Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
2020 State Of The Climate Report
The world faces some important deadlines. If we don’t stop global warming by the year 2000, entire nations will be wiped off the face of the earth.
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
The Maldives will drown no later than 2018.
Despite the fact that the world ended twenty years ago, government agencies are still cranking out climate data. Arctic sea ice extent is normal, and the highest in many years.
Arctic winter temperatures have dropped about 5C since 2016. Summer temperatures have been running consistently below normal.
We are getting record snowfall, year after year.
and rainfall amounts is increasing
The world faces some important deadlines. If we don’t stop global warming by the year 2000, entire nations will be wiped off the face of the earth.
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
The Maldives will drown no later than 2018.
Despite the fact that the world ended twenty years ago, government agencies are still cranking out climate data. Arctic sea ice extent is normal, and the highest in many years.
Arctic winter temperatures have dropped about 5C since 2016. Summer temperatures have been running consistently below normal.
We are getting record snowfall, year after year.
and rainfall amounts is increasing
Remember that story about #Antarctica recording a temp of 65 F? Well, it was an outright lie. Fake news. Here is the warmest northern tip of Antarctica. It's below freezing
No, its real and you're just spreading disinformation.
Now not only are you denying science and climate change you have to deny weather reports as well?
Must suck to be confronted with so much evidence every day, is that why you had to turn the spamming up to 11?
No I did not
Too funny
In one sentence you say "you keep posting the same fucking error daily here."
In the very next sentence you say "I politely corrected your posts"
That is not the thought process of someone who is trustworthy or smart enough to even try to appear as trustworthy.
That is the thought process of a pathological liar who will say anything (and has) in order to self- delude himself he has convinced anyone.
Word of advise: Do not contradict yourself from one sentence to another. You have enough credibility issues
For starters why don't you consider spacing out your contradictory statements into separate paragraphs.
Then you might say try reading what you post before hitting save
Look Stupid , it is not my fault you can not convert F to C or visa versa
Nope
Did you think I did not expect you to try this lie?
I carefully wrote down the numbers and checked to make sure what was being quoted and in what scale.
Before I originally posted the link.
Here are the numbers you need
1. U.S. Temperatures 2019 down 2.25 C from 2016
2. U.S. Temperatures 2019 down 2.6 C from 2012
Now answer the questions
In the 7 years since 2012 CO2 has increased , however US temperature have declined. This is inconsistent with your premise and I want you to explain how this could happen
In the 3 years since 2016 CO2 has increased , however US temperature have declined. This is inconsistent with your premise and I want you to explain how this could happen
Seven years is certainly long enough to want to know why?
After all you are demanding we have to change .......... well everything, because you say CO2 is the control knob on climate
I think we are entitled to enquire when your all-knowing prediction does not work.
I think seven years is a quite reasonable amount of time ask, " Hey, why is it getting colder , CO2 increased past the all important 0.04% level, yet it is colder by 2.6 degrees celsius in the USA over the last seven years?"
It seems a very reasonable question for anyone to ask
It is as simple as that
Answer the questions
Holy shit, larue.
Let me do the math for you, as well, and once again show you your errors.
2019 US temp 52.67ºF - 2016 temp 54.92ºF = 2.25ºF
When you convert 2.25ºF into Celsius your number should be 1.25ºC
You claimed that US temps were down 2.25ºC but they are down 1.25ºC because you can't read a chart.
You should apologize for insulting me, then apologize for your mistakes that made you ignore the repeated answers I gave you.
Then you should go back and check each of those answers I gave you, with the correct numbers and then tell us why you were unable to understand your incredibly basic error.
Then you should acknowledge that I'm smarter than you.
Again.
This is how consensus on climate alarmism works.. the climate cult member maintains a blackist of people who disagree with them in order destroy their careers and reputations
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...rks-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/
A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”
That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.
But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.”
How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/#1674ffc96368
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...rks-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/
A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”
That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.
But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.”
How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/#1674ffc96368
Jealous you haven't made the list yourself, CM?
Curry?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
You gotta take your 'experts' where you can find them, not everyone is just willing to take that oil money.
Interesting chart. What does it tell us
In the period from 1980-1997 the contiguous U.S. temperature was an average of 0.38°F higher than its 20th century mean temperature.
In the period from 1998-2019 it was an average of 1.45°F higher than its 20th century mean temperature.
That's a significant jump. Can that be explained by growth in CO2 emissions? https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
In 1980 the US emitted about 4.75B metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. It peaked in 2005 at 5.99B metric tonnes. Since 2005 that number has steadily decreased and in 2018 was 5.27B metric tonnes. Given that I'd like the alarmists to please tell me how did the temperature jump so much when CO2 emissions have been on the decline in the US for the past 15 years. If CO2 was the temperature control knob why is there an inverse relationship between total CO2 emissions and temperature in the United States?
The answer is simple there is no relationship. Two main reasons for the jump in recorded temperatures
1. The El Nino of 1998, the strongest in the 20th century caused a thermal shock that resulted in anywhere from 0.2°C to 0.3°C step change in global temperatures. The El Nino, it should be noted, has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
2. https://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/historical-station-distribution/ Since 2006 the U.S. following the lead of many other countries including Canada, has shut down a massive amount of weather stations instead relying on climate model simulations to fill in the blanks.
You realize you're calling larue a liar (aka 'lair') with this statement.
Good on you.
Ok So you Finally admit US temperatures are down.
Now answer the questions
In the 7 years since 2012 CO2 has increased , however US temperature have declined. This is inconsistent with your premise and I want you to explain how this could happen
In the 3 years since 2016 CO2 has increased , however US temperature have declined. This is inconsistent with your premise and I want you to explain how this could happen
First we look at every time you've posted the wrong numbers.
You need to apologize for posting the wrong numbers and refusing corrections for each of these:
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit and your numbers are from the Fahrenheit measurements.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit and your numbers are from the Fahrenheit measurements.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit, your first number should be 2.25ºF.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit, your first number should be 2.25ºF.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit, your first number should be 2.25ºF.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit, your first number should be 2.25ºF.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit and your numbers are from the Fahrenheit measurements.
Wrong numbers, the chart is in Fahrenheit and your numbers are from the Fahrenheit measurements.
quite right
I can hardly maintain moral superiority over a pathological liar if I do not own up to my mistake
I revisited this and it was F when I posted it as C. A honest mistake, however a careless mistake none the less
So here you go:
Frankfooter. You were right and I was wrong about the temperature scale. Excuse me for a moment while I vomit
So I will apologize for the mistake on the temperature scale and I will also apologize for the following two statements
Both statements are obviously wrong & inappropriate if I got the F & C scales mixed up, which I did.
I checked the math, but screwed up on the temp scale
now I know that I will never hear the end of this & you will use this admission to altogether avoid the central question of how any cooling could have taken place with rising CO2
However I guess that is the price to be paid for a bit of carelessness & the price to be paid to maintain integrity and honesty . Two qualities you are void of
Now moving on:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/nation...dbaseyear=2000
Here are the numbers you need
1. U.S. Temperatures 2019 down 2.25 F from 2016
2. U.S. Temperatures 2019 down 2.6 F from 2012
Now answer the questions
In the 7 years since 2012 CO2 has increased , however US temperature have declined. This is inconsistent with your premise and I want you to explain how this could happen
In the 3 years since 2016 CO2 has increased , however US temperature have declined. This is inconsistent with your premise and I want you to explain how this could happen
Seven years is certainly long enough to want to know why?
After all you are demanding we have to change .......... well everything, because you say CO2 is the control knob on climate
I think we are entitled to enquire when your all-knowing prediction does not work.
I think seven years is a quite reasonable amount of time ask, " Hey, why is it getting colder , CO2 increased past the all important 0.04% level, yet it is colder by 2.6 degrees fahrenheit in the USA over the last seven years?"
It seems a very reasonable question for anyone to ask
It is as simple as that
Answer the questions
Good on you for finally admitting you made a mistake and then insulted me when I pointed it out and corrected.
I accept your apology.
Now that leads to the next point, its time to revisit the answers I gave you with the correct numbers that you ignored because of your mistake.
After which I would hope you would apologize again for not accepting the answer.
Answer #1, where I use numbers from your chart over similar 'cherry picked' dates that I picked to show massive warming, showing that manipulating dates in a noisy chart can give you the answer you want.
Answer #2, where I use your dates and move the start periods earlier by the same amount, cherry picking the dates again but using your period length to show massive warming.Here we go, temps from your chart listed in your post:
2011 - 53.18ºF
2012 - 55.28ºF
A one year increase of 2.2ºF!
2014 - 52.54ºF
2015 - 54.4ºF
A one year increase of 1.86ºF!
Right, but those are short term periods, so lets check the long term periods as well.
1993 - 51.26ºF
2012 - 55.28ºF
Over 19 years that shows 4.02ºF warming!
Your chart and your techniques show massive warming!
Cherry picking really works well to make your arguments look incredibly moronic, really stupid, ignorant, dishonest and foolish.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/natio...se_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
This is what you're trying to do.
And finally, the chart I posted that shows long term change. This is the way you should have judged that chart instead of cherry picking 2 dates based on the biggest peaks to smallest valleys you could find.
That is exactly what you are doing.
Your claim only works using two years, both peaks.
Moving the dates you use 2 years in either direction gives you the opposite claim, showing that it is you cherry picking.
Why can you not understand that?
Cherry picking.
In the last 6 years the temp in the US went up .1ºF if you use 2013 as your start date.
In the last 10 years the temp in the US went up .28ºF, when you use 2009 as your start date.
You are cherry picking your start date using a chart that shows significant long term warming and zero sign of less warming recently.
Cherry picking.
Explained here repeatedly.
Why have they increased in the last 6 years?
Why have the increased in the last 10 years?
Why does your claim only work if you use the number 7?
Cherry picking.
Cherry picking.
Think you can understand it yet?
You are the one using 2 cherry picked dates to make a dishonest claim from a chart that clearly shows long term warming and zero cooling in the last decade.
You should apologize but I don't think you are bright enough to understand cherry picking.
Again, here is a visual representation of what you are dishonestly doing while not being bright enough to understand what you did and how easy it is for me to see it.
I have no idea why you cannot see what you are doing, its really incredibly basic and incredibly dishonest.
You take a chart like the one below and try to pick two peaks to the next lowest points and then claim 'looky here, its a declining chart!'.
If you were using the chart below you'd use the years '98 - 00 and say 'explain how there is massive cooling from 98-00'.
That is what you did with the US chart.
The Department of Canadian heritage, which is run by the Liberal Member of Parliment Steven Guilbeault, is paying journalists to write stories on climate change, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
When launching the Local Journalism Initiative in 2019, the then Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said that “our government is committed to ensuring Canadians everywhere continue to have access to accurate, diverse and relevant news.”
Despite this, these state-funded subsidies have gone towards writing stories on climate change. The Canadian News Media Association, for example, was paid $14.4 million last year.
As well as this, the Yukon-based publication The Narwhal received a subsidy after writing, “It seems like British Columbia is always on fire… The Narwhal tracks government commitments to climate change and separates the wheat from the chaff.”
The Narwhal then went on to publish stories like ““Meet The Alberta Climate Activists Who Say They’re Not Scared Of Jason Kenney.”
Another publication that received a subsidy was Nunavut-based Nunatsiaq News, who also received a government grant to pay for a journalist to cover “the effects of climate change on the Arctic.” Likewise, The Winnipeg Free Press was given a grant so that they could hire a reporter who was dedicated to climate change.
the Local Journalism Initiative is a key component of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to revive the ailing industry of journalism in Canada. In 2019, Trudeau committed nearly $600 million in what has become the controversial media bailout.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/t...-media-to-write-climate-change-news-articles/
When launching the Local Journalism Initiative in 2019, the then Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said that “our government is committed to ensuring Canadians everywhere continue to have access to accurate, diverse and relevant news.”
Despite this, these state-funded subsidies have gone towards writing stories on climate change. The Canadian News Media Association, for example, was paid $14.4 million last year.
As well as this, the Yukon-based publication The Narwhal received a subsidy after writing, “It seems like British Columbia is always on fire… The Narwhal tracks government commitments to climate change and separates the wheat from the chaff.”
The Narwhal then went on to publish stories like ““Meet The Alberta Climate Activists Who Say They’re Not Scared Of Jason Kenney.”
Another publication that received a subsidy was Nunavut-based Nunatsiaq News, who also received a government grant to pay for a journalist to cover “the effects of climate change on the Arctic.” Likewise, The Winnipeg Free Press was given a grant so that they could hire a reporter who was dedicated to climate change.
the Local Journalism Initiative is a key component of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to revive the ailing industry of journalism in Canada. In 2019, Trudeau committed nearly $600 million in what has become the controversial media bailout.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/t...-media-to-write-climate-change-news-articles/
