User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Globa

  1. #21
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    Oh my!

    You didn't address post one article at all, what you did was post a deflection to something unrelated since what I posted was 100% based on data, properly formatted, to show that C02 has a minor impact on RATE of temperature change, month to month, year to year.


    Your post are based on modeling constructs, that doesn't begin to address the rate of change between CO2 and Temperature, a relationship you and other warmist/alarmists don't address, maybe because it quickly shows that the observed warming since around 1980 is mostly natural, the CO2/Temperature change relationship makes that clear.

    Your temperature charts are based on data that have been altered many times, NASA own PAST charts demonstrate that well, where the well known significant cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's are almost erased.

    It is this recurring lie is why the AGW nonsense has been discredited, all you have are a bunch of tuned models, only a few 100 of them to year 2050 and 2100, they are unverifiable and junkscience.


    I showed that the RATE of per decade warming has greatly decreased since 1998 as compared to 1988, you didn't address it.

    I showed that CO2 has a very small effect on the RATE of temperature change, across time frames, you didn't address it.

    None of those "peer reviewed" papers address "CO2 has a very small effect on the RATE of temperature change, across time frames".

    Your deflection is quite revealing.....
    The opening post provides a link that I read and it doesn't say what "HC4 global temperature change" is. I have never heard of it and it doesn't represent a global mean of land-ocean surface temperature.

    What is it?


    I did address the claim that all of the global mean surface temperature change since 1970 is natural. Most of the global mean surface temperature change since 1850 is anthropogenic. Most or all of the

    global warming from the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) to 1750 was natural.



    The Berkeley earth graph below of global mean surface (land-ocean) shows a 10-year moving average that doesn't look anything like your graph.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/2019-temperatures/




    Since 1980, the overall trend is +0.19 °C/decade (+0.34 °F/decade) and has changed little during this period. By continuing this trend, we can make a rough guess of how the near-future climate may develop if the forces driving global warming continue at their present rate.

  2. #22
    Points: 7,659, Level: 20
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 91
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    934
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,142
    Points
    7,659
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,491
    Thanked 924x in 547 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    The opening post provides a link that I read and it doesn't say what "HC4 global temperature change" is. I have never heard of it and it doesn't represent a global mean of land-ocean surface temperature.

    What is it?


    I did address the claim that all of the global mean surface temperature change since 1970 is natural. Most of the global mean surface temperature change since 1850 is anthropogenic. Most or all of the

    global warming from the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) to 1750 was natural.



    The Berkeley earth graph below of global mean surface (land-ocean) shows a 10-year moving average that doesn't look anything like your graph.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/2019-temperatures/




    Since 1980, the overall trend is +0.19 °C/decade (+0.34 °F/decade) and has changed little during this period. By continuing this trend, we can make a rough guess of how the near-future climate may develop if the forces driving global warming continue at their present rate.
    HC4 = Hadley Crut version 4.


    The chart itself says data is from the MET OFFICE!

    The article link also shows the source of data from CO2 and temperature data that makes up the chart you never clicked on, and the information was at the bottom of the post:


    Note: Plots, temperature change and 36-month average calculations done with Excel. Sources: global HadCrut dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset
    You claimed you read the post......., suuuuure!

    Your evasive replies are getting tedious since you completely ignored the rate of change evidence presented, that the rate of warming has been decreasing since 1998, this despite the onward upward CO2 increase in the atmosphere.


    The Berkeley chart is garbage (Anomaly baseline is 1850-1900, this is statistical CRAP!, bwahahahahahahaha), it has eliminated the well known significant cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's, GISS did the same thing too, you are so far behind on the well known data manipulation exposes.
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  3. #23
    Points: 7,659, Level: 20
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 91
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    934
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,142
    Points
    7,659
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,491
    Thanked 924x in 547 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Berkeley chart is a lie as clearly shown here:

    Real Climate Science

    GHCN V4 Data Show That ONLY 277 Stations Have Temperature Data Since 1880
    Posted on September 19, 2020 by Kirye

    Excerpt:


    Hi, everyone.

    Almost certainly you’ve seen the temperature charts put out by government agencies like NASA and NOAA going back to about 1880 and often shown by our mainstream media.

    However, as some climate realists include Tony, Mr. Joseph D’Aleo and Mr. Anthony Watts have already explained, humans don’t have enough thermometer data to truly estimate the Earth’s temperature change since 1880.

    I tweeted about this, and again let me show you the map from NASA’s website.


    LINK


    =====

    See how large areas of the world had ZERO temperature data in it?

    Berkeley chart states:


    Global Temperature Anomalies relative to 1850-1900 average

    Large areas of the planet had no coverage at all between 1850-1900.


    They also cancelled out the well known global cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's. This is why I NEVER use Berkeley or PISS (GISS) temperature data, anywhere, as it is a lie.


    Perfect example of Junk Science in action.



    Last edited by Sunsettommy; 09-25-2020 at 01:01 PM.
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Sunsettommy For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-25-2020)

  5. #24
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    HC4 = Hadley Crut version 4.


    The chart itself says data is from the MET OFFICE!

    The article link also shows the source of data from CO2 and temperature data that makes up the chart you never clicked on, and the information was at the bottom of the post:




    You claimed you read the post......., suuuuure!

    Your evasive replies are getting tedious since you completely ignored the rate of change evidence presented, that the rate of warming has been decreasing since 1998, this despite the onward upward CO2 increase in the atmosphere.


    The Berkeley chart is garbage (Anomaly baseline is 1850-1900, this is statistical CRAP!, bwahahahahahahaha), it has eliminated the well known significant cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's, GISS did the same thing too, you are so far behind on the well known data manipulation exposes.
    Your graph of global temperature processed the data in a way that I don't understand. It miss represents reality. A strong El Nino occurred in 1998 which was relative peak in global temperature and El Nino's are always followed by a temp. drop.
    Another El Nino occurred in 2016.


    HadCRUT surface record of recent global air temperature change

    https://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTe...0an%20overview



    Global monthly average surface air temperature since 1979 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The thin line represents the monthly values, while the thick line is the simple running 37 month average, nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average. An introduction to the dataset has been published by Brohan et al. (2005). Lower down the present page you will find a graph showing the entire series since 1850. Base period: 1961-1990. Last month shown: July 2020. Last diagram update: 2 September 2020.



    From the same site, Annual surface air temperatures global (notice approximately 0.95 degree Celsius temp. rise from 1970 to 2020)



    Anomalies of global annual surface air temperature (MAAT) since 1850 according to Hadley CRUT, a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK. The average
    for 1979-2008 (30 yrs) has been set to zero, to make comparison with other temperature data series (above and below) easy. Last year shown: 2019. Last figure update: 24 January 2020.


    From Met Office Hadley Center Data Sets
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...ing/index.html



    The black line shows the global annual average near-surface temperature anomalies since 1850 from the HadCRUT4 dataset (data here in this format). The grey area shows the 95% confidence range on the annual averages. Anomalies are defined relative to the 1961-1990 average.
    Land-surface air temperature




    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-25-2020 at 07:22 PM.

  6. #25
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What does this statement from the link mean? I think this is a comparison between the dark blue (180 month) graph's beginning and ending where there is only a 0.02 degree C. temperature difference.

    "For example, the chart's 15-year temperature change ending June 2020 is almost identical to the 15-year temperature change ending June 1988. Respectively, those changes were +0.13°C and +0.11°C." - from link

    How is the 15-year temperature change graph determined from the data? It appears that the average vertical height of the graph is equal to the temperature change over a 15 year period

    which is the baseline and that there are temperature fluctuations superimposed on that baseline. So, the baseline or vertical height would have to added to the temperature fluctuations

    in order to get the magnitude of the temperature change equal to 15 years if the 180 month graph is used. I have never seen anything like this before and it looks like it is an intentional

    effort to fool the reader. You can look at the 36 month smoothing curves and get an idea of what the baseline would be. It increases as the graph period increases. In the 15 year or 180 month

    case the baseline appears to be around 0.28 degrees C.






    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-25-2020 at 10:59 PM.

  7. #26
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This graph is from Skeptical Science, "Why did climate cool in the mid-20th Century?"

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

    The dominant climate forcings from 1940 to 1960 are well-mixed greenhouse gases, reflective tropospheric aerosols, and the aerosol indirect effect which means the effect that tropospheric

    aerosols, acrting as cloud condensing nuclei, have on cloud formation. They increase reflective cloud cover. The increase in greenhouse gas forcing was much lower than the time period after

    1960. After 1960, volcanic eruptions released stratospheric aerosols which had a strong cooling effect on the surface of the earth. The net radiative forcing was very low, below 0.5 watts/meter

    from 1940 to 1975, and strongly negative because of volcanic aerosols in the early 1960's. The net radiative forcing rose rapidly after 1975 and that corresponds to a more rapid rise in GMT. It

    is a mistake to think that carbon dioxide and temperature should be strongly correlated during all of the 20th century. The last graph shows that all datasets give very similar results.





    Figure 2: Separate global climate forcings relative to their 1880 values (image courtesy NASA GISS)


    ...

    Figure 3: Net forcing (Blue - NASA GISS) versus global land ocean temperature anomaly (Red - GISS Temp).


    From Skeptical Science: When all the forcings are combined, the net forcing shows good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940. This is thought to be due to a warming bias introduced by US ships measuring engine intake temperature.


    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-26-2020 at 04:43 AM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to skepticalmike For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-26-2020)

  9. #27
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    The Berkeley chart is a lie as clearly shown here:

    Real Climate Science

    GHCN V4 Data Show That ONLY 277 Stations Have Temperature Data Since 1880
    Posted on September 19, 2020 by Kirye

    Excerpt:


    Hi, everyone.

    Almost certainly you’ve seen the temperature charts put out by government agencies like NASA and NOAA going back to about 1880 and often shown by our mainstream media.

    However, as some climate realists include Tony, Mr. Joseph D’Aleo and Mr. Anthony Watts have already explained, humans don’t have enough thermometer data to truly estimate the Earth’s temperature change since 1880.

    I tweeted about this, and again let me show you the map from NASA’s website.


    LINK


    =====

    See how large areas of the world had ZERO temperature data in it?

    Berkeley chart states:





    Large areas of the planet had no coverage at all between 1850-1900.


    They also cancelled out the well known global cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's. This is why I NEVER use Berkeley or PISS (GISS) temperature data, anywhere, as it is a lie.


    Perfect example of Junk Science in action.



    All of the land-ocean surface temperature data sets are in close agreement on the global climate over the past 100 years. The troposphere is warming and the oceans are warming. The oceans absorb

    a little over 90% of the planetary energy imbalance and have absorbed between 0.55 and 0.79 watts per square meter from 1993 to 2019. Sea levels are rising and the rising is accelerating. Both

    Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an accelerating rate - 6 times faster than the 1990's. There is 1 major cause for this and it is rising levels of greenhouse gases.

    Is it reasonable to believe that there aren't enough thermometers to measure the change in global mean temperature when these data sets agree? Most data sets have around 7000 stations

    and Berkeley has about 5 times that number. Slight differences among data sets doesn't change the big picture.

  10. #28
    Points: 8,447, Level: 21
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 3
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    barb012's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1469
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,909
    Points
    8,447
    Level
    21
    Thanks Given
    1,156
    Thanked 1,459x in 906 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    May I see the charts since life began? Obviously not since Humans have not been very long. All these charts, temperature reading mean nothing if we cannot compare it to the past.

    This whole scam of climate change is a means to steal your money, reduce our use of energy except of course the government and wealthy people.

  11. #29
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,983, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 92.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496539
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,676
    Points
    858,983
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,212
    Thanked 147,549x in 94,400 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Midlatitude glaciers are growing or holding steady. They have been since the 1960s.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  12. #30
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Midlatitude glaciers are growing or holding steady. They have been since the 1960s.
    I don't believe that is true.

    This is from Wikipedia, Retreat of glaciers since 1850

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrea...ers_since_1850

    Middle Latitude Glaciers

    All are located in mountain ranges, notably the Himalayas; the Alps; the Pyrenees; Rocky Mountains; the Caucasus and Pacific Coast Ranges of North America; the Patagonian Andes in South America; and mountain ranges in New Zealand.[13] Glaciers in these latitudes are more widespread and tend to be greater in mass the closer they are to the polar regions. They are the most widely studied over the past 150 years. As with examples located in the tropical zone, virtually all the glaciers in the mid-latitudes are in a state of negative mass balance and are retreating[10] with some, such as some or all glaciers in Turkey,[14] possibly disappearing completely.[15]


    Areas in red and yellow show glacier thinning.


    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-27-2020 at 05:45 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts