Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[kickarse]

Its all a CON, follow the $ as usual, we are heading for a ice age eventually,
FFS enjoy the nice weather while ya can, we probably only got a few thousand years left

its the greatest CON since GOD was a figment in some middle easterner's imagination

 

[doams]

I prefer cold to warm so little ice age is fine with me.

is it getting colder in north pole or what?

 

[TychoMonolyth]

Keep going on about how climate change is a natural thing that's been happening for 45 million years or whatever. Because as usual, there's a grain of misguided and misleading truth in your denial.

[iframe1]PhbdyNnUliM[/iframe1]

 

[kickarse]

lol and here i am, sitting here freezing me tits off

 

[insomniac_AU]

Haha me too. Pissing down with rain and freezing cold here.

 

[White Beard]

Not really a debate any longer

Not really a debate any longer

Once Greenland's ice sheet gains enough lubrication, it will slide into the north atlantic and disrupt the gulf stream. Odds are, this disruption will have major implications on sea life, but on the other hand, the artic ice sheet will come back.

Sorry, I can’t see what you mean by ‘if Greenland loses its ice sheets, then the arctic sea ice will come back’ (my paraphrase)
Im pretty sure ive read that when Panama was open water, there was no arctic ice sheet, and when it closed, it caused major oceanic disruptions.

Global warming and climate change are undeniable; its man's impact that seems to be debated.[/quote]
It’s not really a debate anymore: it’s a few scientists and institutes with heavy funding from the fossil-fuel and fossil-fuel-dependent industries, saying the other 99.9% of scientific opinion based on real data is politically-motivated hogwash, which is parroted enthusiastically by the opinion moulders on the “conservative” side and their fellow employees in Congress

[/quote]I for one think mans ability to stop climate change is laughable. Its awfully ostentatious to think we can make an impact. If a volcano or two goes 'Krakatoa' or worse, what will we do about all those greenhouse gases being given off?[/QUOTE]
Nobody believes we can stop it, but we’ve got to stop pushing it, feeding with our own heat and heat-increases.

Like I said, it’s not a debate - scientists in 1912 were warning of the enormous volume of carbon we were pumping into the atmosphere THEN. 112 years ago.

 

[Gry]

Sorry, I can’t see what you mean by ‘if Greenland loses its ice sheets, then the arctic sea ice will come back’ (my paraphrase)
Im pretty sure ive read that when Panama was open water, there was no arctic ice sheet, and when it closed, it caused major oceanic disruptions.

Global warming and climate change are undeniable; its man's impact that seems to be debated.

It’s not really a debate anymore: it’s a few scientists and institutes with heavy funding from the fossil-fuel and fossil-fuel-dependent industries, saying the other 99.9% of scientific opinion based on real data is politically-motivated hogwash, which is parroted enthusiastically by the opinion moulders on the “conservative” side and their fellow employees in Congress

[/quote]I for one think mans ability to stop climate change is laughable. Its awfully ostentatious to think we can make an impact. If a volcano or two goes 'Krakatoa' or worse, what will we do about all those greenhouse gases being given off?[/quote]
Nobody believes we can stop it, but we’ve got to stop pushing it, feeding with our own heat and heat-increases.

Like I said, it’s not a debate - scientists in 1912 were warning of the enormous volume of carbon we were pumping into the atmosphere THEN. 112 years ago.[/quote]


I first recall having heard it mentioned first in some glossy pentagon publication back in the early 80s.
They spoke in the normal nuts and bolts language such publications use.
How much higher should the new docks be type approach.

 

[Bourbon Kush]

Farmers Almanac says 2018-2019 winter will be freakin' cold...but I don't know much about how anyone can predict weather or climate or even how good the next bud crop will be...

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjlPvwRP-fM


[YOUTUBEIF]pjlPvwRP-fM[/YOUTUBEIF]


FAKERY by the Catastophists.
watch and learn.

 

[Ununionized]

When you SHOW the PEOPLE here the WORLD ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, VOLUME and PRESSURE STANDARD

has changed 1/100TH of WHAT it WAS

when the FRENCH FIRST ACCURATELY CALCULATED and PUBLISHED it's TRUE VALUES in 1864,

and which values the ENTIRE PLANET agreed are REAL and UNCHANGING

when the ENTIRE PLANET adopted the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ATMOSPHERE,

- which the Americans UPDATED in 1976 adding data for values up a couple hundred thousand more feet -

those UTTERLY UNCHANGED VALUES used in EVERY commercial flight's instruments,

in EVERY single INSTRUMENT or APPLIANCE of TOOL or SYSTEM which relies on accurate atmospheric values being calculated,

- when you SHOW those values being ALTERED so our THERMAL SENSORS and FLIGHT SENSORS WORK again -

then you'll NO LONGER be the SCIENCE DARKENING fraud barking fake

you proved you are

when you told us you can think of some cold nitrogen baths, that are HEATERS.

Till then that's what you remain and always will.

Keep going on about how climate change is a natural thing that's been happening for 45 million years or whatever. Because as usual, there's a grain of misguided and misleading truth in your denial.

[iframe1]PhbdyNnUliM[/iframe1]

 

[Ununionized]

It's not a debate any more, you've been telling people a cold gas bath's a heater and got caught.

SHOW these PEOPLE a COLD NITROGEN-OXYGEN BATH, stopping 29% of the energy warming a rock from ever reaching and WARMING it,

being a heater or you're as FAKE as your fraud.

When you don't do it you'll know how somebody telling me pot's like heroin feels when he deals with the reality of proving his fake bullshoot.

It’s not really a debate anymore

 

[Ununionized]

The only denial that's happening here is you denying you've been caught making claims you can't back up.

And which are so insane it has you claiming removal of 29% of energy warming a rock, made it hotter - not cooler

by 29%. As you watch leadership of your church SHOW you them COOLING global temperature by 29%

You don't even have the gumption to recognize what people think of some man who shows up claiming

removal of 29% of input energy
makes rocks hotter
than if the energy were never removed.

And that's your claim.

When you show us all what you're saying's not insane,

you won't be the insane, innumerate, illiterate man screaming it's a denial of science

to point out to you removal of energy from a rock so it's temperature falls 29% isn't creation of a magical heater.

Keep going on about how climate change is a natural thing that's been happening for 45 million years or whatever. Because as usual, there's a grain of misguided and misleading truth in your denial.

 

[kickarse]

First day of spring, i wish global warming would hurry up, its bloody cold here lol lol

 

[armedoldhippy]

First day of spring, i wish global warming would hurry up, its bloody cold here lol lol

i'll swap with you. send me your cold weather & you can fucking HAVE August in Tennessee for as long as you want it... i HATE hot weather! i get mad early on in May & bitch all the way until the first frost hits the ground here...

 

[trichrider]

Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Preliminary Evidence from Climate Science, Climate Policy, Astrophysics, and Public Opinion

James R. Beebe, Maria Baghramian, Luke Drury & Finnur Dellsén


Received 06 Feb 2018, Accepted 16 Jul 2018, Published online: 15 Aug 2018

• Download citation
• https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1504099
• 

ABSTRACT

We report the results of an exploratory study that examines the judgments of climate scientists, climate policy experts, astrophysicists, and non-experts (N = 3367) about the factors that contribute to the creation and persistence of disagreement within climate science and astrophysics and about how one should respond to expert disagreement. We found that, as compared to non-experts, climate experts believe that within climate science (i) there is less disagreement about climate change, (ii) methodological factors play less of a role in generating disagreements, (iii) fewer personal or institutional biases influence climate research, and (iv) there is more agreement about which methods should be used to examine relevant phenomena we also observed that the uniquely American political context predicted experts’ judgments about some of these factors. We also found that, in regard to disagreements concerning cosmic ray physics, and commensurate with the greater inherent uncertainty and data lacunae in their field, astrophysicists working on cosmic rays were generally more willing to acknowledge expert disagreement, more open to the idea that a set of data can have multiple valid interpretations, and generally less quick to dismiss someone articulating a non-standard view as non-expert, than climate scientists were in regard to climate science.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2018.1504099?journalCode=renc20

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-HyviLy6c


[youtubeif]eL-HyviLy6c[/youtubeif]

 

[trichrider]

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969


UNCERTAINTY IN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR
TEMPERATURE INDEX: A REPRESENTATIVE LOWER
LIMIT


Patrick Frank
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2436, USA
Email: pfrank830@earthlink.net



ABSTRACT


Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein.


Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit
uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo7U_yfCyeU


[youtubeif]Wo7U_yfCyeU[/youtubeif]

 

[White Beard]

Interesting read, but...

Interesting read, but...

Wednesday, 30 May 2018
The Politically Motivated Science of Climatology and the Demonization of Carbon
Written by James Murphy
[URL=https://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/e6be4cf9eebf3b71f80f6769e206a690_M.jpg]View Image [/URL]
Climatology is an area of study that comes from many disciplines of science. Meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, geophysicists, mathematicians, and oceanographers all lay claim to the title of climatologist. The amount of data that each discipline adds to the study of climatology is astounding — so astounding that no one really understands it all yet, least of all climate alarmists such as carbon credit salesman Al Gore.


Up until the 1970s, climatology was a little-studied and poorly understood concept. We knew that climate existed, of course. We knew that the angle of the sun affected weather, and we knew what to expect in terms of seasonal variations. But no one would presume to know with any certainty if and how climate was changing. The first conclusions drawn on the subject, back in the 1970s, were that the globe was on the verge of a new glacial period in our present ice age (a glacial period is a period of advancing ice — we are still in an ice age as ice sheets still exist in Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctic). The consensus of a cooling world at that time was 83 percent, by the way.


But the 1980s were a much warmer decade, and eventually, scientific consensus shifted to the global-warming model. In 1989, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study the dangers of a warming globe. Not surprisingly, the IPCC and many leading scientists blamed mankind and our profligate use of fossil fuels for rising CO2 levels.

That’s when politics became involved. And lest you think that it all came from the left of the political spectrum, remember that conservative hero Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain was one of the first to call for an all-out war on global warming. But regardless of which side of the spectrum the calls for action emanated from, the die was cast. Politics became involved, and the science became suspect.


The plant food known as carbon dioxide was demonized. In 2013, the figure of 400 parts per million (PPM) was said to be a “tipping point.” It was said to be an unprecedented number — the “highest ever recorded,” and certain to cause catastrophic global warming if not curtailed immediately.


But the first accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 began in the 1950s. Those 60 some-odd-years are hardly a long enough sample size. Back then, CO2 levels were measured at 314ppm, which makes 400ppm seem like a gigantic increase. But even at that 400ppm number, Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.


Another thing that climate scientists won’t tell you is that complex plant life depends on having at least 150ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists estimate that carbon dioxide during the last ice age was dangerously low, only about 200ppm. It’s entirely possible to have too little CO2 in the atmosphere.


But except during times of advancing ice ages, that has not been the case. Ice core data from Antarctica shows that atmospheric CO2 has waxed and waned throughout the eons. In fact, during the Cambrian geologic time period, CO2 levels averaged nearly 6,000 ppm. Evolutionists will tell you that this was the time of the Cambrian Explosion, the time when most complex animal and plant life appeared on the Earth. Does that mean CO2 is the driver of evolution and not natural selection?


Of course not. Such a conclusion would becompletely capricious and based on incomplete data — just like the conclusions and doomsday predictions of climate alarmists today.


Princeton physicist William Happer, an honest scientist, much hated by the climate-alarmist community, has recently pushed back against the demonization of CO2. “You might call me a scientist who is persuaded that doubling or tripling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will be a major benefit to life on Earth,” Happer said.



Despite what Al Gore tells you, carbon dioxide is simply not a pollutant. It is one atom of carbon covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. We release it into the atmosphere each time we exhale. Plants need it to survive. It is a trace gas, only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. It’s not a demon; it’s a necessity of life.


The reliability of any type of scientific study goes down in direct proportion to the amount of politics involved in that study. When the funding of science is tied to a certain outcome, said science is suspect. And that is the case with a large percentage — shall we say 97 percent? — of climatology today.


https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...of-climatology-and-the-demonization-of-carbon

Unfortunately, your article there rests its case on ~150 years of climate data being insufficient...but this means he has to pretend there’s no such thing as paleoclimatology. Scientists have assembled a pretty detailed picture of shifts in climate over millennia by using ice cores.

They extract data about climates of previous epochs shy gasses, spores and pollen trapped in the ice sheet as it packed down and grew deeper. They can extract a lot of information from core samples.

So, your guy’s an ignoramus on this, sorry.

 

[Ununionized]

All your hand waving can't hide the fact that everything in the article is true. Your INSISTENCE the PALEO RECORD is COMPLETE

is THE POINT MADE BY THE POST YOU QUOTE: WE HAVE a COMPLETE PALEO RECORD.

CO2 is NOT associated with the PLANETARY TEMPERATURE,

and there's NO SUCH THING as TOO MUCH of it.

You can PRAISE the EVIDENCE PROVING it

claiming it DISPROVES it

ALL DAY. It DOESN'T CHANGE the PALEO RECORD: CO2 and TEMPERATURE are NOT related,

*AND THERE'S NO SUCH THING as TOO MUCH.*

The times in PALEO HISTORY ***that are WARMEST,***

are

* * *the ONLY PERIODS named OPTIMUMS* * *

So SORRY as you ARE that's TRUE, waving your hands about it BEING true

doesn't make it NOT true.

Unfortunately, your article there rests its case on ~150 years of climate data being insufficient...but this means he has to pretend there’s no such thing as paleoclimatology. Scientists have assembled a pretty detailed picture of shifts in climate over millennia by using ice cores.

They extract data about climates of previous epochs shy gasses, spores and pollen trapped in the ice sheet as it packed down and grew deeper. They can extract a lot of information from core samples.

So, your guy’s an ignoramus on this, sorry.