It is interesting you speak of credibility while completely ignoring what the science says.
But yes, there is nothing out of the ordinary about increasing temperatures in the past 30 to 50 years.
Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
But yes, there is nothing out of the ordinary about increasing temperatures in the past 30 to 50 years.
Now you're talkingBut yes, there is nothing out of the ordinary about increasing temperatures in the past 30 to 50 years
In the past 150 years since records have been kept the 'global' temperature has gone up 0.8C. Most of that increase is attributed to the ocean temperature not land. Furthermore, a significant portion of that 'global' temperature increase is a result of modifications to past temperature records, 95% of which had a decreasing effect. Now you tell me - does that sound plausible? The law of statistics would argue that error adjustments should be both upwards and downwards falling somewhere in the 50/50 - 60/40 range. Now GISS has done the same thing with their satellite temperature record. My Lord how can people be so gullible to believe these scoundrels who are manipulating raw data to serve a purpose.Nice attempted dodge. Your comment would apply if not for the past 30+ year trend.
p.s. It was you guys trying to pretend this summer proved there was no global warming. Now you change tact when te facts refute yet another of your claims.
Plus,... and all of a sudden,... the sun really has not ever had any changing effect on the planet's temperature,... that was all just a figment of everybody's imagination.In the past 150 years since records have been kept the 'global' temperature has gone up 0.8C. Most of that increase is attributed to the ocean temperature not land. Furthermore, a significant portion of that 'global' temperature increase is a result of modifications to past temperature records, 95% of which had a decreasing effect. Now you tell me - does that sound plausible? The law of statistics would argue that error adjustments should be both upwards and downwards falling somewhere in the 50/50 - 60/40 range. Now GISS has done the same thing with their satellite temperature record. My Lord how can people be so gullible to believe these scoundrels who are manipulating raw data to serve a purpose.
What's the old saying,...All is fair in climate change and war,...???
If you bothered to do a little more research you'll know that there is a drastic global warming slowdown:Really? Wow. Are you becoming like FAST and denying science?
For a start
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/
The black line shows temperatures as predicted by climate models, and the red line shows actual temperatures: https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg
And this even though global population increase from 6 billion to 7 billion from 1990 to 2017. So please explain to us basketcase, how can there be global warming slowdown when earth's population increased by 1 billion??
You do realize that changing climate will not be a good thing for society right?Now you're talking
Canada man provided proof that the sun has impact - and that impact is cyclical, not increasing like the measured data.Plus,... and all of a sudden,... the sun really has not ever had any changing effect on the planet's temperature,... that was all just a figment of everybody's imagination.
What's the old saying,...All is fair in climate change and war,...???
Two things worth pointing out. First off, you understand that "slowdown" means that temperature was still increasing, just not as rapidly. More significantly though, this decade has made up for it as can be seen by the NASA graph. It seems that much of the heat absorbed by the deep oceans last decade has been released again.If you bothered to do a little more research you'll know that there is a drastic global warming slowdown:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/
The black line shows temperatures as predicted by climate models, and the red line shows actual temperatures: https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg
...
And if you took the time to read the entire article you posted you would see the scientific discussion as to why there was a brief pause.
Wow. What a scientifically illiterate question. Do you really think population itself is driving climate?So please explain to us basketcase, how can there be global warming slowdown when earth's population increased by 1 billion??
The point is,... the "experts" are continually revising every natural phenomena that has an effect on the planets temperature,... in a a way that always to support the "experts" current theories.Canada man provided proof that the sun has impact - and that impact is cyclical, not increasing like the measured data.
Wow. You mean scientists are constantly trying to become more accurate? How dare they. Maybe we should have just stopped science in the middle ages just so people didn't become confused (or live long enough to debate things like this).The point is,... the "experts" are continually revising every natural phenomena that has an effect on the planets temperature,... in a a way that always to support the "experts" current theories.
And seriously, the impact of the sun hasn't been "revised". It is a cyclical pattern and doesn't have an increasing trend.
Its not science when the sky is falling crowd is constantly "becoming more accurate",... in a direction that always makes their current theories look correct,...that's NOT science.Wow. You mean scientists are constantly trying to become more accurate? How dare they. Maybe we should have just stopped science in the middle ages just so people didn't become confused (or live long enough to debate things like this)..
That is not what they have "made more accurate",... they revised how the sun was effecting the planets temperature,... and obviously,... not to increase the temperature,...who would have guessed.And seriously, the impact of the sun hasn't been "revised". It is a cyclical pattern and doesn't have an increasing trend.
Yes, multiple of his replies on this thread are just a cut and paste of the same text. Then his last reply was just cutting and pasting my reply. He is a spammer and his posts are mindless. Like you he rarely ever adds value to the forum.So FAST is a spammer now......LOL I couldnt make this stuff up if I tried
You've been shown the data. That debate ended. Like FAST you have continued posting after losing the debate, and like FAST those post loss posts are increasingly a waste of everyone's time.Okay, so show us where the past 30+ year trend has shown considerable global warming
Until you can back up anything you say with some kind of credible reference you are wasting everyone's time.The point is,... the "experts" are continually revising every natural phenomena that has an effect on the planets temperature,... in a a way that always to support the "experts" current theories.
Go to your discredited nature magazine,... it has all the evidence that the sky is falling crowd has been revising the data to suit their current theories.Until you can back up anything you say with some kind of credible reference you are wasting everyone's time.
NonsenseGo to your discredited nature magazine,... it has all the evidence that the sky is falling crowd has been revising the data to suit their current theories.
Wrong fuji! You're the one who lost the debate.You've been shown the data. That debate ended. Like FAST you have continued posting after losing the debate
You asked me to post one scientist who's skeptical about global warming, and I posted three of them!
Then you moved the goalposts again (like you always do) and wanted a scientist who had written studies in journals (which I posted examples of). Then you shut up for a while, and now suddenly you're claiming victory.
Here are my examples again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
Patrick Michaels:
You lose again, fuji. You just cant admit, but its plain for everyone to seeMichaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials worldwide. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on most of the worldwide major media.
Michaels holds AB and SM degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979
Uhm YEAH!! Who else besides cow farts would be producing the CO2's??Wow. What a scientifically illiterate question. Do you really think population itself is driving climate?
Of course an extra 1 billion people would have an affect on climate.
Holy shit, you're dense!! Not quite fuji level dense, but pretty dense
Your comments are really showing you have little to offer to the discussion. The article you posted describes the factors which caused heat to briefly be stored in other places then the atmosphere. It's not my fault you choose not to read your own sources.Uhm YEAH!! Who else besides cow farts would be producing the CO2's??
Of course an extra 1 billion people would have an affect on climate.
Holy shit, you're dense!! Not quite fuji level dense, but pretty dense
And you might not be interested but India with it's billion people produces one third the CO2 of the US despite having three times the population. It is behaviour, not population that is the root problem.
And it's quite clear that you simply are trying to change the topic from the actual measured increase in temperature (including more than making up for the slowdown in your article). There is nothing you can do to deny that the global temperature is increasing and the increases creates problems.
Come on now, 1 billion extra people on earth has to obviously raise CO2 levels by quite a bit since many of them will drive cars, take airplane rides, buy products from factories that produce CO2's, use electricity from coal plants....etc....etc.And you might not be interested but India with it's billion people produces one third the CO2 of the US despite having three times the population. It is behaviour, not population that is the root problem in your article)
You are not denying this basic fact, are you??
Or are you saying all of the 1 billion people live in huts in Africa and dont use any consumer products??
I never said earth wasnt warming, pay attention to what I say if you're gonna debate me.And it's quite clear that you simply are trying to change the topic from the actual measured increase in temperature (including more than making up for the slowdown in your article). There is nothing you can do to deny that the global temperature is increasing and the increases creates problems
I said the following:
1. Earth isnt warming up nearly as fast as the experts predicted.
2. The warming is very minor considering we have 7 billion people on earth now.
3. We dont know for sure if the slight warming of the planet is part of a natural cycle, if its manmade, or a bit of both.
Interestingly enough, thats exactly the stance John Christy takes.
But you need a brain to understand that. You can't just mindlessly follow the global warming doomsday crowd, you have to think for yourself
