More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
...and the industrial revolution, et al, started how long ago? 18th century, right?
" There is 0.00% correlation between CO2 and temperatures because once again ΔCO2 = 0. Anyone seeking the truth as to what is causing climate change and global temperatures is graphically detailed in NASA’s video. You will note that NASA chose to compare temperatures to water vapor, not CO2. Often you can learn more from what people don’t say than what they do.
Imagine That, Temperature Matches Water Vapor NOT CO2 – CO2 is Life
Imagine That, Temperature Matches Water Vapor NOT CO2 – CO2 is Life
...and the industrial revolution, et al, started how long ago? 18th century, right?
That is a point but it dosn't explain why there is a marked difference in the last peak compared to the first 4. I take it the base line is a mean, if the peak continues as it appears to be and not drop as the previous 4 the baseline temp will rise.
Take out the tampered data and see where you are.
Now I am confused, I thought the graph was being used to back the belief that temperatures are not rising. Now you say because I think it shows the opposite, the data is tampered with, guess it's time for me to give up.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Global warming is a myth. Or a Unicorn if you prefer.
Yes, but you're taking a 'pinpoint' in time and extrapolating where 'the line' might go from there, are you not? 'More or less the same odds as betting on red vs. black at the roulette table?
If you'll notice, the line depicting the previous "peak" did a little dance too. What caused that? Certainly not 'man'. Mucho volcanoes erupting? Meteor strikes? Beaucoup "sun spots"? 'Periodic changes in the angle of Earth's axis? A combo? Who knows.
Regardless, it's highly unlikely that wealth redistribution measures and world-wide government-mandated environmental rules/regs/fines/penalties will have any effect on which way the line trends - certainly not to any noticeable/measureable degree at all anyway. And certainly not to such a degree that would ever justify bankrupting the world's economy to achieve it.
JMHO YOMV
:chug:
Last edited:
Oh gosh, NOAA caught altering climate data again!
New York’s Temperature Record Massively Altered By NOAA | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
New York’s Temperature Record Massively Altered By NOAA | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Several years ago Keith offered faaaaar more convincing proof that global warming is happening:
The Flat Earth Warmers of GT40's commingle.
Chilling: Play titled 'Kill Climate Deniers' launches theatrical run - Washington Times
Chilling: Play titled 'Kill Climate Deniers' launches theatrical run - Washington Times
"Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare | Investor's Business Daily
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare | Investor's Business Daily
Latest actual scientific data last 2,500 (two thousand-five hundred) years, untainted by the politics of science:
“Conclusions
To conclude, from the available paleotemperature equations, the equation by McCorkle et al (1997) produced most realistic reconstructed deep water temperature range of 2.7 - 7.8°C, which falls within the annual variability instrumentally recorded in the deep fjord basin since 1890. This suggests that the Gullmar Fjord d18O record mainly reflects variability of
5 the winter bottom water temperatures with a minor salinity influence. Comparison with instrumental winter temperature observations from Central England and Stockholm shows that the fjord record picks up the contemporary warming of the 20th century. The relationship between the evolution of the fjord’s bottom water temperatures over the last two millennia and other late Holocene climate records reveals synchronous North Atlantic-wide centennial and multidecadal climate variability given age model uncertainties, different proxy type, time resolution, annual versus seasonal signal and different
10 hydrographic characteristics.
The record shows a substantial and long-term warming during the Roman Warm Period (~350 BCE – 450 CE), followed
by variable bottom water temperatures during the Dark Ages (~450 – 850 CE). The Viking Age/Medieval Climate Anomaly (~850 – 1350 CE) is also indicated by positive bottom water temperature anomalies, while the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 CE) is characterized by a long-term cooling with distinct multidecadal variability. When studying the Gullmar Fjord bottom
15 water temperature record for the last 2500 years, it is interesting to note that the most recent warming of the 20th century does not stand out but appears to be comparable to both the Roman Warm Period and the MCA.”
https://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-160/cp-2017-160.pdf
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
No, what I believe Bob is saying is that this piece "Latest actual scientific data" supports his argument, and that the other overwhelming "latest actual scientific data" contradicting his beliefs are not "actual scientific data", and thus will not be quoted.
Once they find a way to get their target without altering their data, they might have a leg to stand on.
“In the wake of the latest findings, Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, told Chemical and Engineering News that "If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think."
Global Warming: A New Study Could Destroy Doomsday Climate Change Forecasts
Global Warming: A New Study Could Destroy Doomsday Climate Change Forecasts
“The big question remains: Are we about to head into a grand minimum, as happened during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s? During that century there were practically no sunspots. Since it occurred immediately after the invention of the telescope, astronomers had no idea that the lack of sunspots were unusual and did not give it much attention. It wasn’t until the solar cycle resumed in the 1700s that they discovered its existence, and thus realized the extraordinary nature of the century-long minimum that had just ended. Unfortunately, it was over, and the chance to study it was gone.”
Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball | Watts Up With That?
Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball | Watts Up With That?
Climate change skeptics were most likely to report pro-environmental behavior.
Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study - ScienceDirect
Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study - ScienceDirect
