Climate Change!

[idscience]

As thamaturgy pointed out, there are many reasons for climate change, humans being just one. The question then, is who is so naive as to think humans could not be a factor in GW?

apparently the scientists who say we are not. The data that shows we are not. Sounds like you guys want it to be that way for some reason?

 

[farmer joe]

Laws are also made to prevent hypothetical but possible scenarios. Many of the laws regarding stem cells and the like are an example. But I would like a source for those laws you mention.

You have no evidence, none. You can not claim to know what is going on with any certainty. HAARP isn't some conspiracy, there are plans to make something much similar and bigger in scope in the arctic circle within the next 10 years.

A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE -- A LOOK AT HAARP
ENMOD: Chemtrials, HAARP and Weather Control
Katrina - a case of weather manipulation?
To Haarp About
Plowed Clouds: HAARP website taken down to conceal evidence of weather modification and inducing Japan earthquake?

 

[Greatcloud]

http://hollyonthehill.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/more-climate-gate/

AGW is bad science why did the temperature monitoring stations that were measuring temperatures in cooler areas become discontinued. Why did they take them offline and now only the temperature monitoring stations that measure temperature in warmer areas are online measuring temperature.

Since they took them offline the temperature globally has shown corresponding rise in temperature for no other reason. Why did they take them offline can anyone answer me that ?




CO2

 

[thaumaturgy]

apparently the scientists who say we are not.

So, can I ask why you prefer the work of only about 3% of climatologists to that of the remaining 97%?

The data that shows we are not.

Except there's almost no data that shows we are "not". In fact it is almost impossible to explain current global warming using only natural forcings.

Sounds like you guys want it to be that way for some reason?

 

[idscience]

So, can I ask why you prefer the work of only about 3% of climatologists to that of the remaining 97%?

Because their liers and frauds. And the 97% nonsense, really! it only makes you look uninformed. You are just regurgitating numbers fed to you by the frauds and liberal media who were more than happy to ignore the real scientists telling them the frauds were pulling one over on us.

I love the more is right defense. If enough are wrong it becomes right. We know that has never happened in science before.

Why do you prefer to listen to admitted fraudsters?

 

[thaumaturgy]

More climate-gate « Holly On The Hill

AGW is bad science why did the temperature monitoring stations that were measuring temperatures in cooler areas become discontinued. Why did they take them offline and now only the temperature monitoring stations that measure temperature in warmer areas are online measuring temperature.

Since they took them offline the temperature globally has shown corresponding rise in temperature for no other reason. Why did they take them offline can anyone answer me that ?

This appears to a continuation of the D'Aleo and Smith story from KUSI, but it looks like the publication on SPPI came out under D'Aleo and Watts.

There may be a relatively straightforward explanation for the "dropoff" which has been discussed since D'Aleo and Smith came out with their "accusation" in 2010:

The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time.

(SOURCE)
(emphasis added)

Further to explain this:

It’s common to think of temperature stations as modern Internet-linked operations that instantly report temperature readings to readily accessible databases, but that is not particularly accurate for stations outside of the United States and Western Europe. For many of the world’s stations, observations are still taken and recorded by hand, and assembling and digitizing records from thousands of stations worldwide is burdensome. (SOURCE)

Now here's the really interesting part to this whole "conspiracy"...if it's a conspiracy IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO ACTUALLY BIAS THE DATA TO SHOW WARMING

Here's the explanation:

There actually is a fairly easy way to test if the absence of more recent data from a number of stations has a significant effect on temperature records. If stations were purposefully dropped in favor of those with greater warming trends, one would expect to see cooler temperatures in the stations that do not have temperature records available in the last few decades than in those stations with a continuous record up to the present.
The chart below shows this analysis for all stations with continuous records between 1960 and 1970. Of the 1,419 temperature stations containing data for this period, available at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1,017 continue up to at least the year 2000, and 402 stop providing data at some point between 1970 and 2000.


There is no significant difference between the temperature from discontinuous and continuous stations, suggesting that there was no purposeful or selective “dropping” of stations to bias the data. If anything, discontinuous stations have a slightly higher trend over the century than continuous stations. This result strongly suggests that the discontinuity in station data results from having inadequate resources to gather those records, rather than from some pernicious plot to exaggerate warming trends. (ibid)

(emphasis added)

But, wait! There's MORE!

If stations had intentionally been dropped to maximize the warming trend, one would expect to see more divergence between surface and satellite records over time as the number of stations used by GHCN decreases. However, a close examination of the residuals when satellite records are subtracted from surface station records shows no significant divergence over time compared to either UAH or RSS.(ibid)

 

[Greatcloud]

T from your graph it looks like there would have been greater dips in the temperature record, we are still not getting an accurate picture of the correct temperature that we would have had, had they not dropped them. We dropped them for what reason ? I'm waiting to hear the answer to that question.






CO2

 

[thaumaturgy]

We dropped them for what reason ? I'm waiting to hear the answer to that question.

Did you not read the post?

Shall I put it out there again in bigger font?

The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time.(SOURCE)

 

[Greatcloud]

Did you not read the post?

Shall I put it out there again in bigger font?

Your explanation does not tell why as a coincedence all the weather stations that were discontinued were cold areas and no warm area temperature stations were shut down. Yes I read what you wrote but that is a lot of dancing around the point. The point is it is a conspiracy to muddle the record. If those stations were there we would have seen greater drops greater dips in the record. Which is what satellite shows.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


CO2

 

[idscience]

Your explanation does not tell why as a coincedence all the weather stations that were discontinued were cold areas and no warm area temperature stations were shut down. Yes I read what you wrote but that is a lot of dancing around the point. The point is it is a conspiracy to muddle the record. If those stations were there we would have seen greater drops greater dips in the record. Which is what satellite shows.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


CO2

Your absolutely right. It is politically driven and the IPPC, and the UN are driving the political gravey train.

The Climate Crisis Hoax (Forbes)

This guy may some some insight- he was a reviewer or three IPCC REPORTS click the link and read the whole report

• "This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the 'evidence' was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed."

 

[TheBear]

For me, the jury is still out on certain claims. There is no doubt climate change is occurring. It always has been. At one point, the atmosphere was ammonia gases. Also, the entire surface of the earth was liquid .... not in the water sense, but in the molten rock sense.

As many of you know, there are a bunch of CO2 emissions which occur naturally ... like the oceans, for example. And, let's not forget all the volcano activity along with many meteor, asteroid and comet strikes.


All I want to know is this - Out of 100% total CO2 emissions from all sources, what percentage is attributed to human activity?

 

[Nabobalis]

A TERRIFYING LOOK AT THE CONTROL OF WEATHER WARFARE -- A LOOK AT HAARP
ENMOD: Chemtrials, HAARP and Weather Control
Katrina - a case of weather manipulation?
To Haarp About
Plowed Clouds: HAARP website taken down to conceal evidence of weather modification and inducing Japan earthquake?

First link: Has many claims, no evidence. Also, has got the basic science so very wrong. Then has wild speculation, again with no evidence nor a mechanism for HAARP. Then finishes off with bible verses. Rejected

Second link: Has many lovely pictures of clouds, claiming to be chemtrails. Again no evidence. Then has a massive argument, which again just states things and doesn't back anything up. Rejected

Third link: Has the audacity to link a hurricane of all things to HAARP. We know how hurricanes form, radio waves won't help.

Fourth link: Once again, just states that HAARP can do many many things, no evidence and no mechanism.

Last link: Just states things with no evidence. Rejected

Here is your problem, many of these sites state what HAARP can do, with no method on how and no evidence of it.

That was a waste of my time.

 

[RickG]

All I want to know is this - Out of 100% total CO2 emissions from all sources, what percentage is attributed to human activity?

Paleo data shows that a natural rise of atmospheric CO2 of 100 ppm generally takes 5 to 20 thousand years. Since 1880 it has risen from 280 ppm to over 390 ppm. Isotope analysis shows that the 100 ppm increase is almost entirely due to human emissions (Ghosh 2003). For the past 800,000 years (Vostok ice cores) CO2 has averaged less than 280 ppm and the current level hasn't been seen for over 5 million years. There's a good discussion on how it is known the rise in CO2 is due to human activities at Real Climate. RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Also, look at the (Ghosh 2003) paper.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

 

[RickG]

What hockey stick? the faker that built is admitted he fudged the data. Your still arguing for it? You are commited, or should be.

I would venture a guess that you don't even know what the "hockey stick" entails, instead you make a baseless claim of wrong doing without presenting one shred of evidence or even attempting to discuss the SCIENCE.

Source: (Mann et al 2008) via skepticalscience.com

BTW, there are numerous paleoclimate reconstructions showing enough hockey sticks to out fit an entire team. Which one are you calling the "faker"?

 

[farmer joe]

First link: Has many claims, no evidence. Also, has got the basic science so very wrong. Then has wild speculation, again with no evidence nor a mechanism for HAARP. Then finishes off with bible verses. Rejected

Second link: Has many lovely pictures of clouds, claiming to be chemtrails. Again no evidence. Then has a massive argument, which again just states things and doesn't back anything up. Rejected

Third link: Has the audacity to link a hurricane of all things to HAARP. We know how hurricanes form, radio waves won't help.

Fourth link: Once again, just states that HAARP can do many many things, no evidence and no mechanism.

Last link: Just states things with no evidence. Rejected

Here is your problem, many of these sites state what HAARP can do, with no method on how and no evidence of it.

That was a waste of my time.

I find it no different then the charts that are put on here to back up what you are saying. Lets face it, for every yes there is a no. You can blame all these weird tornandoes , earthquakes, droughts, and flooding that we have lately on your climate change. Or maybe we have some spoiled rich brats in charge that have gotten a hold of a nice new toy. You can not honestly say that they have not talked about controlling the weather. If you deny that, your head is still in the sand. Until they tell you we have those capabilities, no matter what others say, you will not believe it. Jesus didn't like the science either.

 

[RickG]

apparently the scientists who say we are not. The data that shows we are not. Sounds like you guys want it to be that way for some reason?

Do you not realize that there are only a hand-full of climate scientist who have issues with anthropogenic climate change, and of those, they do not deny it. The only argue the sensitivity differences of climate forcings and feedbacks. The claims you have been making are not from any legitimate science sources whatsoever.

How about ceasing with the rhetoric and let's look at the science together?

A good beginning would be to start with a study by the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstracthttp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

 

[RickG]

I find it no different then the charts that are put on here to back up what you are saying. Lets face it, for every yes there is a no. You can blame all these weird tornandoes , earthquakes, droughts, and flooding that we have lately on your climate change. Or maybe we have some spoiled rich brats in charge that have gotten a hold of a nice new toy. You can not honestly say that they have not talked about controlling the weather. If you deny that, your head is still in the sand. Until they tell you we have those capabilities, no matter what others say, you will not believe it. Jesus didn't like the science either.

Earthquakes blamed on climate change? No one is saying that. As for the others, all climatologists say is that with increased global temperatures, the chances of more intense weather anomaly's also increases. Come on, let's dispense with the rhetoric and look at the science. After all, this a physical science forum, not a political forum.

 

[Nabobalis]

I find it no different then the charts that are put on here to back up what you are saying. Lets face it, for every yes there is a no. You can blame all these weird tornandoes , earthquakes, droughts, and flooding that we have lately on your climate change. Or maybe we have some spoiled rich brats in charge that have gotten a hold of a nice new toy. You can not honestly say that they have not talked about controlling the weather. If you deny that, your head is still in the sand. Until they tell you we have those capabilities, no matter what others say, you will not believe it. Jesus didn't like the science either.

No one has blamed climate change for Earth quakes. I don't think many sciensts have blamed those events on climate change either, many will tell you that it is almost impossible to predict what events are due to climate change.

Well unless you can provide evidence that we can control the weather, which those links you posted didn't have using HAARP, I have no reason to believe you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Earthquakes blamed on climate change? No one is saying that. As for the others, all climatologists say is that with increased global temperatures, the chances of more intense weather anomaly's also increases. Come on, let's dispense with the rhetoric and look at the science. After all, this a physical science forum, not a political forum.

Aren't earthquakes caused by tectonic plates expanding?

The sun coming up in the morning heats the earth, and there's sufficient coefficient of expansion [I believe it's called] to move these plates around, causing the ground to shake.

(Or maybe earthquakes are caused by Brownian motion at a macro level. I wouldn't know.)

 

[Nabobalis]

Aren't earthquakes caused by tectonic plates expanding?

The sun coming up in the morning heats the earth, and there's sufficient coefficient of expansion [I believe it's called] to move these plates around, causing the ground to shake.

(Or maybe earthquakes are caused by Brownian motion at a macro level. I wouldn't know.)

The movement of the plates past each other or into each other cause earthquakes to my knowledge.