But back where I grew up - record snowfalls for 5 years and counting, Snowfall? Really? I woulda sworn Fat Al declared we were gonna be finished with that crap a few years ago... And WHY? Well, amazing as it may be, ya Don't get SNOW where temperatures are HIGH,, YES, climate Is CHANGING. It's BEEN changing for more than a week or so. It USED TO BE warmer than now. You people will get it so that air conditioning will be for the rich. Keep peddling fear. How many times do your High Priests have to make doomsday prophecies and be so wrong it would shame an honest man into disavowing the movement before you lefties figure it out? You're being played. The D.C. lingo for you guys is Useful Idiots, |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/16/19 at 15:37:37 97% of scientists, .. 200 worldwide scientific organizations,.. ... but you saw snow where you grew up... so they are wrong. This is a dispute between 97% of scientists and one political party. Do you take medical advice from your mailman?... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/19 at 19:04:50 Once again READ IT UNTIL YOUR EYES BLEED Nobody says things aren't changing. Al Gore said we were gonna stop seeing snow. WRONG Places where it was once wet Become less so. Places where it was once dry Become less so. Hot, cold, It's called CHANGE. The planet has been changing for Frikken WEEKS! The disastrous consequences that they have been threatening us with HAVEN'T BEEN SEEN. Don't you remember More and more powerful hurricanes? And then Florida went virtually unscathed for TEN YEARS... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/16/19 at 20:01:21 I think part of the problem is people who don't think global warming/climate change is real or influenced by humans or think its a hoax will only focus on the inaccurate weather modeling. Just like people who hate the Federal Reserve only focus on negative financial movement. Just like people who hate pizza focus on how many pizza joints there are around town. There are accurate weather and climate models, many farmers use them. Many fishing industries use them. None of the accurate models predict catastrophic global human race ending climate change because they are focused on accuracy and so they don't run timelines far enough ahead to predict the end of man. But lets not talk about those, let's talk about weather predictions from the 70's. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/19 at 20:37:09 Yeah, let's do. They started off with O.M.F.G.! We're going to have a mini ice age! Then, after that didn't fly Just like that It was time to stop using weather stations out in the country and replace them with Weather stations on roof tops. By runways. In places that absolutely could not give good, scientifically useable readings , and when complaints were lodged, they said Oh, not to worry! We'll Adjust the readings! And Yeah, let's Do talk about predictions from the seventies. Because they were wrong And pushed FERVENTLY And the weak minded believers went bonkers and continue to believe and demand I believe and regardless of how many times and how totally WRONG YOU ARE, your zeal for the Cause is undaunted. I'm surprised you people don't still believe in Santa. Ohhh, wait,, |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/16/19 at 20:47:05 Yeah the predictions from the 70's were wrong. A ton of them are wrong. What's the point of ignoring the ones that are correct? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? I Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/19 at 21:00:25 Ignore?. I don't see them. Unless you're going with the May cause constipation or diarrhea warnings. Where they throw everything out there and declare they were right. Change IS occurring. If it's GLOBAL Then EVERYWHERE should be INCREASING in temperature. If it's INCREASING in TEMPERATURE Then HowInnaFUKK do we CONTINUE to set Record COLD temperatures.. Where are those Mo and Badder hurricanes that were gonna be commonplace? Yeah the climate IS changing. As it has Forever. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/16/19 at 21:25:19 Global warming will cause lower temperatures in certain areas because it changes weather patterns. This is part of the reason why the term is largely changed from "Warming" to Change". "Unless you're going with the May cause constipation or diarrhea warnings. Where they throw everything out there and declare they were right." They don't "declare" anything. They take data from continuous station input, runoff measurements, satellite footage, barometric pressure readings, wind pattern, soil temperatures, water temperatures, ambient weather temperatures at 4 separate altitudes, localized yield results of crops by date of yield, volume of yield, timeframe of yield, and termination of yield. This information is used to create a predictive model of what will most efficiently grow in the upcoming year and based of off geographical location varies in how many years the projection runs until it assumes a lower than 85% accuracy. Since these are compared to tangible goods, measurable water usage, and soil analysis the results are quite literally viewable by anyone who can see produce in front of their eyes. People who use weather modeling have historically had higher yield averages than people who do not. What is there to declare? They use measurable data to provide a model that historically creates positive outcomes. That's it. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/16/19 at 22:41:19 Rooftops for Data. BULLSHIT Every Frikken Model Is wrong as crap. Climategate, busted. Believe in the lies. How can I possibly open your eyes? If you're determined to believe, Hell, worship it, what could possibly help when it's been debunked. It's been Wrong for thirty years. And you wanna believe it. Keep on with it. But I don't I won't It's a Frikken joke. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/17/19 at 04:34:53 2B3D2A372F3A372C580 wrote:
See? The 97% thing isn't true and has never been true. Its just repeated as truth. But Sew will crucify someone who hangs onto 7 day creation story. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/17/19 at 04:54:41 There are thousands of articles pointing this out. Here's one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6ee180e73f9f |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/19 at 05:54:39 The warmlarmists really want it to all be true. It would be so perfect. Finally, a problem only government can fix, proving once and for all, only governments Can fix problems. Phhht, |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/17/19 at 07:38:37 2E3137302D2A1B2B1B23313D76440 wrote:
Foil hats on special at "Preppers R Us".... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/19 at 07:53:30 You're so desperate for a Point That you think THAT was one. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/17/19 at 07:59:12 340601101706112E021108630 wrote:
An article written by Alex Epstein, paid industry policy pundit. Epstein earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy from Duke University. You're taking medical advice from your mailman... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/19 at 08:15:04 You're taking medical advice from your mailman. Why wouldn't I? After Bammicare screwed everything up, my doctor gave up and became a mailman. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/17/19 at 10:53:24 5741564B53464B50240 wrote:
An article written by Alex Epstein, paid industry policy pundit. Epstein earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy from Duke University. You're taking medical advice from your mailman... ::)[/quote] That was predictable. The mailman didn't give a scientific opinion on GW, he researched and reported on where the 97% claim came from. You didn't read it did you? You Googled the author so you could attack the messenger. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/17/19 at 11:02:19 Correct... I don't take corporate pundit opinions seriously, and won't waste my time on them. Results are a forgone conclusion... and not driven by facts... why bother? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/19 at 11:27:10 Because G.Edward Griffin isn't an economist by training the government worshipping lefties dismissed the research he did. Whatever it takes to keep the wall up that protects their ignorance from verifiable information that would change their understanding. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/17/19 at 12:57:44 There you go again... ;D Wiki... G. Edward Griffin is an American author and filmmaker. Griffin's writings promote a number of false views and conspiracy theories regarding various of his political, defense and health care interests |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/17/19 at 14:08:47 "Rooftops for Data. BULLSHIT Every Frikken Model Is wrong as crap." Wrong. "ambient weather temperatures at 4 separate altitudes" Oh wait I forgot we are ignoring the correct ones. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/19 at 16:34:34 5C4A5D40584D405B2F0 wrote:
NO, There You go again. I've invested time and studied. Not alone, either. Doctors and lawyers I've known agree with him. A wealthy guy I know agreed. You're just willing to accept what they taught us in school. Really? That's enough? No curiosity? The federal reserve, proclaimed constitutional by the court, isn't constitutional at all. But an Authority says it is, so it is, right? Even though a careful reading of the constitution reveals otherwise? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/17/19 at 20:38:24 6B747275686F5E6E5E66747833010 wrote:
NO, There You go again. I've invested time and studied. Not alone, either. Doctors and lawyers I've known agree with him. A wealthy guy I know agreed. You're just willing to accept what they taught us in school. Really? That's enough? No curiosity? The federal reserve, proclaimed constitutional by the court, isn't constitutional at all. But an Authority says it is, so it is, right? Even though a careful reading of the constitution reveals otherwise? [/quote] i remember you now you were one of the idiots that bitched about big government when lead was taken out of gasoline |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/17/19 at 21:29:05 Seeing you so desperate is just fun. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/18/19 at 02:47:46 The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXV August 17, 2019 Francis Menton I posted Part XXIV of this series just three days ago, on Wednesday August 14. The subject of that post was the “homogenization” of official historical temperature data, by which the keepers of our official temperature records from ground-based thermometers use the excuses of station moves and instrumentation changes to adjust earlier temperatures downward in order to create an artificial warming trend and make recent temperatures appear to be the warmest ever. But why would anyone engage in such a stupid game? After all, it’s been a good 50 years since the network of ground-based thermometers was recognized as completely inadequate to the task of keeping track of the earth’s changing climate. This network just had too many unfixable issues that meant that its measurement accuracy was not nearly sufficient for the task at hand. The issues include things like poor coverage of most of the earth’s surface (e.g., the whole southern hemisphere), essentially no coverage of the poles or the oceans, urban heat island issues affecting many of the most important stations, poorly tracked station moves and instrumentation changes, and so forth. These many issues are reasons why the decision was made back in the 1970s to spend some serious money to create a far superior methodology to track not just temperature readings at randomly sited ground stations, but instead to track the bulk heat content of the entire lower troposphere. Since 1979 the U.S. government has spent several billion dollars to build, launch and operate a group of satellites with instrumentation called “microwave sounding units,” designed to measure true average worldwide temperatures of the lower troposphere. Thus, since 1979, the network of ground-based thermometers has been made obsolete. We now have the far more accurate satellite temperature record to guide us. The satellite-based temperature record is calculated and reported each month by a group at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) headed by Drs. John Christy and Roy Spencer. On August 1, UAH reported what they call the temperature “anomaly” for the lower troposphere for July: +0.38 deg C (measured as a departure from the average temperature from 1981 to 2010). That made July a relatively warm month, but it was down substantially from the anomaly of +0.47 deg C in June, let alone from the record anomaly of +0.88 deg C that occurred three and a half years ago in January 2016. The drop from the January 2016 record anomaly was a full 0.5 deg C, which is a very large drop considering that the record upward departure from the 1981-2010 mean is only +0.88 deg C. You might think that the large drop in satellite-measured lower troposphere temperatures would put a stop to the endless series of claims from NASA and NOAA that the latest year or month is the “hottest ever.” Isn’t the definitive satellite temperature record the complete answer to that? And yet, on August 15, the very next day after my August 14 post, NOAA came out with its latest press release, headline “July 2019 was the hottest month on record for the planet.” Excerpt: Much of the planet sweltered in unprecedented heat in July, as temperatures soared to new heights in the hottest month ever recorded. . . . The average global temperature in July was 1.71 degrees F above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, making it the hottest July in the 140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. The previous hottest month on record was July 2016. But wait a minute — doesn’t the satellite record show that that claim is not true at all? Go through the NOAA press release, and go through the link in the press release to what NOAA calls its “full climate report,” and you will not find any mention at all of the satellite data. The only clue you will find that NOAA is talking about its surface thermometer series rather than the satellite temperatures is the reference to the “140-year record.” If you know something about this area, you know that the surface temperature series goes back 140 years to about 1880, while the satellite records only go back 40 years to 1979. But aside from that one clue, they tell you nothing. What do the satellite records say? They tell you nothing. What about the adjustments to the surface temperature records to push earlier-year temperatures downward? Those are not mentioned at all! But surely, when the independent prestige press gets this press release, they will not just regurgitate it, but will bring in the conflicting information from the satellite temperature series? Hah! Here is the New York Times article from August 15, headline “NOAA Data Confirms July Was Hottest Month Ever Recorded.” Excerpt: United States government scientists on Thursday confirmed that July was the hottest month on record, edging out the previous record-holder, July 2016. The article once again does not so much as mention the conflicting satellite data, let alone the issue of unexplained adjustments to the surface thermometer data to cause the most recent data to be the warmest. Washington Post? It’s the same. Their article has the headline “July was Earth’s hottest month on record, beating or tying July 2016.” No mention of the conflicting satellite data. No mention of the unexplained downward adjustments to the early-year surface thermometer data. At Watts Up With That yesterday, Kip Hansen weighs in with an appropriate comment: NOAA has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to send up satellites to monitor the weather and thus climate of the Earth. It pays two different scientific groups, UAH and RSS to produce global temperature data sets of the Earth’s atmosphere, but routinely ignores them when it needs to push Climate Catastrophism. This is a serious embarrassment for the U.S. government — or at least, you would think it would be. Inferior and intentionally altered data are touted to the world to promote claims of climate catastrophe, even as the same government spends billions to generate far better data that show the exact opposite. Meanwhile, the supposed prestige press aids and abets the deception. It’s beyond ridiculous. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/18/19 at 07:02:56 For reference of Webstermark's uncredited information above: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-17-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xxv This article actually mentions some of the information I have asked about. Unfortunately it continually mentions "data" that it does not provide information for. Also there is a ton of loopholes in the YouTube video, it's just anecdotal evidence with some Google thrown in. Why though are we expected to ignore the accurate weather modeling? Oh yeah I forgot, selective data. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/18/19 at 07:37:49 Why though are we expected to ignore the accurate weather modeling? You keep saying that. I don't know what you are talking about. I can say this.. When someone is telling me what is coming, and they just keep being wrong, over and over again, then they develop what I call a Batting Average. Getting a hit once in awhile just isn't good enough for me to say, okay, you're Credible. I'll listen to you. Maybe you should read The Boy Who Cried Wolf and then you would understand why people are reluctant to give over life choices to a buncha people who appear to be lunatics who want ME to live my life around a fear of farting. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/18/19 at 08:14:39 495650574A4D7C4C7C44565A11230 wrote:
not desperate here it is fun watching you dodge truth with wingnut lies just as trumpie does you dodge(bob and weave?)by re direction if anything you're entertaining when I'm bored btw get well soon ;) just found this fact for you to deny: May 2019 highest recorded atmospheric CO2 @ 415ppm THAT is human caused |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/18/19 at 08:53:43 According to NASA, the gases in Earth's atmosphere include: Nitrogen — 78 percent. Oxygen — 21 percent. Argon — 0.93 percent. Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent. Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor. None of which increases the validity of the computer models which were used to weave the tale of the end is near. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/18/19 at 12:59:17 "You keep saying that. I don't know what you are talking about." These claims that there are no working, useable accurate weather models "BULLSHIT Every Frikken Model Is wrong as crap" There are many weather models that are accurately used in industry today. Like a lot of them. But lets ignore those and just say "Every" one is wrong so we can perpetuate this philosophy that anyone who believes in climate change uses false information and is wrong all the time. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/18/19 at 16:49:13 CO2 increase and global warming is not a hoax. Vastly, vastly overestimating the amount of increase is. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/18/19 at 16:53:12 As I've said, and this is key, no one on here can point to a single solitary positivity confirmed consequence of the minute increase in global temperature in our own personal day to day life for our entire lifetime. None. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/18/19 at 17:09:12 The problem is, any proof can be denied... and will be by a Climate denier... What would satisfy you as an undeniable proof?... Heat wave killed 11,000 in France https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/29/france |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/18/19 at 19:51:46 fine, explain to me how a tiny difference in the global average temperature killed 11,000 people? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/18/19 at 19:52:02 "As I've said, and this is key, no one on here can point to a single solitary positivity confirmed consequence of the minute increase in global temperature in our own personal day to day life for our entire lifetime. None. " What are your parameters for a positively confirmed consequence? For me the drastic changes in agriculture in my area, and the fact we can use predictive modeling, and have, to create more efficient crop structure is to me, a consequence and can be positively confirmed as records have been kept for decades. But changing agriculture due to weather may not be a positively confirmed consequence of climate change. So what is? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 04:14:18 For me the drastic changes in agriculture in my area, and the fact we can use predictive modeling, and have, to create more efficient crop structure is to me, a consequence and can be positively confirmed as records have been kept for decades. Yea, sounds like BS. So a few decades of keeping temperatures which show an average difference of a fraction of a degree has drastically changed agricultural in your area? The average temperature difference since 1979 for the US is .38C degree higher. That's from the NOAA satellite data since 1979. Agriculture methods and techniques change constantly as the search to improve output marches on, not from a tiny change in average temp. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 04:30:27 But changing agriculture due to weather may not be a positively confirmed consequence of climate change. So what is? Exactly, what is it? If this is the single largest threat to humanity, if we are pouring billions into research, I hear every day we are dooming our children's future to a bleak existence, you'd think I'd actually notice wouldn't you. My brother and I have been taking an annual kayak fishing trip down a southern Missouri river for probably over 30 years now. Very remote area, protected waterway meaning no cattle or farm fields allowed within a certain number of miles to prevent contamination from draining. The rivers are spring fed, you can drink right out of the spring if you want. Everything is exactly the same as it was 30 years ago. Some years we catch more fish than others. We usually go for a few weekdays in late August or early September after school starts so there's less chance of running into annoying kids. Its been hotter than hell a few times, other times you freeze your tail off. Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/19 at 05:43:38 0C3E39282F3E29163A29305B0 wrote:
LOL - you ignored my post about it. How convenient. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/19 at 05:51:40 1F2D2A3B3C2D3A05293A23480 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 07:30:38 4D535C5D504D564B390 wrote:
LOL - you ignored my post about it. How convenient.[/quote] You posted "record snowfalls.....record high water....nearly wiped off the map....." So you're saying a tiny fraction of a degree change in temp caused this in one tiny area of the country? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 07:32:12 - Seriously?? Are you really that myopic??? Why the hell are you even commenting on this if you live in ignorance and base all your knowledge on a strictly right-wing viewpoint and refuse to see that climate change we're seeing right now is NOT natural? "I personally think that all these shark attacks are fake. Why haven't I seen any proof of this in my area...." Tell you what, why not back the fossil fuel industry directly by turning your house back to a coal fired furnace, get yourself a diesel generator for your power, buy the biggest SUV you can that gets 2 gallons to the mile, and to get rid of all that pesky garbage, just start burning everything - plastic, rubber, etc...... "....Rev T and T Garage will be delivering this morning's message." |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/19/19 at 07:41:15 "Exactly, what is it?" That was my question. Because if the end of man is your acceptable parameter for climate change consequence then we would already know there is no possible information in existence that would meet your definition. If you have no actual parameters of what you will accept as global climate change by your own definition or assessment then there's no reason to have this discussion. Your kayak trip appears to be anecdotal, my agriculture reference has literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data, that are used with accuracy, for many agriculture uses by many people. Also there is an alternate outcome consistence from organizations that do not use these weather models. Again we have a situation where the focus is on doomsday predictions instead of useable ones, that have been reliably used by thousands for decades now to improve industrial economic output. Of course none of them mean anything if you do not have a clear definition of what you consider a consequence of climate change. If you had some parameters we would know right away if any of the information we have meets your standard. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 07:42:33 Some notes about Michigan during this period of global warming. Hottest ever recorded was way back in 1936 at 112f. You'd think that would have been eclipsed by now. Coldest was 1994. That doesn't make sense, should have been 100 years ago right? In 2002/2003 during this global warming catastrophe, Michigan had the longest, coldest winter on record. Below 40 f for 90% of the time and lower than 32f for 76% of the time. Also, it was the driest winter on record with only 2.24" of precipitation. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 07:47:15 Your kayak trip appears to be anecdotal, my agriculture reference has literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data, that are used with accuracy, for many agriculture uses by many people. Also there is an alternate outcome consistence from organizations that do not use these weather models. Absolutely my trip is anecdotal. Which was my point. Look at what Rev TT posted. People accept $hit like that and cry global warming. So I keep hearing how the world is coming to an end so again, why don't I see it? my agriculture reference has literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data, that are used with accuracy, for many agriculture uses by many people. Also there is an alternate outcome consistence from organizations that do not use these weather models. Again I ask, are you telling me that a fraction of a degree is causing 'drastic' changes in agriculture? I don't believe that. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/19/19 at 07:47:29 "That doesn't make sense, should have been 100 years ago right? In 2002/2003 during this global warming catastrophe, Michigan had the longest, coldest winter on record." That's not how global warming works. This is part of why the terminology was revised to climate "change". If you are saying climate change is only an increase in temperature universally across the globe then yes, wherever you got that information was very wrong, that from what I have seen is not possible. For instance "global warming" should decrease temperatures in certain latitudes. I know at my place in CO it is warmer, and at my place in NY it is colder. So in CO global warming is a for sure thing, but in NY its fake. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/19/19 at 08:02:07 "Again I ask, are you telling me that a fraction of a degree is causing 'drastic' changes in agriculture? I don't believe that." What kind of references would you need? Also what do you consider "drastic"? To me in agriculture we take the entire recorded history available for the 25 most-common recorded yield products that have been annually planted since 1983, where the hydrology records are consistent. I then take into account 5 separate timeframes of agriculture growth post 1983 to create a national average. For instance corn yield from 1983 - 1988, 1988 - 1993 etc. We look at variances and note changes in yield per acre. Yield per acre presents a specific percentage breakdown based off of total planted availability. Once a national average of change per crop type per timeframe block are compared it shows a percentage change of 18% is most common. In an area where I am there exists with certain crops a change of 200% or more in only one of the 5 timeframes that creates the total crop yield average. When examined it was found that the higher percentage change crop yield locations used predictive weather modeling. These locations also show consistent higher yield annual output than those who do not use the modeling. There is a lot more math involved but I am not going to start loading tables, graphs and algorithms that will most likely never be read. I consider a change of 200% in one fifth of the examined time-frame horizon a "drastic" change as I personally consider in most cases a percentage change of 35% or higher to be "drastic" by my definition. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 08:43:22 And these changes are positively attributed to the change in climate that is positively attributed to mankind's increase of co2? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/19/19 at 09:00:24 7C6A7D60786D607B0F0 wrote:
Exactly as I said... you will deny any proof presented and won't say what you would accept as a proof positive. Climate science is a global calculus,... That number is going up. All the other examples of extreme weather are symptoms of that. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 09:09:20 11,000 people did not die in France because of climate change. That's ridiculous. How about the more likely explanation which is that an ageing population closely clustered together in areas of higher than average poverty had deaths from a typical and expected summer heat wave. The death toll was estimated and declared "probably" correct. You know, 'probably'.... that very scientific term. Willing to bet a few months from now a report will come out quietly noting that the actual death toll was substantially less. Willing to bet you won't post that. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 09:21:10 In 1911, France had a crushing heat wave that killed an estimated 41,000. There was a corresponding heat wave in Northeastern USA also. Temp his 106 in New Hampshire. Using heat deaths as yet another Chicken Little type tactic is problematic. There are so many more variables more likely than a fraction of a degree increase in average temperature. I could say we have far fewer heat deaths today than ever before. I'm sure that's true, but I wouldn't say that's due to global cooling. Its clearly due to many other variable such as the common availability of air conditioning, general prosperity, better water etc... Global warming converts, however, grab anything and hold it up as some kind of warning. It's silly. You've got a freaking brain, use it. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 10:19:46 You see, here's the thing: I'm the one with the reasonable point of you on this topic. You've seen Sew and TT post ridiculous claims about climate change. My position is that it's very likely humans have affected the climate, not the weather but the climate. It seems logical to assume 7 1/2 billion people would do that. I just don't see nor have I read anything that honestly makes me believe it is as serious as claimed. And I think its likely as we continue to progress from a technological point of view, the likelihood decreases. Think for a minute if we'd had an Internet and a motorcycle forum back in the 70s. Paul Ehrlich was crying about world population growth and how we were all going to be dead from starvation soon. My guess is the leftist on here would've hopped right on board with that. No questions asked; they would've been trumpeting his claims as gospel truth at the top of their voices. Any objections I made would have been met with the same scorn as I get now for suggesting we ask for a little proof before taking action. Think how many times this same scenario has played out? And not just on the left necessary. Remember the dominos falling if we didn't stop the VC? No, I don't believe its as bad as they say. No, I don't believe Eegore can prove his claims about agriculture. No, ( ha ha ha) just because its snowed and flooded in TT hometown, we're all gonna ice skate to work next week. And no, 11000 people didn't die who otherwise wouldn't have if we'd just listened to Al Gore all those years ago. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/19 at 11:08:55 1D2F28393E2F38072B38214A0 wrote:
LOL - you ignored my post about it. How convenient.[/quote] You posted "record snowfalls.....record high water....nearly wiped off the map....." So you're saying a tiny fraction of a degree change in temp caused this in one tiny area of the country?[/quote] Yes. What's so hard to comprehend? Go ask the folks of Houghton, MI if they believe that climate change is a hoax.... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 11:10:54 Yea cause that’s scientific. The party of science! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/19 at 11:12:09 Hey everybody! I just finished lunch! World Hunger now a thing of the past!! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/19/19 at 12:13:04 "No, I don't believe Eegore can prove his claims about agriculture." Why I would have any reason to fabricate agriculture yield numbers I do not know. They aren't claims, they are numbers, and actual product. Things we eat. If you would like to go over the information I can have it compiled and go over it with you. My personal hydrology reports I could get sooner, they are only a few hundred pages. I could have a portfolio done by mid September that you and I could go over that is more extensive. Also I could see if any local owners would be willing to talk to you as well. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 12:31:52 I don't think you're fabricating yield numbers. There are a million (note to the Rev TT: that's a figure of speech meant to convey the idea of a large number) variables involved. My question was can those 'drastic' variances be positively linked to a fraction of a temp change in global average temperature? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 12:33:04 524C43424F524954260 wrote:
If that suited your partisanship; its entirely believable you'd say that Reverend. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/19 at 12:38:10 003235242332251A36253C570 wrote:
If that suited your partisanship; its entirely believable you'd say that Reverend. [/quote] Well gee mark, I don't see any hunger issues in my house, or even in my whole neighborhood! How can there be millions of people starving? That's fake news, right? C'mon, you name one person that you know that is starving.... Ha! See, there is no such thing! (see how that works?) |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 14:25:02 I've often times said you make little sense, but you seem bound and determined to overachieve today. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/19/19 at 14:40:24 734146575041566945564F240 wrote:
I see,... why should we bother listening to scientists and doctors when we have you?... It's only reasonable that we believe you... over thousands of experts with years of experience and PhD's... You're that guy that yell's at the quarterback on TV, aren't you?... ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/19/19 at 14:50:02 794B4C5D5A4B5C634F5C452E0 wrote:
So, did you say this: "Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate?" Just a simple yes or no. If you answer "no", then you're lying. If you answer "yes", then my position on how world hunger is fake because I just ate and no one I know is starving, is pretty relevant. You may want to go back and look at what you're basing your "expert" opinion on, mark. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 15:32:09 My God you're clueless..... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/19/19 at 15:33:03 2A343B3A372A312C5E0 wrote:
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/19/19 at 15:50:46 "My question was can those 'drastic' variances be positively linked to a fraction of a temp change in global average temperature? " Again: What is your parameters for "positively linked"? Until we know what that is we can not possibly answer that question. I outlined mine, and the agriculture activity not just in my area, but in many meet those numbers. Also the fishing industry particularly in the Pacific however I have limited numbers on that. I agree there are a tremendous amount of variables, and not all outcomes are due to man-made influence. I do still argue however that every weather model ever made is not incorrect. Too many people use them to create successful business plans for all of them to always be incorrect. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/19/19 at 16:36:00 I agree there are a tremendous amount of variables, and not all outcomes are due to man-made influence. Not all? You can't positively identify a single one. Sounds like you're looking at data generated after multiple alterations were made to the process and assuming some results were the result of temperature change. I do still argue however that every weather model ever made is not incorrect. Too many people use them to create successful business plans for all of them to always be incorrect. No, their is no evidence to suggest their successful plans were because they made adjustments that countered an increase in temperature. Shell oil for example may have taken what were ultimately financially profitable steps but that success may have had nothing to do with countering a tiny increase in temperature. It may have had everything to do with playing the political game and pretending they believe global warming is a serious threat in order to capture business from customers who require sustainability plans be in place before they engage in business with them. Shell Oil did not invest in equipment with a 1 degree C grester heat resistance and because of that investment, earned more profit. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/19/19 at 16:38:12 0D3F38292E3F28173B28315A0 wrote:
Nothing "makes" weather..., everything "contributes" to weather. People far more knowledgeable than us, say we are contributing too much. If your doctor says, "cut out the cookies"... he's not saying that is the cause,... just that it's contributing. So, do you ignore him?... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/19/19 at 19:14:46 "Not all? You can't positively identify a single one. Sounds like you're looking at data generated after multiple alterations were made to the process and assuming some results were the result of temperature change." Then I am not portraying what I am using correctly. The assessment of accuracy comes from comparing a prediction to the measured outcome in the timeframe the prediction was made. From 1983 to now, some, not all, weather models have had high accuracy. If a weather model predicts on Jan 01 2019 there will be snow 1-2 inches of snow on Jan 02 2019 and then on Jan 02 2019 1.78 inches of snow falls the prediction would by my standard be considered accurate. If a weather model predicts an annual increase in watershed irrigation volume of 28-34% the following year and the watershed irrigation volume increases by 29% that prediction by my standard would be correct. I can't speak for Shell Oil, I only am referencing the agriculture belt where my land is. People who use predictive weather modeling to pre-purchase seed, prepare land and develop distribution strategies have higher returns than those who do not. It may be completely coincidental but by my standard the multi-decade results are too consistent to meet the definition of coincidence. To clarify: The businesses I am directly involved with by means of land-use and lease of water-shares use predictive weather modeling. My assessment of such does not include any other business such as Shell Oil. As such my assessment is that not every single weather model ever made is inaccurate. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/19/19 at 22:34:08 The ones created by the warmlarmists and used to generate fear of the future sure have been Wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/19 at 05:17:27 625057464150477854475E350 wrote:
So... no answer? Even though you're the one that said "Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate?" - you call me clueless? ;D Thanks mark! You've proved my point! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/19 at 05:33:32 6076617C64717C67130 wrote:
Nothing "makes" weather..., everything "contributes" to weather. People far more knowledgeable than us, say we are contributing too much. If your doctor says, "cut out the cookies"... he's not saying that is the cause,... just that it's contributing. So, do you ignore him?... [/quote] People far more knowledgeable than us have been wrong plenty of times. The vast majority of intelligence agencies said Iraq had WMD. Not sure but guessing you sided with those that suspected that wasn't true. I'll point out The Population Bomb again. Had all of us been on this forum back then, you would have been on that bus. How'd that work out? Climate Change is a huge business today. These people are not going to easily see the light. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/19 at 05:44:34 19393B332E395C0 wrote:
Let's wrap this up. I say no one can prove definitively a change in any pattern or event that was caused by the .38c increase in average temperature since 1979. Nothing you've written challenged that. Are the models those people used to prepurchase seeds or otherwise alter production techniques saying a tiny fraction of a degree triggers the drastic production changes? I can't believe that's true. There's more too these models. What parameters are they projecting? El Nino, etc...? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/19 at 05:47:04 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
Let's wrap this up. I say no one can prove definitively a change in any pattern or event that was caused by the .38c increase in average temperature since 1979. Nothing you've written challenged that. Are the models those people used to prepurchase seeds or otherwise alter production techniques saying a tiny fraction of a degree triggers the drastic production changes? I can't believe that's true. There's more too these models. What parameters are they projecting? El Nino, etc...?[/quote] What the hell's the point? Eegore has pasted you with data and you just ignore it. Nothing can educate an ignorant person except that very person. For Christ's sake mark - move on. We get it, you won't believe it. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/19 at 05:54:02 475956575A475C41330 wrote:
So... no answer? Even though you're the one that said "Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate?" - you call me clueless? ;D Thanks mark! You've proved my point![/quote] You're really not that bright are you? Its been 30 years. Why can't I see these drastic changes you guys are telling me about. Its a 28 mile stretch of river that's virtually untouched by humans. No farms or business. Any change in the pattern of nature over 30 years should be very noticeable. How about because a tiny fraction of increase in the global average temperature is meaningless to the ecosystem. It's absorbed. I can't see any difference because there isn't any difference. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/19 at 05:59:09 What the hell's the point? Eegore has pasted you with data and you just ignore it. Nothing can educate an ignorant person except that very person. For Christ's sake mark - move on. We get it, you won't believe it. No, Eegore did not post any data. He made subjective statements with figures that do not answer the question which is how a tiny fraction of a degree is used in modeling software to accurately predict future conditions and allowed those users to adjust procedures that resulted in higher yields precisely because they adjusted for the "drastic" changes he mentioned. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/20/19 at 11:16:59 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote:
So... no answer? Even though you're the one that said "Why haven't I noticed a difference caused by this catastrophic change in climate?" - you call me clueless? ;D Thanks mark! You've proved my point![/quote] You're really not that bright are you? Its been 30 years. Why can't I see these drastic changes you guys are telling me about. Because no matter what you see, you won't believe it. You're probably lying about not seeing any changes knowing you.... Its a 28 mile stretch of river that's virtually untouched by humans. No farms or business. Any change in the pattern of nature over 30 years should be very noticeable. How about because a tiny fraction of increase in the global average temperature is meaningless to the ecosystem. It's absorbed. I can't see any difference because there isn't any difference. [/quote] How about you're probably lying. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/20/19 at 13:42:19 "No, Eegore did not post any data. He made subjective statements with figures that do not answer the question which is how a tiny fraction of a degree is used in modeling software to accurately predict future conditions and allowed those users to adjust procedures that resulted in higher yields precisely because they adjusted for the "drastic" changes he mentioned." I am not going to go through the trouble of compiling hundreds of pages of documentation and post it here if nobody is going to read it. I did however offer documentation, and to even go through it with you and also the ability to talk directly to people who use the weather modeling first hand. "I say no one can prove definitively a change in any pattern or event that was caused by the .38c increase in average temperature since 1979." You also will not provide a parameter for what you would accept as proof, so the question as you pose it can never be answered. Why did you ever ask if you already knew you would not accept any amount of information? This is just like the US Civilians vs. US military conversation where you won't answer questions about duration of time, use of force, or type of weapon(s). |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/19 at 14:23:32 How about you're probably lying. You're the liar, not me. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/20/19 at 14:34:11 I did however offer documentation, and to even go through it with you and also the ability to talk directly to people who use the weather modeling first hand. "I say no one can prove definitively a change in any pattern or event that was caused by the .38c increase in average temperature since 1979." You also will not provide a parameter for what you would accept as proof, so the question as you pose it can never be answered. Why did you ever ask if you already knew you would not accept any amount of information? This is just like the US Civilians vs. US military conversation where you won't answer questions about duration of time, use of force, or type of weapon(s). The temperature has been documented using satellites to show an average global increase of .38c since 1979. Note: that also factors in quite a few years when the average went down. Very simple question. Does the weather modeling software you referred to claim that they factored in a temperature increase of .38c and based upon this increase, agricultural procedures were changed and temp increase effect on crops is negated ? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/20/19 at 15:01:07 "Since 1901, the average surface temperature across the contiguous 48 states has risen at an average rate of 0.14°F per decade (see Figure 1). Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.29 to 0.46°F per decade since 1979)." |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/21/19 at 05:38:34 Some quick back of the napkin calculations shows that to be a hair under 3 degrees over the past 118 years. That's from ground based thermometers. Satellites in place since 1979 show .38c increase. Here's where you're gonna pull out your conspiracy comments etc.. but ground based readings are 'adjusted' to account for urban heat island effect, normal wear and tear, unusual readings etc... There have been numerous studies showing a human element comes into play when making these adjustments. Now, let me jump ahead to your likely question that do I really think scientist are adjusting the temperature to show more warming than there actually is? Yes and no. Yes, it's a virtual certainty it's happening, no it doesn't mean it's always on purpose. Some people cheat and steal. When their career and livelihood is on the line, do you think that's more or less likely? When most of the world's intelligence agencies said Iraq had WMD's, did they lie or did their preconceived ideas subconsciously foul up their normally reliable discernment abilities? I think it likely was a little of both. When Paul Erlich's Population Bomb theory was in high demand, did all the scientist agree because the data told them so or because their political/social outlooks blinded them? History is littered with theories that have eventually been proven to be drastically overblown or simply flat out wrong. Today's liberals transplanted back to the 1970's along with the reach of today's internet would be all in with the Population Bomb idea. There would be politicians running for office on a one child platform. Any one disagreeing would be labeled a 'denier'. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/21/19 at 05:45:58 7D6B7C61796C617A0E0 wrote:
Don't waste your time/keystrokes Sero. Ignorance is something that has to be overcome by the ignorant, not the educated. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/21/19 at 07:25:49 Rev TT has spoken. The official climate change Bible says it so it must be true. Do not speak to the climate change deniers. Pagans, blasphemers, idolaters!!! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/21/19 at 07:44:06 487A7D6C6B7A6D527E6D741F0 wrote:
mark = ignorance = bliss |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/25/19 at 07:08:42 Guess who else knows climate change fears are greatly exaggerated? Former President, Hopey Change himself. Just spent a bizillion dollars on a beach front house....!!! Know what else? Everyone of you clowns who say we’re doomed would do the same thing! You don’t really believe that nonsense now do you?! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/25/19 at 13:32:22 122027363120370824372E450 wrote:
do you know even what a beach is? look at a map of the property man made climate change is a gradual occurrence like c02 natural can happen quicker like an asteroid |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/25/19 at 14:23:51 man made climate change is a gradual occurrence like c02 natural can happen quicker like an asteroid Seen that, have you? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/25/19 at 14:52:04 37282E2934330232023A28246F5D0 wrote:
the man made yes my head isn't buried in the sand seen evidence of the natural also ,the Yucatan |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/25/19 at 16:42:00 Point is, no one who really thought the sea levels were going to rise and flood coastal areas is going to plop down 15 million for a house on the coast. Get it through your thick skulls, this is yet another overblown Chicken Little scare tactic. It's the population bomb, Vietnam domino, the Alar apple scare (remember that?), McMartain Preschool Abuse (remember that?) Love Canal (remember that?) and on and on.... Sure, 7 billion people almost certainly have an impact on the climate, but its miniscule. Let it go. There are about a million things more important. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/25/19 at 19:16:21 What bank loans money for a property that they believe will literally be Underwater... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/26/19 at 03:54:51 No bank. They don't believe it will be underwater. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/26/19 at 06:37:52 I got so frustrated with E that I just said Screw it. But, Yeah EVERY climate model produced for promoting the hoax has been Wrong. Don't go dragging the goalposts around. IDGAF about the short term WEATHER models farmers use. And that was a lousy game to play. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/26/19 at 08:00:38 6D7274736E6958685860727E35070 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/26/19 at 16:49:12 He dragged goalposts and pretended BULLSHIT.. You're Bullshit. Piss off. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/26/19 at 21:57:25 726D6B6C71764777477F6D612A180 wrote:
LOL - hey jog - remember all those times you said I was to blame for making this forum so "terrible"? Do you remember that? Yeah, look at your little post above to see how far you've come. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/26/19 at 22:24:55 724047565140576844574E250 wrote:
Well mark...... Flash flooding causes chaos in Eureka and Wildwood EUREKA, MO - Now the driver is safe and thankful for the man who helped rescue her. “It was definitely terrifying,” said the driver of the car Paige Perry from High Ridge. Fortunately, she was already out of the car when it was swept away. Paige was north on 109 this morning when police were turning cars around at LaSalle Springs Middle because of flooding. As she was turning around things got scary. She explained, “When I went somebody decided to turn right instead and it like pushed water right up over my hood. And my car just stopped.” Fortunately for Paige Brian Dinger was driving by in his big work truck. He saw she needed help and stepped in. “He goes uh you`re probably going to want to get out of there. And I was like I wish I could! And then he like repositioned the truck slightly in front of the car and it blocked some of the water,” said Paige. Brian added, “She crawled across the top of the hood and I just held her hand to she could come across the top of her hood. And then she crawled onto the steps of my big truck there.” “I jumped off and put my foot on the step and then my car just went woosh down the river!” said Paige. Paige isn`t the only one with an incredible story. The Weber family`s horse smoky was swept away by water rushing through their wildwood property. Somehow Smoky was found safe about a quarter-mile away. “When we found him, he was just as happy to see us as we were to see him to be honest with you. And it was just, everything was okay then,” said John Weber. The flash flooding forced the Rockwood School District to cancel classes. Buses had to pull off roads with kids on board. Fortunately, everyone was okay. “I want to make sure that we are taking good care of our students each and every day. And I believe we made the best decision for our students today,” said Rockwood Superintendent Mark Miles. Rockwood officials say the fields that were flooded at Eureka High School likely won`t be usable for a couple of days. But school is on for tomorrow. Meanwhile, Paige wasn`t the only rescue that Brian was involved with near LaSalle. He also helped a mother with her two young kids get out of their car and onto a school bus until the flooding receded. Out of concerns for more rain, Eureka city leaders and volunteers spent part of the day filling about one thousand sandbags. Some were out tonight downtown just to be prepared. The others will be put in storage. http://fox2now.com/2019/08/26/flash-flooding-causes-chaos-in-eureka-and-wildwood/ So, the rivers around St Louis have been at flood stage for 80 + days this year.... is that normal? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/19 at 03:45:41 https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/ Read the latest entry in the above link. As good luck would have it, I’m running around central PA this week and will be within shouting distance of State College PA, home to star of the show above. I don’t think he’ll talk to me however. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/19 at 04:34:05 So, the rivers around St Louis have been at flood stage for 80 + days this year.... is that normal? Wow.... it rained. What you don't know.... Eureka is a growing area. Heading down 44 west towards Six Flags in the afternoons and you'll hit traffic like you've never hit before. 44 West is now another of those directions you avoid during rush hour. It was never like that before. What impact do you suppose adding population to an area that was rural 20 years ago? Hmm...... A fraction of a second ago, on the earth's geological clock, your house in the Chicago area was under a couple hundred feet of ice. 15,000 years from ice covering half of the central plains to what it is today; is climate. A heavy rain causing flooding in newly populated areas is weather. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/27/19 at 05:25:10 5A686F7E79687F406C7F660D0 wrote:
Well, fortunately, mark - there are more of people in this world with my viewpoint than yours. True, you will never see the effects of our carbon-rich life. But at least my great-grandkids will know that I did what I could to make a difference and supported those who want to clean up our mess. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. Not to worry though, you can watch from the sidelines and pound sand. You non-believers won't stop us. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/27/19 at 05:28:51 4D7F78696E7F68577B68711A0 wrote:
LOL - yep, believing in one guy against the entire scientific community.... sounds about par for the course for the conservative mind.... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/27/19 at 13:56:42 "IDGAF about the short term WEATHER models farmers use. And that was a lousy game to play." They are long-term. Decades long. As a matter of fact there are so many inputs, just over eight hundred thousand that have to be reviewed to answer Webstermark's question which is why I haven't replied yet. Once reviewed almost 2.6 million inputs will be part of the average in just my area alone. The report at this time is 244 pages long. Doesn't matter though, you will just complain about my input and discard it because you have shown in the past, just like the statement above, you only allow the data you like. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/19 at 14:24:44 Good God man, don't go through 2.6 million inputs. Go to a party instead. Busy right now, respond more later. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/19 at 05:12:11 They are long-term. Decades long. Decades long weather trends aren't exactly what we're talking about now is it? Is it more like that improved technology allows for more accurate predictions of weather trends as opposed to effects from the climate change of a fraction of a degree? Again, if the temp has increases only very slightly (and don't forget with years of decreases thrown in the mix as well) how would modeling software dictate changes in agricultural procedures? If the software recommends different watering techniques, wouldn't those be effective regardless of a slight temp increase? Is this just a case of gradually improved farming techniques being hijacked by climate change activist as evidence? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/28/19 at 06:49:29 "Decades long weather trends aren't exactly what we're talking about now is it?" That's what I was referencing. Decades long weather models, that have been in use. When it was indicated that all weather models are wrong: "BULLSHIT Every Frikken Model Is wrong as crap." I asked why people don't reference the useable ones. The ones that people use in business to create more positive outcomes than those who do not. I was then asked how these weather models are "positively linked" so I asked for the parameters of what that is and I have received no answer, as such there is no way anyone can ever answer that particular question. So the only available process is to take 6 of the available models and run every metric on each in triplicate by separate analyst. Then provide that data to three third party analysts with no knowledge of what each model uses as procedural prediction process creating a blind assessment of the resulting numbers. Once this is done all groups will create a comparison of accuracy based off of 3 local and national weather outcome sources. It should be assumed that if all numbers are run and compared blindly to actual weather results the most-accurate weather models will be seen based off of results and not perception of process. These top 3 weather models will then be examined based off of when and where they are used. This should show if higher yield producers use the more accurate models or not. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/19 at 07:25:20 I was then asked how these weather models are "positively linked" so I asked for the parameters of what that is and I have received no answer, as such there is no way anyone can ever answer that particular question. I did too. I asked how agricultural modeling software took a fraction of a degree in temperature change and made recommendations to farmers. What specific thing did farmers do to counteract the same impact from a small temp for increase? Were they told to plant earlier, later, were they told to water more, etc... Pretty simple question. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/28/19 at 08:20:54 "I did too. I asked how agricultural modeling software took a fraction of a degree in temperature change and made recommendations to farmers." Weather models don't make recommendations, they model weather and make predictions based off of historical data. Farmers can use these predictions or not, certain crops yield higher numbers in certain climate. '"What specific thing did farmers do to counteract the same impact from a small temp for increase? Were they told to plant earlier, later, were they told to water more, etc... Pretty simple question. " Simple question but there are thousands of crops, millions of yield numbers so it will take time to assess, but only after the weather models are evaluated, blindly, for accuracy. Then each yield that was the result of an adjustment based off of weather model prediction needs to be categorized. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 08/28/19 at 09:40:03 Enough of the pointless back and forth...... http://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/bn2.png?w=780 Our Planet is on fukcing fire. End of story. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/19 at 12:07:35 5777757D6077120 wrote:
So at the end of the day, the bottom line is there is no way to determine if, while the changes were positive, any of them were necessary to counteract a minor temperature change. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/28/19 at 12:46:32 "So at the end of the day, the bottom line is there is no way to determine if, while the changes were positive, any of them were necessary to counteract a minor temperature change." I don't know how you came to that conclusion based off what I've indicated as process. Some have used climate change models and some have not. Those have been compared. Weather models do not make recommendations, they make predictions. People use those predictions to gain, or lose yield advantage. A double blind study is done to see which weather models have presented the most accuracy. A comparison of highest percentage change based off of each weather model is conducted. A comparison of highest yield outcome based off of highest percentage change with highest yield from highest weather model accuracy percentage prediction is developed. Then, after that it can be revealed which ones calculated global climate changes, and at what rate, to see if the prediction, not recommendation, was useful or not. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by verslagen1 on 08/28/19 at 13:04:13 I'm surprised that no one has a calculator that will predict yield for a particular crop given the average temp, rain, and sun in a particular area since this has been going on before the pharaohs. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/28/19 at 13:05:54 There is a number of those. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by verslagen1 on 08/28/19 at 13:10:46 5171737B6671140 wrote:
Seems to me that would be the answer to webbies question. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/28/19 at 13:23:20 Right, a weather model is part of that calculation. The problem is none of those make recommendations, which he is requesting, they make predictions. The difference is he is asking if the weather models that calculate in global climate change are more accurate than ones that do not. The only way to tell is to compare past results. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/19 at 15:58:45 If I recall, this whole thing started based on this statement: For me the drastic changes in agriculture in my area, and the fact we can use predictive modeling, and have, to create more efficient crop structure is to me, a consequence and can be positively confirmed as records have been kept for decades. I keyed on the word drastic because I think this whole climate change thing has turned into a money making industry for millions. Drastic is, well to put in mildly, a drastic word. I just asked what role a tiny increase in temperature played in the modeling. I find that the idea of a tiny increase having a drastic effect questionable. Especially since I would think the average temperature from one year to the next could vary by a full degree or two in some cases. Up or down. So how does .38c average increase factor in to the equations? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/28/19 at 16:20:16 Stop playing dodge ball. I said All , and I mean ALL, of the Models that they used to try to scare us into voluntarily changing our lives, paying carbon taxes, etc. Have been, not just less than accurate, but horribly WRONG. I seriously don't GAF about the short term WEATHER models that have been reasonably usable. The POINT IS EVERY model that we were told about that warned of the Dire Consequences of inaction Have been WRONG. And Mr. Hockey Stick is paying the legal bills of the guy who beat him in court. Because Mann Will Not release the data that he used to promote the LIE. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/29/19 at 15:35:19 "I seriously don't GAF about the short term WEATHER models that have been reasonably usable." They are long term. Decades old. If only I said that multiple times before. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/29/19 at 16:19:52 So WHAT?? Every, EVERY,dire warning for the last thirty years HAS BEEN COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Show me a prediction that happened? And it's Got to be A Dire consequence. You can't. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/29/19 at 20:20:26 Again I was just asking why the focus on the nonsense unusable models instead of the ones that are accurate and used. You said every weather model is wrong. I think that is incorrect based off of my research and the usage in my area. You clarified that you mean that the incorrect models are incorrect and continued to reference "short-term" weather models saying I am moving goalposts and playing a lousy game. "IDGAF about the short term WEATHER models farmers use. And that was a lousy game to play." "I seriously don't GAF about the short term WEATHER models that have been reasonably usable." I indicated I meant long-term, no matter how many times you say short-term. I still meant long-term. Why would you expect to call me out on a topic I wasn't even talking about and have me not try to re-clarify that I am not referencing the same thing you are. Type short-term in again and I will again attempt to clarify I mean long-term. You keep saying short-term. I am referencing long-term, I don't know what's so hard to understand. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/29/19 at 21:33:31 Years of SKY IS FALLING Warnings Not ONE dire prediction has come TRUE. Fukking BATTING AVERAGE matters. Something to do with Credibility. That's why the wrong stuff matter |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/19 at 07:14:02 Years of SKY IS FALLING Warnings Not ONE dire prediction has come TRUE. Yes. Just as many doomsday weather predictions have come true as there have been predictions of government implementations of martial law, also the same number of times all our guns have been taken from us. Not ONE. The NRA essentially relies on the propagation of doomsday government takeover predictions. Every few years they are on the verge of disappearing... unless you donate. Inaccurate predictions is part of business, but only if we continue to focus on it. Pick a topic, there will be inaccurate predictions. Why keep focusing on the lies instead of the useable portions? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/30/19 at 08:05:57 Why keep focusing on the lies instead of the useable portions? What's the "useable portion" of over estimating the impact of just one of the greenhouse gases? Draconian measures to cut CO2: If it turns out to be statically insignificant with regards to this increasing global temperatures, what negative impacts to people would there be? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 08/30/19 at 09:32:33 What's the point of repeatedly asking questions only to deny the answers given by experts in the field?... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/19 at 09:43:38 "What's the point of repeatedly asking questions only to deny the answers given by experts in the field?..." I assume its so they can repeat themselves, or the hopes that the answer will eventually be one they want. Also it's so easy now to type in anything and the search algorithm will find globally anyone who shares the same ideas. Like flat earth, or that dinosaurs are a "big paleo" hoax. For instance regarding these weather models that are long-term. (Again I feel it's important to indicate that these are long-term and not the exact opposite or short-term.) The data must be compared without knowledge of how the models create their predictions. This way the result is based off of accuracy and not what people want to hear, so at least the numbers will be sound. Of course I do not expect people to accept the results unless those results reflect the answer they want to see. We are doing the same thing with 400 Whoppers. People will still deny the information even though it will all be on video. That's just the way it goes. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/30/19 at 12:20:35 Just as many doomsday weather predictions have come true as there have been predictions of government implementations of martial law, also the same number of times all our guns have been taken from us. Not ONE. So STFU about global warming. Show me where I'm always going off about martial law. You lefties play relativism games. What It's OKAY to believe and promote a lie, because you PROJECT a lie onto people who Don't believe in your Sky is falling Bullshit? Lefties want me to change MY LIFE and pay for the privilege, in the name of a hoax. Mr and Mrs America Turn them all in. I HAVE evidence that lefties want to end the second amendment. You support the second amendment BUT.. BULLSHIT. The media, the government, the constant pounding of the GLOBULL WARMING FEAR DRUM is YUGE.. And you want to declare some right to promote a lie Because you believe that right wingers are LYING about the threat to the second amendment,, You're one twisted creature |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/19 at 12:39:09 "The media, the government, the constant pounding of the GLOBULL WARMING FEAR DRUM is YUGE.. And you want to declare some right to promote a lie Because you believe that right wingers are LYING about the threat to the second amendment,," I do not want to declare anything. Nothing. Including some right to promote some lie. I do not believe right wingers are LYING about the threat to the second amendment. I do however think that the same number of government takeovers matches exactly the number of confirmed UFO sightings. The same number of doomsday weather predictions, also the same number of Jesus sightings, human ending disease and nuclear holocausts. "Show me where I'm always going off about martial law." I never said you did. In this thread alone I referenced the Federal Reserve and Pizza restaurants. This does not mean you are always going off about money and pizza: "Just like people who hate the Federal Reserve only focus on negative financial movement. Just like people who hate pizza focus on how many pizza joints there are around town." "So STFU about global warming." I never brought up the topic. I asked why long, not short, NOT SHORT-TERM weather models that have worked aren't the ones people are concerned with and spending their time using as a way to indicate doomsday models are nonsense? Maybe if you were capable of adult conversation and less about insulting people over opinions we would get somewhere sometime. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/30/19 at 15:18:25 Good God.. Trying to talk to you is isn't worth it. Duck and dodge Move goalposts Mention something I address it Now it wasn't important anyway.. You TRIED to play a game I shot you down The fukking global warming models are all wrong. And that is the only truth you lefties need. Admit it. Grow up. STFU and STOP pushing the lies. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 08/30/19 at 16:08:44 "The fukking global warming models are all wrong." I don't agree. I think some long term, not short term models are correct and useable. I already agreed with you multiple times in multiple posts that the doomsday models are wrong. I agree with you but you are so emotionally involved in making a simple discussion some sort of competition that you are apparently incapable of seeing it. "STFU and STOP pushing the lies." I never pushed anything. Stop pretending I am arguing for global warming models that aren't accurate. Stop pretending I ever once said carbon taxes are viable. Certainly stop making up things like "you want to declare some right to promote a lie" when I have never said anything close to that. Or this: "you believe that right wingers are LYING about the threat to the second amendment" another thing I never said. I asked a question about long-term weather models and you repeatedly referred to short term ones then tried to say I was the one moving goalposts. You referenced information that was the opposite of what I said. How hard is that to understand? Why focus on the inaccuracies of prediction models instead of the accurate ones? Have you even though about why that question could even be considered upsetting? It appears to be a valid question to me, and even if it wasn't no part of it should illicit an anger response. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/19 at 04:16:22 5147504D55404D56220 wrote:
I suspect ypur qualification for whom gets to wear the expert title begins with only those who first demostrate their allegiance to the pre-approved climate change model. The education, credentials, accomplishments of anyone not pledging allegiance are dismissed at best, trashed at worst. Right? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/19 at 04:41:35 My bottom line to this climate chage is pretty simple. The fact that certain gasses can create a greenhouse effect is obvious a fact. We all eat food or view flowers that exist only because of the greenhouse effect. It is not a hoax. Some 30 years ago, a theory was launched by a small group of scientists and then given an international platform by the UN within a committee known as the IPCC. In the time since, "global warming" morphed into the more palatable phrase "climate change". The temperature prediction given by the committee have never hit their targets. They've always been under. None of the predicted environmental impacts are definitively observable. Those whose basic political platforms tend to involve controlling the personal freedoms of people more so than other platforms, grabbed ahold of doomsday scenarios and have been preaching to the globe ever since theeed to conform to their rigid ideas to avoid disaster which is always right around the corner. It is entirely believable that 7 billion people have an impact on the climate. However, given that the temperature prediction have not matched observations, given the zealousness of which political parties have demanded ridiculously disproportionate responses, given obvious hypocritical actions from the high priests of climate change, (carbon credits, global flights, seaside mansions, professionals with alternative theories trashed) the idea that climate change is threatening the globe with impending doom.......is a hoax. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/31/19 at 06:50:04 truth or trump speak? the earth's rotation is slowing the days will be 25 hours long |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/31/19 at 08:05:38 it is truth will take about 175 M years what can we learn from this what did we learn from three mile island from love canal from the A bomb from leaded gasoline |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/31/19 at 09:10:42 climate change isn't something you wake up to some morning and say here it is it is happening slow and sure humans are adding our own set of problems from our desire to acquire material possessions and disregard for the planet and its resources greed blinds even the most logical thoughts think of our grandkids |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 08/31/19 at 10:56:47 3B273A223F2A3D2C2320212A4F0 wrote:
Probably true.....in a few million years or something. So? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/19 at 11:17:43 Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. Whose SUV melted the glaciers that carved out the Great Lakes? Where is more food produced? Cold or hot? The Warmlarmists destroyed their credibility by their Chicken Little Sky is Falling Bullshit. Not ONE of the Dire Consequences that have been their mantra for decades has Actually happened. And, Fat Al and now Obama own property Exactly where it's not gonna be LIVABLE in (another, like the last 12 year doomsday scenario ) twelve years.. But I'm supposed to be Alarmed? I'm only alarmed by the irrational support for the So Called solutions to this Bullshit, created Pressing issue. It's a GAME and you lefties are buying it. When you get what you want YOU won't be able to AFFORD to run your air conditioner.. Carbon taxes will jack the cost of food. And you tell me I Vote against my own self interest? You've been DUPED, wake up |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/31/19 at 11:58:50 you are the dupe' be happy in your folly we have be going round on this since 2006 on this forum you haven't seen any changes in your local weather since then? at one time I suggested you lock yourself in your garage with your car running to witness the effects you didn't do it or you wouldn't be here.. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/19 at 12:02:17 5448554D504552434C4F4E45200 wrote:
After all these years of warnings about the near future dire consequences, you can not show ONE of them that has actually happened, yet you believe.. Why? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/31/19 at 13:05:37 glacier and sea ice regression btw i never said dire and how long is "near future" be real man one of your advanced age should be wiser than you portray |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/19 at 13:40:46 Near Future? How many times do you need to be told something really bad will happen to the World in a few years and it NOT happen before you question the credibility of the source? You're aware Mann lost his lawsuit And is now on the hook for the legal fees, right? Your position Is Discredited |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by thumperclone on 08/31/19 at 13:43:33 my brain is functional you must of leaked some of yours |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/31/19 at 13:47:14 You're so brilliant! It's You must HAVE not Of Genius.. And you can Not argue the point Because you don't have any answer. You're the Dupe. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/02/19 at 15:43:38 48686A627F680D0 wrote:
Is not a Decade, 10 years ? So Decades, would be at least 20 years old ? I do not consider that long term. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 16:30:47 "Is not a Decade, 10 years ? So Decades, would be at least 20 years old ? I do not consider that long term." Yes a decade is 10 years. Yes decades old would be at least 20 years old. I understand you do not think decades old is not long-term. I have asked for specifics, as in numbers, regarding what the parameters are for positive linking and none have been provided so I am providing information based off my own. In this case I am using models that are 35 years 4 months old. To me, that is long-term given the timeframe that digital weather modeling has been available. Given digital predictive weather modeling did not exist prior to the existence of satellite and computer technology I do not expect to find any that precede the technology used to create them. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/02/19 at 18:45:59 Name ONE Of the consequences that we have been told that would would upset our world that has happened. YOU CAN'T And you FUKKING Lefties just Keep deflecting Because you don't have FUKKALL to defend your brainwashed position with. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/02/19 at 20:13:42 "ONE Of the consequences that we have been told that would would upset our world that has happened." I already told you I agree with you. I. Agree. With. You. Not sure why you don't understand that. Also not sure why if I have a related question it angers you. Just let it go. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/05/19 at 04:19:58 Interesting...read this today. “U.S. CO2 emissions are down to where they were in 1985–a third of a century ago, when the GDP was half what it is now in inflation-adjusted terms, and the population was smaller by a quarter. No other industrialized country has come anywhere close.” |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/05/19 at 06:30:56 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote:
That's great news. But what's the difference, right? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/05/19 at 06:52:40 So, now it doesn't actually matter? I thought it was of extreme importance to you. And, since Trump walked away from the global agreement, it would be impossible. I'd think you'd be ecstatic. But it is not a bad thing in your mind and Trump is not an idiot for walking away, now it's not important? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/05/19 at 09:26:10 524D4B4C51566757675F4D410A380 wrote:
Sarcasm... look it up. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/05/19 at 09:45:40 5C7C7E766B7C190 wrote:
This is the fundamental part of disagreement. 'Long/Short Term'. You also said: 08282A223F284D0 wrote:
I say even 35 years is very short term. That comes from 'man' being on this planet for 6,000 +/- years. That comes from 'man' manipulating, water and land to cultivate for 3,500 +/- years. That comes from, 'man' using cars/industry for the last 200 years. That comes from, in the late 60's early 70's, the, 'Ice Age' is coming. When in study, of, (no computers 6,000 or even 3,000, or even 100 years ago), the Earth, it shows very fundamental changes that have/had nothing to do with Man. Those studies of the earth/geography, are long term. The weather stations, which are in the same places for the last 35 years, which provide data for, ...digital weather modeling..., are, short term. Also, consideration must be given to the vary fundamental nature of the 'man'. A 'man', relies on 'grants', to feed family, and drive a nice car. Getting the 'grants' relies on what that the 'man' says they believe. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/05/19 at 10:31:22 For how many years did Scientists tell us cigarettes weren't why people got cancer? Who was stupid enough to actually believe that? I didn't. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/05/19 at 10:40:05 09292B233E294C0 wrote:
This is interesting. (Believing you are talking about the USA, because other Countries, 'government takeovers', would be to numerous to list) In this Country, several large attempts have been made. And several, small successes, if you are counting incarceration, by the collision of a ADA/Police/Judge. As to, ...the number of confirmed UFO sightings..., Don't know yet. Yet it is clear you have formed the opinion that none exist. Is a opinion formed because a, 'official', government said none exist? So if someone believes MM & JFK were boinking, (Because no official 'Government', says they were) Do they also believe in, 'Flat Earth', or some thing other ? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/06/19 at 05:39:08 "And several, small successes, if you are counting incarceration, by the collision of a ADA/Police/Judge." I am not counting incarceration. By that logic every judge in the country is enacting martial law takeover daily. "confirmed UFO sightings." To me, confirmed would be multi-platform documentation and public release that is peer-reviewed for accuracy and considered plausible or true by more than 90% of those reviewing through reproducible means. I have not seen this for UFO sightings. "Is a opinion formed because a, 'official', government said none exist?" No. "So if someone believes MM & JFK were boinking, (Because no official 'Government', says they were) Do they also believe in, 'Flat Earth', or some thing other ?" I don't know. Again the point is "Predictions" and if one picks a topic there will be predictions. You can argue the semantics of any topic I use as example and that will continue to evade the point that I am referring to these topics as an example of predictive action. Many if not most predictions will be wrong. Why focus on only the incorrect predictions in exclusivity? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/06/19 at 05:46:05 "The weather stations, which are in the same places for the last 35 years, which provide data for, ...digital weather modeling..., are, short term." If compared to the entire history of man on the planet yes. But I am talking about digital satellite-assisted weather modeling. Why would you count any timeframe before a technology exists as part of the overall useable information? To spin numbers most likely. I find it highly unrealistic to use time before satellites as part of the countable timeframe for satellite study. Every time someone talks about the US Constitution I will just state how short term it is compared to the commonly accepted history of the Earth and just use that logic to say it's not really all that useful. You know, because compared to the timeline of the Earth it really hasn't made much of a difference since we are using time prior to it's creation as part of it's effective use to man. If we compare the usefulness of the US Constitution since it's creation and apply it to usage within the US then we can estimate a high number of effectiveness, lets say 99%. Similar to comparing weather models only within the timeframe they exist and only within the region we are actually talking about. If we compare the US Constitution to the age of Earth it's only been around a few hundred years, and we apply it outside the US (look how ineffective it is in N Korea!) we can say its .00000012% effective. Or we can stop with the games and just acknowledge that JoG keeps referring to short-term models ignoring that I referenced multi-decade models and not ones that use ground-based weather stations. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/06/19 at 07:06:10 1737353D2037520 wrote:
I would say the key word here is, “collision”. Like giving a person a Life Sentence for a $50.00 robbery. Not, just, incarnation for a crime. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/06/19 at 07:16:36 "Like giving a person a Life Sentence for a $50.00 robbery. Not, just, incarnation for a crime." I would say that's unjust, but wouldn't qualify as Martial Law or Government Takeover in my opinion. Maybe if they imposed these sentences on people who committed no crime at all. For instance going into nursing homes and sending them all to prison for loitering or being useless eaters like one of the "predictions" I most recently heard. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/09/19 at 06:55:25 Back to the topic at hand, Global Warming as a significant danger to the world's survival is a hoax. There's a lot of people making a whole lot of money, prestige and careers out of that hoax. it's not going away anytime soon, but it will go away. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/09/19 at 06:58:34 I'm in Dallas today where it was over 100 this weekend. I'm heading towards Vegas later today where it's actually cooler. It's summer. it's hot. There are temperature records set every year someplace. A fraction of a degree over the past 30 years isn't why it was over a 100 here. I'll stick with my previous statement as it's yet to be proven wrong. None of us can conclusively point to a single metric we encounter in our daily lives hat demonstrates climate change. Nothing. Zero. Nada. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/09/19 at 07:17:26 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote:
LMAO - for a guy that thinks it's a hoax - you sure are invested in it, aren't you? Hey mark - if it's that "meaningless" then why not just let it go? Don't worry, myself and the tens (possibly hundreds) of millions like me will continue to work to help save the population. You can just wallow in ignorance and thank us later, m'kay? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/09/19 at 08:02:26 Again, you talk smack but can’t definitively list any evidence. You’re part of the hoax, granted, out of sheer ignorance but nonetheless part of it. Don’t worry, some of us will stop this nonsense before it bankrupts the world, except for the chosen few. Hint; you’re not one of them. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/09/19 at 08:06:30 586A6D7C7B6A7D426E7D640F0 wrote:
Evidence and research has been posted ad nauseum. But you and your kind are just like a flat-earther. No matter what evidence is presented, you'll cover your ears and say "la-la-la I'm not listening". It's just futile to argue with a child-like, ignorant person. Now, run along and keep disbelieving and think that weather is the same as climate. I guess that helps you sleep at night or whatever. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/09/19 at 08:45:26 keep disbelieving and think that weather is the same as climate. Say what? Aren’t you the mental giant pointing out snow fall in your hometown as “evidence “? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 09/09/19 at 08:52:35 Call me when Dorian hits Alabama... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/09/19 at 09:38:33 714344555243546B47544D260 wrote:
You asked for a "direct" connection. I gave you several examples. A pattern of weather that has been changing over the course of decades is climate. I gave you that example with empirical evidence. But again, what the hell do you care? You'll never believe until your backyard is on fire and the sky directly above your head is red. Live in ignorance, you'll continue to be happy. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/09/19 at 12:37:53 Dear Twisted and Tortured, Because you're a liar you won't stop pretending that every reasonable person refuses to admit that the climate is and has ALWAYS been changing. What is a hoax is the claim that without drastic changes in the way humans live we are setting ourselves up for the Dire Consequences that you warmlarmists have been threatening us with for thirty years And NOT ONE FUKKING THING YOU CULT MEMBERS HAVE BEEN TELLING US WOULD HAPPEN HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Who keeps believing Anything after it's so obvious it's Frikken BULLSHIT? You lefties are the ones who will Not accept the facts. The medieval warm period happened. No discussion allowed. What, I want to hear WTF exactly caused the end of the Ice Age? Whose factory and SUV Did THAT? Answer, I dare you. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/09/19 at 17:59:42 "What, I want to hear WTF exactly caused the end of the Ice Age?" There is an awful lot of information about this available, but there is no one factor everyone agrees on. "Whose factory and SUV Did THAT?" Nobodies. Why would you even ask that? The issue as always been, which you might ignore again, is Rate of Change. It's faster. That doesn't mean there isn't corruption, doomsday predictions like Jesus, Martial Law, Eradication of all personally owned firearms, Aliens behind comets, Death Panels killing your Grandma, etc. pick any topic those will exist. Still the Rate of Change is faster than it has been in the past, unless of course you just want to deny any information people put forth that you either don't care about or won't accept because the numbers don't match your beliefs. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/09/19 at 18:02:44 "None of us can conclusively point to a single metric we encounter in our daily lives hat demonstrates climate change." What would you consider an acceptable metric? What would be considered "conclusive"? Why does it have to be one given the huge amount of variables and contributing factors to global climate? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/09/19 at 18:04:05 You asked for a "direct" connection. I gave you several examples. A pattern of weather that has been changing over the course of decades is climate. I gave you that example with empirical evidence. But again, what the hell do you care? You'll never believe until your backyard is on fire and the sky directly above your head is red. You gave me no such thing. You essentially gave me another version of "when I was your age, I walked 5 miles both ways uphill to school every day." You can't point to a single thing in your everyday life that's different due conclusively to higher levels of CO2 from human activity. None. Now, put your ignorance on full display and show me a picture of a sick polar bear drowning in the ocean like Al Gore did. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/09/19 at 18:36:42 302F292E33340535053D2F23685A0 wrote:
Sorry jog, I can't can't educate the willfully ignorant. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/09/19 at 18:41:00 033136272031261935263F540 wrote:
Wallow in your ignorance mark - it makes you happy. That and profit. The rest of us who care will do the work for you. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/09/19 at 19:36:09 lefties are the ones who will Not accept the facts. The medieval warm period happened. No discussion allowed. What, I want to hear WTF exactly caused the end of the Ice Age? Whose factory and SUV Did THAT? Answer, I dare you. You're unable to address the fact of the warm period, when orchards were further north than today. Proven, accepted FACT. And the end of the Ice Age, just part of nature. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/09/19 at 19:50:07 "No discussion allowed." So why post? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 00:32:09 Excellent contribution E.. I pointed out that out of probably six or more times I've tried to get anyone, someone, to even discuss the warm period, nope, not happening. I have a topic to discuss And Rather than talk about it I get shut out. No answers.. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 05:47:21 554A4C4B5651605060584A460D3F0 wrote:
Rate. Of. Change. The "warm period" doesn't enter into the discussion. The last ice age was nearly 3 million years ago. No humans of any consequence then. Further, the cycle of warming happened as it did for millions of years before - slow and steady (on a planetary scale). The rate of change in temperature since the industrial revolution is what's at issue now. There is a direct correlation between the two. Now, if you want to ignore it - fine. But don't preach to us that it's fake. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 05:52:48 And you see some drastic differences? What's that rate of change you're talking about And where are you getting the information? You do know Michael Mann lost his lawsuit, right? And the medieval warm period does matter. It matters specifically because IT WAS WARMER THEN, And yet, people thrived. Didn't drown Had food, Your doomsday scenarios are all failed. But keep screeching about the ruination. It's been In ten years In twelve years TWICE! And you keep carrying their water. SMH |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Eegore on 09/10/19 at 05:56:05 "I have a topic to discuss And Rather than talk about it I get shut out." I've addressed it through Rate of Change in multiple threads. You don't accept it. That's fine but to say its ignored is incorrect. I think you just won't accept my assessment as an answer so you dismiss it, which is not an example of me ignoring the issue. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 05:57:31 6646444C5146230 wrote:
I concur. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 05:59:32 Well, I sure don't remember it ever being discussed at all. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/10/19 at 06:41:46 647A757479647F62100 wrote:
Rate. Of. Change. The "warm period" doesn't enter into the discussion. The last ice age was nearly 3 million years ago. No humans of any consequence then. Further, the cycle of warming happened as it did for millions of years before - slow and steady (on a planetary scale). The rate of change in temperature since the industrial revolution is what's at issue now. There is a direct correlation between the two. Now, if you want to ignore it - fine. But don't preach to us that it's fake.[/quote] 15,000 years ago, your house would be under a ice. The Great Lakes weren't yet formed. 15,000 years is a second on the earth's geological clock. You're looking at a fraction of a degree over a fraction of a second and telling everyone to change their life. Sorry, ain't buying it. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by verslagen1 on 09/10/19 at 07:43:16 634341495443260 wrote:
I've seen the data, the rate of change looks linear. Yet the alarmists project an exponential rate. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 09/10/19 at 07:51:23 We'll be sure when it's too late. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/10/19 at 08:13:00 Perfect comment I read elsewhere. Page 771 of the IPCC's 2018 report: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Sounds like Page 1 material to me. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 08:30:19 566463727564734C60736A010 wrote:
Rate. Of. Change. The "warm period" doesn't enter into the discussion. The last ice age was nearly 3 million years ago. No humans of any consequence then. Further, the cycle of warming happened as it did for millions of years before - slow and steady (on a planetary scale). The rate of change in temperature since the industrial revolution is what's at issue now. There is a direct correlation between the two. Now, if you want to ignore it - fine. But don't preach to us that it's fake.[/quote] 15,000 years ago, your house would be under a ice. The Great Lakes weren't yet formed. 15,000 years is a second on the earth's geological clock. You're looking at a fraction of a degree over a fraction of a second and telling everyone to change their life. Sorry, ain't buying it. [/quote] Rate. Of. Change. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/10/19 at 08:56:59 697778797469726F1D0 wrote:
I see, so the 34 (+/-) years of study, (Satellites data), is the ONLY data to be considered. And the 4.5 BILLION Years this spaceship has been flying, is to be totally discounted. OK Got it Eddie. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 09:08:37 7655684B4952555C3B0 wrote:
I see, so the 34 (+/-) years of study, (Satellites data), is the ONLY data to be considered. And the 4.5 BILLION Years this spaceship has been flying, is to be totally discounted. OK Got it Eddie. [/quote] No, wrong once again. Satellite data is not the only thing contributing to the findings. There's data going back to the 1800's. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 09:15:21 The medieval warm period Demonstrates that planet earth, through purely NATURAL means can warm, and warm quickly. That Wasn't thousands of years ago. So the point is, what changes Are occurring actually fall in the range of what has been Demonstrated to be possible naturally. Why continue to believe what has been demonstrated at every turn to have predicted wrongly? Mann LOST his lawsuit. He won't show the data that supports his Hockey stick Bullshit. You want Science? Read it. Then explain WHY it's wrong. http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com Check out the links. Or keep up spewing the fear porn. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/10/19 at 09:23:20 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
Just amazing how you bold faced LIE about things. Perhaps your Lies will work with kids who are not taught, and are used to eating Tide Pods, and are confused as to which bathroom to use. But here, when you say: 'The last ice age was nearly 3 million years ago', EVERYONE knows, it is a total Lie. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 09:29:30 617E787F62655464546C7E72390B0 wrote:
Yep - like talking to a child covering his ears and screaming "NO NO NO - I'm not listening..." Keep wallowing in ignorance jog..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph Further reconstructions were published, using additional proxies and different methodology. Juckes et al. 2007 and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 compared and evaluated the various statistical approaches.[135] In July 2008 Huang, Pollack and Shen published a suite of borehole reconstructions covering 20,000 years. They showed warm episodes in the mid-Holocene and the Medieval period, a little ice age and 20th century warming reaching temperatures higher than Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures in any of the reconstructions: they described this finding as consistent with the IPCC AR4 conclusions.[136] In a paper published by PNAS on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues produced updated reconstructions of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[35] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study, at more than 1,200 proxy records. They used two complementary methods, both of which showed a similar "hockey stick" graph with recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years. Mann said, "Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data; but now you can go back 1,300 years without using tree-ring data at all and still get a verifiable conclusion."[137] In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick said that they perceived a number of problems, including that Mann et al used some data with the axes upside down.[138] Mann et al. replied that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that 'upside down' data were used is bizarre", as the methods "are insensitive to the sign of predictors." They also said that excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result.[139] A study of the changing climate of the Arctic over the last 2,000 years, by an international consortium led by Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, was published on 4 September 2009. They examined sediment core records from 14 Arctic lakes, supported by tree ring and ice core records. Their findings showed a long term cooling trend consistent with cycles in the Earth's orbit which would be expected to continue for a further 4,000 years but had been reversed in the 20th century by a sudden rise attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The decline had continued through the Medieval period and the Little Ice Age. The most recent decade, 1999–2008, was the warmest of the period, and four of the five warmest decades occurred between 1950 and 2000. Scientific American described the graph as largely replicating "the so-called 'hockey stick,' a previous reconstruction".[140] Further support for the "hockey stick" graph came from a new method of analysis using Bayesian statistics developed by Martin Tingley and Peter Huybers of Harvard University, which produced the same basic shape, albeit with more variability in the past, and found the 1990s to have been the warmest decade in the 600-year period the study covered.[141] 2010 onwards Further information: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report A 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction by Ljungqvist published by Geografiska Annaler in September 2010 drew on additional proxy evidence to show both a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period with decadal mean temperatures reaching or exceeding the reference 1961–1990 mean temperature level. Instrumental records of the period 1990–2010 were possibly above any temperature in the reconstruction period, though this did not appear in the proxy records. They concluded that their "reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology."[142] A 2010 opinion piece by David Frank, Jan Esper, Eduardo Zorita and Rob Wilson (Frank et al. 2010) noted that by then over two dozen large-scale climate reconstructions had been published, showing a broad consensus that there had been exceptional 20th century warming after earlier climatic phases, notably the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. There were still issues of large-scale natural variability to be resolved, especially for the lowest frequency variations, and they called for further research to improve expert assessment of proxies and to develop reconstruction methods explicitly allowing for structural uncertainties in the process.[13] As several studies had noted, regression-based reconstruction methods tended to underestimate low-frequency variability. Bo Christiansen designed a new method (LOC) to overcome this problem, and with Ljungqvist used LOC to produce a 1,000 year reconstruction published in 2011. This showed more low frequency variability and a colder Little Ice Age than previous studies.[143] They then extended the LOC reconstruction back using selected proxies which had a documented relation to temperature and passed a screening procedure. This 2,000 year reconstruction, published in 2012, again showed more variability than earlier reconstructions. It found a homogenous Little Ice Age from 1580–1720 showing colder conditions in all areas, and a well defined but possibly less homogenous Medieval Warm Period peak around 950–1050, reaching or slightly exceeding mid 20th century temperatures as indicated by previous studies including Mann et al. 2008 and 2009.[144] Ljungqvist et al. 2012 used a larger network of proxies than previous studies, including use low-resolution proxy data with as few as two data points per century, to produce a reconstruction showing centennial patterns of temperature variability in space and time for northern hemisphere land areas over the last 1,200 years. At this broad scale, they found widespread warmth from the 9th to 11th centuries approximating to the 20th century mean, with dominant cooling from the 16th to 18th centuries. The greatest warming occurred from the 19th to the 20th centuries, and they noted that instrumental records of recent decades were much warmer than the 20th century mean. Their spatial reconstruction showed similarities to the Mann et al. 2009 climate field reconstruction, though the different resolution meant these were not directly comparable. The results were robust, even when significant numbers of proxies were removed.[145] Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies, which were completely independent of those used in earlier studies, to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, covering the entire Holocene, and showing over the last 1,000 years confirmation of the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[146] Temperatures had slowly risen from the last ice age to reach a level which lasted from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago, then in line with Milankovitch cycles had begun a slow decline, interrupted by a small rise during the Medieval Warm Period, to the Little Ice Age. That decline had then been interrupted by a uniquely rapid rise in the 20th century to temperatures which were already the warmest for at least 4,000 years, within the range of uncertainties of the highest temperatures in the whole period, and on current estimates were likely to exceed those temperatures by 2100.[147] But yeah, live in ignorance, jog..... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 09:31:22 1B380526243F3831560 wrote:
Just amazing how you bold faced LIE about things. Perhaps your Lies will work with kids who are not taught, and are used to eating Tide Pods, and are confused as to which bathroom to use. But here, when you say: 'The last ice age was nearly 3 million years ago', EVERYONE knows, it is a total Lie. [/quote] What? OK genius, when was the last Ice Age? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/10/19 at 10:21:14 697778797469726F1D0 wrote:
Just a bit of advice, you have often given to others: 'Look it up yourself, or are you to Lazy?' |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 09/10/19 at 10:27:33 332D22232E332835470 wrote:
Trump says it was Thursday,... if you don't agree, you're fired... Voooom!.... Drive-by detected... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 10:33:47 51724F6C6E75727B1C0 wrote:
Just a bit of advice, you have often given to others: 'Look it up yourself, or are you to Lazy?' [/quote] OK genius, here you go: Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago. Even though the peak was reached 18K years ago - it started 2.6 million years ago. A glaciation period is NOT in and of itself an Ice Age. Now, how about an apology for calling me a liar?..... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by Serowbot on 09/10/19 at 10:42:35 Trump says he created the Earth 73 years ago,... if you don't believe him, you're fired... Voooom!,... Drive-by detected... ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/10/19 at 11:01:05 6A747B7A776A716C1E0 wrote:
Nope ! "...lasted until about 11,700 years ago..." and we are STILL coming out of it ! (IE, getting warmer) "...Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or, alternatively, "glacials", "glaciations", "glacial stages", "stadials", "stades", or colloquially, "ice ages"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials" or "interstadials" with both climatic pulses part of the Quaternary or other periods in Earth's history. In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period ..." I see you followed you OWN advice ! and when you find more, please get someone to read them to you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 12:51:50 Sooo, your Science supports the hockey stick, and REALITY says BULLSHIT. Yet, after all these years of the screeching about the Sky is falling And Exactly NONE Of the dire predictions actually coming to pass You Still Believe. Terrifying, |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 13:03:24 6645785B5942454C2B0 wrote:
Nope ! "...lasted until about 11,700 years ago..." and we are STILL coming out of it ! (IE, getting warmer) "...Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or, alternatively, "glacials", "glaciations", "glacial stages", "stadials", "stades", or colloquially, "ice ages"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials" or "interstadials" with both climatic pulses part of the Quaternary or other periods in Earth's history. In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period ..." I see you followed you OWN advice ! and when you find more, please get someone to read them to you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] You may want to check your house for a gas leak - you're sounding more deranged than usual... I never expected an apology, but it's fun to see you squirm. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 13:06:16 4E5157504D4A7B4B7B43515D16240 wrote:
What's terrifying is that there are so many people out there with your mindset. Thank goodness it's a very small minority. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 18:28:22 You're saying that hockey stick that was supposed to graph the temperatures that would become common Actually happened? Show me, Ohhh, please, |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/10/19 at 20:39:57 2D3234332E2918281820323E75470 wrote:
I have shown you. You're willfully ignorant. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/10/19 at 20:59:32 https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/ |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 00:00:20 But NOW it's TRUE! https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/armstrong-climate-change-has-been-routine-scare-tactic-1930s |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by WebsterMark on 09/11/19 at 04:59:53 The infamous hockey stick graph was apparently completely fabricated. How much money and effort was spent based on that lie? How many people still believe it completely? Some people looked at the graph and said “that just can’t be right” and they were laughed at. That’s our point. Those of us who disagree the climate change is the most pressing issue on the planet today. That’s utter nonsense. Jog challenged TT to show him where the temperatures today are where the IPCC predicted they would be. TT’s response was he did show him. The reality is of course he did not show him because he cannot show him because the temperatures are nowhere near the predictions. The man who made the hockey stick, Michael Mann, is now a wealthy prestigious professor at Penn State University. His entire career has been based upon a fabricated graph that was the basis for many other people’s fabulous career. And it’s not just the money, it’s the accolades and support from their peers. It’s not that they’re bad people or outright thieves, it’s just that they’ve discovered this global warming thing fulfills certain needs and now they’re so far deep into it, the idea about acknowledging the falsehood of many core beliefs would be impossible. They’re too far in. Many like to point out the “big oil“ funds deniers but that’s just simply not true. The reality is climate change is a big business and many people are leading very successful lives because of it. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 05:52:45 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote:
Like I said, thank goodness you and jog are part of a small minority. Here you go.... The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-318px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg RATE. OF. CHANGE. smh |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 07:23:36 Funny, where I live, it doesn't feel like that scary graph. The snow Gore said was gone Isn't The arctic Still arctic The polar bears that we were told would be extinct Higher numbers today.. Mann LOST in court Because he would not provide the DATA that he based his claims on. Let That soak in. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 08:24:07 312E282F32350434043C2E22695B0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 10:37:50 657A7C7B6661506050687A763D0F0 wrote:
Go look at the history of lies. But NOW it's TWUE! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 10:51:31 5E4147405D5A6B5B6B53414D06340 wrote:
Go look at the history of lies. But NOW it's TWUE! [/quote] Like I said, thankfully you're in a tiny minority. Everyone else with a shred of common sense knows the truth and respects the science. We really don't care that you don't believe - we're just trying to educate you. But when it comes down to it - you lead an ignoramus to the school, but you can't make him think. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 11:12:59 With the exception of how many are deluded, I agree, the masses are conned. You didn't even look at the history of lies, did you? You will not explain why you continue to believe when every prediction of the Dire Consequences have been Wrong. But you effectively said what I would say to you. Show me SOMETHING, Anything, that the alarmists have been telling us would happen if we didn't drastically change how we live That has happened!! Quit with the talking points and SHOW ME something that has happened. We've gone through every In ten years In twelve years In twenty years Threats like Polar bears extinct They are doing GREAT! No more snow.. Wrong The arctic will be almost ice free Uhh, how many lefty expeditions to prove what a disaster it was have had to be rescued because they got trapped in that nonexistent ICE? Hurricanes will be more common and worse. Didn't happen. And you want ME to call your cult of fear mongers CREDIBLE? Based on WHAT? Show me where you're CORRECT. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 11:39:38 352A2C2B3631003000382A266D5F0 wrote:
Dude, whatever. You're the same guy that believed that someone ordered first responders at Ground Zero to not wear respirators and you believed that Sandy Hook was a false flag. You buy into conspiracies more often and quicker than trump puts out tweets. You have zero credibility. None. Zip. The empty set. Zilch. Meanwhile, temperature readings have GONE UP AT A RATE THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED and you choose to ignore that fact. You're in essence, a flat-earther. There's no talking to you. The "masses" aren't brain washed - they're educated. You and your band of disbelievers are in la-la land, drinking - hell, guzzling the q-anon kool aid. Give it up - you're wrong. You. Are. Wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right?yoi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 12:46:36 You continue to hide behind BULLSHIT. You WILL NOT explain Why you continue to believe, after I have shown reason for not. You continue to Proclaim I'm wrong, without EVIDENCE, while I've provided a series of dire consequences that we have been told over and over would be our future, AND NOT ONE HAS COME TO PASS And YOU call ME ignorant. You're a living example of the whole It's easier to pull the wool over someone's eyes than it is to pull it off cliche And In the FWIW column In the seventies I actually believed the same Bullshit you continue to believe When the proponents of the lie have destroyed ALL credibility. You believe Bullshit. And ignore a call to rationally consider it. You're not able to answer Any of my points. You just continue to spew your talking points. Good Frikken GOD America is in trouble with such easily duped adults voting. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right?yoi Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 13:55:35 233C3A3D20271626162E3C307B490 wrote:
I presented evidence - here it is again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph Further reconstructions were published, using additional proxies and different methodology. Juckes et al. 2007 and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 compared and evaluated the various statistical approaches.[135] In July 2008 Huang, Pollack and Shen published a suite of borehole reconstructions covering 20,000 years. They showed warm episodes in the mid-Holocene and the Medieval period, a little ice age and 20th century warming reaching temperatures higher than Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures in any of the reconstructions: they described this finding as consistent with the IPCC AR4 conclusions.[136] In a paper published by PNAS on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues produced updated reconstructions of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[35] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study, at more than 1,200 proxy records. They used two complementary methods, both of which showed a similar "hockey stick" graph with recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years. Mann said, "Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data; but now you can go back 1,300 years without using tree-ring data at all and still get a verifiable conclusion."[137] In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick said that they perceived a number of problems, including that Mann et al used some data with the axes upside down.[138] Mann et al. replied that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that 'upside down' data were used is bizarre", as the methods "are insensitive to the sign of predictors." They also said that excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result.[139] A study of the changing climate of the Arctic over the last 2,000 years, by an international consortium led by Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, was published on 4 September 2009. They examined sediment core records from 14 Arctic lakes, supported by tree ring and ice core records. Their findings showed a long term cooling trend consistent with cycles in the Earth's orbit which would be expected to continue for a further 4,000 years but had been reversed in the 20th century by a sudden rise attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The decline had continued through the Medieval period and the Little Ice Age. The most recent decade, 1999–2008, was the warmest of the period, and four of the five warmest decades occurred between 1950 and 2000. Scientific American described the graph as largely replicating "the so-called 'hockey stick,' a previous reconstruction".[140] Further support for the "hockey stick" graph came from a new method of analysis using Bayesian statistics developed by Martin Tingley and Peter Huybers of Harvard University, which produced the same basic shape, albeit with more variability in the past, and found the 1990s to have been the warmest decade in the 600-year period the study covered.[141] 2010 onwards Further information: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report A 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction by Ljungqvist published by Geografiska Annaler in September 2010 drew on additional proxy evidence to show both a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period with decadal mean temperatures reaching or exceeding the reference 1961–1990 mean temperature level. Instrumental records of the period 1990–2010 were possibly above any temperature in the reconstruction period, though this did not appear in the proxy records. They concluded that their "reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology."[142] A 2010 opinion piece by David Frank, Jan Esper, Eduardo Zorita and Rob Wilson (Frank et al. 2010) noted that by then over two dozen large-scale climate reconstructions had been published, showing a broad consensus that there had been exceptional 20th century warming after earlier climatic phases, notably the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. There were still issues of large-scale natural variability to be resolved, especially for the lowest frequency variations, and they called for further research to improve expert assessment of proxies and to develop reconstruction methods explicitly allowing for structural uncertainties in the process.[13] As several studies had noted, regression-based reconstruction methods tended to underestimate low-frequency variability. Bo Christiansen designed a new method (LOC) to overcome this problem, and with Ljungqvist used LOC to produce a 1,000 year reconstruction published in 2011. This showed more low frequency variability and a colder Little Ice Age than previous studies.[143] They then extended the LOC reconstruction back using selected proxies which had a documented relation to temperature and passed a screening procedure. This 2,000 year reconstruction, published in 2012, again showed more variability than earlier reconstructions. It found a homogenous Little Ice Age from 1580–1720 showing colder conditions in all areas, and a well defined but possibly less homogenous Medieval Warm Period peak around 950–1050, reaching or slightly exceeding mid 20th century temperatures as indicated by previous studies including Mann et al. 2008 and 2009.[144] Ljungqvist et al. 2012 used a larger network of proxies than previous studies, including use low-resolution proxy data with as few as two data points per century, to produce a reconstruction showing centennial patterns of temperature variability in space and time for northern hemisphere land areas over the last 1,200 years. At this broad scale, they found widespread warmth from the 9th to 11th centuries approximating to the 20th century mean, with dominant cooling from the 16th to 18th centuries. The greatest warming occurred from the 19th to the 20th centuries, and they noted that instrumental records of recent decades were much warmer than the 20th century mean. Their spatial reconstruction showed similarities to the Mann et al. 2009 climate field reconstruction, though the different resolution meant these were not directly comparable. The results were robust, even when significant numbers of proxies were removed.[145] Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies, which were completely independent of those used in earlier studies, to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, covering the entire Holocene, and showing over the last 1,000 years confirmation of the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[146] Temperatures had slowly risen from the last ice age to reach a level which lasted from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago, then in line with Milankovitch cycles had begun a slow decline, interrupted by a small rise during the Medieval Warm Period, to the Little Ice Age. That decline had then been interrupted by a uniquely rapid rise in the 20th century to temperatures which were already the warmest for at least 4,000 years, within the range of uncertainties of the highest temperatures in the whole period, and on current estimates were likely to exceed those temperatures by 2100.[147] But yeah, live in ignorance, jog..... BTW - these measurements are CURRENT, NOT ESTIMATES. THE RATE OF CHANGE IS THE ALARM BELL!!! |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 14:22:45 3B252A2B263B203D4F0 wrote:
"We" "Educate You" LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Hear that JOG. The, 'Educated', people are all smarter than you, AND, everybody else that is not, 'Lock Step', with the,'WE', thinking !!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right?yoi Post by MnSpring on 09/11/19 at 14:28:31 465857565B465D40320 wrote:
Wonder what the, 'Rate of Change', was when the Dinosaurs all died ? And if it was a/many Meteors. Or a/many volcanoes. Or a combo. ? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right?yoi Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 14:33:04 52714C6F6D7671781F0 wrote:
Wonder what the, 'Rate of Change', was when the Dinosaurs all died ? And if it was a/many Meteors. Or a/many volcanoes. Or a combo. ? [/quote] LOL - and I thought jog was out if his element on this... But you, mn - you take the cake. Better get back to cleaning all your guns - this one's way over your head. |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right?yoi Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 15:09:42 677976777A677C61130 wrote:
I presented evidence - here it is again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph Further reconstructions were published, using additional proxies and different methodology. Juckes et al. 2007 and Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 compared and evaluated the various statistical approaches.[135] In July 2008 Huang, Pollack and Shen published a suite of borehole reconstructions covering 20,000 years. They showed warm episodes in the mid-Holocene and the Medieval period, a little ice age and 20th century warming reaching temperatures higher than Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures in any of the reconstructions: they described this finding as consistent with the IPCC AR4 conclusions.[136] In a paper published by PNAS on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues produced updated reconstructions of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[35] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study, at more than 1,200 proxy records. They used two complementary methods, both of which showed a similar "hockey stick" graph with recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years. Mann said, "Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data; but now you can go back 1,300 years without using tree-ring data at all and still get a verifiable conclusion."[137] In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick said that they perceived a number of problems, including that Mann et al used some data with the axes upside down.[138] Mann et al. replied that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that 'upside down' data were used is bizarre", as the methods "are insensitive to the sign of predictors." They also said that excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result.[139] A study of the changing climate of the Arctic over the last 2,000 years, by an international consortium led by Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, was published on 4 September 2009. They examined sediment core records from 14 Arctic lakes, supported by tree ring and ice core records. Their findings showed a long term cooling trend consistent with cycles in the Earth's orbit which would be expected to continue for a further 4,000 years but had been reversed in the 20th century by a sudden rise attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The decline had continued through the Medieval period and the Little Ice Age. The most recent decade, 1999–2008, was the warmest of the period, and four of the five warmest decades occurred between 1950 and 2000. Scientific American described the graph as largely replicating "the so-called 'hockey stick,' a previous reconstruction".[140] Further support for the "hockey stick" graph came from a new method of analysis using Bayesian statistics developed by Martin Tingley and Peter Huybers of Harvard University, which produced the same basic shape, albeit with more variability in the past, and found the 1990s to have been the warmest decade in the 600-year period the study covered.[141] 2010 onwards Further information: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report A 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction by Ljungqvist published by Geografiska Annaler in September 2010 drew on additional proxy evidence to show both a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period with decadal mean temperatures reaching or exceeding the reference 1961–1990 mean temperature level. Instrumental records of the period 1990–2010 were possibly above any temperature in the reconstruction period, though this did not appear in the proxy records. They concluded that their "reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. ad 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology."[142] A 2010 opinion piece by David Frank, Jan Esper, Eduardo Zorita and Rob Wilson (Frank et al. 2010) noted that by then over two dozen large-scale climate reconstructions had been published, showing a broad consensus that there had been exceptional 20th century warming after earlier climatic phases, notably the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. There were still issues of large-scale natural variability to be resolved, especially for the lowest frequency variations, and they called for further research to improve expert assessment of proxies and to develop reconstruction methods explicitly allowing for structural uncertainties in the process.[13] As several studies had noted, regression-based reconstruction methods tended to underestimate low-frequency variability. Bo Christiansen designed a new method (LOC) to overcome this problem, and with Ljungqvist used LOC to produce a 1,000 year reconstruction published in 2011. This showed more low frequency variability and a colder Little Ice Age than previous studies.[143] They then extended the LOC reconstruction back using selected proxies which had a documented relation to temperature and passed a screening procedure. This 2,000 year reconstruction, published in 2012, again showed more variability than earlier reconstructions. It found a homogenous Little Ice Age from 1580–1720 showing colder conditions in all areas, and a well defined but possibly less homogenous Medieval Warm Period peak around 950–1050, reaching or slightly exceeding mid 20th century temperatures as indicated by previous studies including Mann et al. 2008 and 2009.[144] Ljungqvist et al. 2012 used a larger network of proxies than previous studies, including use low-resolution proxy data with as few as two data points per century, to produce a reconstruction showing centennial patterns of temperature variability in space and time for northern hemisphere land areas over the last 1,200 years. At this broad scale, they found widespread warmth from the 9th to 11th centuries approximating to the 20th century mean, with dominant cooling from the 16th to 18th centuries. The greatest warming occurred from the 19th to the 20th centuries, and they noted that instrumental records of recent decades were much warmer than the 20th century mean. Their spatial reconstruction showed similarities to the Mann et al. 2009 climate field reconstruction, though the different resolution meant these were not directly comparable. The results were robust, even when significant numbers of proxies were removed.[145] Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies, which were completely independent of those used in earlier studies, to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, covering the entire Holocene, and showing over the last 1,000 years confirmation of the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.[146] Temperatures had slowly risen from the last ice age to reach a level which lasted from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago, then in line with Milankovitch cycles had begun a slow decline, interrupted by a small rise during the Medieval Warm Period, to the Little Ice Age. That decline had then been interrupted by a uniquely rapid rise in the 20th century to temperatures which were already the warmest for at least 4,000 years, within the range of uncertainties of the highest temperatures in the whole period, and on current estimates were likely to exceed those temperatures by 2100.[147] But yeah, live in ignorance, jog..... BTW - these measurements are CURRENT, NOT ESTIMATES. THE RATE OF CHANGE IS THE ALARM BELL!!! [/quote] NO, no, no.. Not more intellectual BULLSHIT. REAL FUKKING SCHIT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD WAS COMING. Come on, teach me. Show me ANYTHING that we've been Told was gonna happen THAT'S FUKKING HAPPENED.. And since you CAN'T, Why do you keep believing Proven LIARS? If they aren't actually Liars They are still perpetually Wrong! So, why, FFS, dude, WHY keep believing after Thirty YEARS of ZERO predictions actually coming to pass? |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right?yoi Post by T And T Garage on 09/11/19 at 15:17:23 081711160B0C3D0D3D05171B50620 wrote:
Look at you - you're losing your sh!t!! Too funny. But you know what? You ain't worth it jog. Now, go back to alex jones and your Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and your total ignorance of science. You'd rather believe trash videos and websites than science. Say hi to q-anon for me, huh? ;D I won't respond to you on this topic anymore. Go shout at someone else. But please, have the last word..... |
|
Title: Re: Yeah, It's A Hoax, Right? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 15:20:46 I get frustrated when I have to ask for a reasonable response fifty fukking times. Piss off |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |