Provide a NOAA source for these claims.
I suspect you just read that from site and as usual didn't check its accuracy.
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
I suspect you just read that from site and as usual didn't check its accuracy.
Read the thread, I gave that reply first, you echoed and then I stated it again.I'm honoured that you parrot my posts.
I fully expect that it will be your turn again next, since they don't seem able to learn the difference here.
Maybe, could be savanna in decades.This is a great time to start buying parcels of land along the Hudson Bay shoreline. In 20 years we'll start building all-inclusive resorts and plant palm trees as rising temperatures turn the area into a Canadian Riviera.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/b...point-by-climate-change-study-finds-1.3198892
Bull.For those who can read charts, all this shows is the changes are minor and bring the NOAA readings more in line with other readings.
The inflated numbers for 2014 are completely out of sync with the data -- surface and satellite -- from the NOAA/NASA's fellow American researchers, and from throughout the rest of the world.
(And, really, it is too funny that you're citing a website co-founded by Michael Mann.)
Bull. I said no such thing.You flat out said that the scientific community is cooking the books.
I said the NOAA was cooking the books with its inflated sea surface temperatures. I never said anything about the "scientific community."
Indeed, the NOAA/NASA inflationary numbers are contradicted by the data from throughout the world, including the Japan Meteorological Agency data that were provided by you.
OMG! :Eek:I can guarantee you that in the NOAA's more accurate measurement techniques resulted in a downgrade in temperature estimates they would have published that too.
This is all the evidence that any of us need that you are one of the most gullible people walking the planet.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/...ing-until-2080/#sthash.vVPgaIY6.ZXmRnaka.dpbs
The Die kalte Sonne site here features a worrisome essay by German climate scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss. They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.
They published 2 papers on the subject in the journal European Geophysical Union (EGU) [2], [3]. According to the 2 scientists, climate is often cyclic. The first study appeared in February 2013 and it examined six of the longest existing thermometer data series recorded in Europe, as well as one dataset from an Antarctic ice core and another from a data series extracted from stalagmites. The datasets were covered the period of 1757 – 2010.
The second publication appeared in February 2015 and it examines the past 2500 years.
The last 2500 years
The analysis of the past 2500 years involved data from tree rings, sediment cores, stalagmites, etc. A plot of the data yields a climate operating with cyclic behavior.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/...obal-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.OCkIvNNo.dpuf
PS The study said German scientists conclude the 0.7 deg C warming in the past century is completely normal, that there is no unusual warming from increasing CO2, and the low solar activity combined with normal ocean cycles will cool temperatures to the year 2080
The Die kalte Sonne site here features a worrisome essay by German climate scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss. They carefully examined climate changes of the past and have found that the recent changes (of the last 40 years are nothing out of the ordinary and that we need to worry about a global cooling that will persist until 2080.
They published 2 papers on the subject in the journal European Geophysical Union (EGU) [2], [3]. According to the 2 scientists, climate is often cyclic. The first study appeared in February 2013 and it examined six of the longest existing thermometer data series recorded in Europe, as well as one dataset from an Antarctic ice core and another from a data series extracted from stalagmites. The datasets were covered the period of 1757 – 2010.
The second publication appeared in February 2015 and it examines the past 2500 years.
The last 2500 years
The analysis of the past 2500 years involved data from tree rings, sediment cores, stalagmites, etc. A plot of the data yields a climate operating with cyclic behavior.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/...obal-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.OCkIvNNo.dpuf
PS The study said German scientists conclude the 0.7 deg C warming in the past century is completely normal, that there is no unusual warming from increasing CO2, and the low solar activity combined with normal ocean cycles will cool temperatures to the year 2080
Last edited:
I like the way you think. Let's fence it in, toss in some lions and zebra's and we have ourselves an African Safari tourist attraction. The future is bright!Maybe, could be savanna in decades.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/b...point-by-climate-change-study-finds-1.3198892
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-...r/ice_volume/Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png
*Arctic ice thickest in eight years for this date
*Arctic ice thickest in eight years for this date
*Antarctica sets record for most May ice http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=b504dbfcf0&e=f4e33fdd1e
Reporting Climate Science, 3 June 2015 http://www.reportingclimatescience....e/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-new-high-in-may.html
Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – some 12 per cent above the long term average for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 10.79 million sq.km. May sea ice extent in Antarctica is growing at a rate of 2.9 per cent per decade, according to NSIDC data. --Reporting Climate Science, 3 June 2015
Reporting Climate Science, 3 June 2015 http://www.reportingclimatescience....e/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-new-high-in-may.html
Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – some 12 per cent above the long term average for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 10.79 million sq.km. May sea ice extent in Antarctica is growing at a rate of 2.9 per cent per decade, according to NSIDC data. --Reporting Climate Science, 3 June 2015
Last edited:
There is no consensus of scientists in support of the man made global warming theory.
Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.
Science is not supposed to have consensus. With consensus discovery stops.
Many of the great sceintific discoveries went against the medical consensus of the time.
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 This list of over 1,000 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the man made global warming theory speak in terms of their own areas of scientific knowledge, and is proof there is no consensus on this issue.
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf Here is a list of 1,350 peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with the man made global warming alarmism.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html The AGW consensus has
been thoroughly debunked see link http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
Consensus is a political term, not a scientific one.
Science is not supposed to have consensus. With consensus discovery stops.
Many of the great sceintific discoveries went against the medical consensus of the time.
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 This list of over 1,000 internationally recognized scientists who have come out against the man made global warming theory speak in terms of their own areas of scientific knowledge, and is proof there is no consensus on this issue.
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf Here is a list of 1,350 peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with the man made global warming alarmism.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html The AGW consensus has
been thoroughly debunked see link http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/bil...a_scientist_climate_deflection_youre_a_human/
“Let’s not confuse climate change with global warming,” Nye warned. “The world is getting warmer. There’s more carbon dioxide holding in more heat.
So when the climate changes, some places get colder and the thing that’s really consistent with climate change models is this variance.”
“My dream, Joy, is that you all, you in the news business, would just say the words ‘climate change,’”
Nye continued. “Just like, ‘It could be climate change,’ ‘It’s a possible connection to climate change,’ ‘Is this evidence of climate change?’ Can you just toss that in now and then?”
“I will say to the conservatives, we need you,” he said. “This is to say we can’t have everybody be a progressive liberal bleeding heart and so on, so on.
We need people on both sides. But if the conservative side are going to continue to deny what 97 percent of the scientists in the world are saying, we’re not going to reach a consensus.
We are not gonna make progress.”
http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/
The myth of the 97% climate change consensus
What is the origin of the false belief – constantly repeated by President Obama, the media and others – that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
The myth of the 97% climate change consensus
naomi
May 30, 2014 by CFACT, Comments are off
690EmailSharesubmit
By Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer
Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama and others frequently claim that climate change will have “crippling kerryconsequences,” and that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” In reality, the assertion is science fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and exercises in counting abstracts from scientific papers – all of which have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source is Naomi Oreskes (lead photo). She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles and to have found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years, while none directly dissented. Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” influences but left out “dangerous” – and excluded scores of articles by prominent scientists who question the consensus. She also failed to acknowledge that a study published in the journal Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is an article in Eos: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists, and claimed “97% of climate scientists agree.” Most scientists who are skeptical of man-made catastrophic global warming would nevertheless answer “yes” to both questions. However, the survey was silent on whether the human impact – or the rise in temperature – is large enough to constitute a problem. It also failed to include scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
To read the rest of their article, go to http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
And you really think that excuses your conspiracy theory? If your only defense is that the experts are lying, you have no business discussing science....
Bull. I said no such thing.
I said the NOAA was cooking the books with its inflated sea surface temperatures. I never said anything about the "scientific community."....
The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%
Summary: In February 2014. I examined surveys of climate scientists and found (as had others) that they showed broad agreement with the IPCC’s headline statement about warming since 1950. However time brings new research, such as a major survey that digs deeper and finds that only a minority of climate scientists agree with the full keynote statement of AR5 — the most recent IPCC report. That’s important news.
There is no consensus...... http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
Summary: In February 2014. I examined surveys of climate scientists and found (as had others) that they showed broad agreement with the IPCC’s headline statement about warming since 1950. However time brings new research, such as a major survey that digs deeper and finds that only a minority of climate scientists agree with the full keynote statement of AR5 — the most recent IPCC report. That’s important news.
There is no consensus...... http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
Last edited:
You do get rather touchy when you are caught lying.And you really think that excuses your conspiracy theory? If your only defense is that the experts are lying, you have no business discussing science.
In any event, there is no "conspiracy theory." Experts on both sides of the debate have challenged the NOAA's conclusions and the data produced throughout the rest of the world (including a source cited by you) contradict the NOAA's and NASA's "adjusted" results.
I accept the evidence.
Just a post regarding warmth, weather, etc. :thumb:
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...ange-earth-just-had-warmest-month-ever/55942/
The govt says that July 2015 was the warmest July in history :
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/feeling-heat-earth-july-hottest-month-record-33203712
July 2015: Hottest month ever recorded
The month of July is typically the hottest month of the year in the northern hemisphere, however according to major climate centers around the world, July 2015 has shattered a number of records, including a very telling one:
July 2015 is the hottest month of July ever recorded, at 0.81degree C above the 20th century average.
The May-June-July period was the hottest such period on record, at 0.85 degree C above the 20th century average
The January to July period was also the hottest such period on record, at 0.85degree C above the 20th century average
July 2015 was the hottest month, of any month ever recorded, with a monthly average temperature of 16.61 degree C
The govt says that July 2015 was the warmest July in history yet the number of climate stations in the USA with temperatures over 100 degrees tell a different story, it was significantly warmer in the 1930s than today
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ScreenHunter_10128-Aug.-20-23.55.gif
NOAA,...IS,... the source,...as I said.Provide a NOAA source for these claims.
I suspect you just read that from site and as usual didn't check its accuracy.
The words and data I posted,...is exactly what the NOAA site produces,...word for word,...and those EXACT numbers.
If you need my help navigating the site,...please let me know.
As far as the data from the NOAA site being accurate,...that's up for debate,...isn't it,...but you incessantly quote it,...so it must be the "truth".
Again,...let me know if you need my help,...!!!
Otherwise,...live with the info from my post,...as well as your other bull shit site,...Bloomberg.
FAST
Nope, I don't believe you.NOAA,...IS,... the source,...as I said.
The words and data I posted,...is exactly what the NOAA site produces,...word for word,...and those EXACT numbers.
Provide a link with specific quotes.
That's total nonsense.You do get rather touchy when you are caught lying.
In any event, there is no "conspiracy theory." Experts on both sides of the debate have challenged the NOAA's conclusions and the data produced throughout the rest of the world (including a source cited by you) contradict the NOAA's and NASA's "adjusted" results.
I accept the evidence.
There has been no 'cooking the books' as you claimed earlier and no legit expert believes they 'cooked the books' as you claimed.
You are making that all up and cannot back up any of that claim.
You admit yourself that you think the experts are lying.You do get rather touchy when you are caught lying....
Now that's a laugh.I accept the evidence.
Nonsense.The 97% consensus of climate scientists is only 47%
We went through these claims with moviefan, who was found to be lying about the studies he quoted.
If you want confirmation on the consensus look here:
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...8Y2IAg&usg=AFQjCNGsYOLDk8JZ26E6ZBdGY_86ItLdtw
The AAAS represents the vast majority of legit scientists in North America.
Or look here:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Those are the legit sources, not some blog post without links to the studies or data.
I don't give a shit if you believe me or not,...you calling ANYBODY a liar is hilarious.Nope, I don't believe you.
Provide a link with specific quotes.
The data is from graphs produced on the NOAA site, with the exact captions I posted.
Once again,...if you need my help navigating the NOAA site,... you continually quote,...but as usual,...know nothing about,...
All you have to do is ask,...
FAST
