ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
so you got nothing then?
Climate Change? Of course. Which way?
- Thread starter Doer
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/
cant find any peer review in that one
waded thru some pages yet finding it very sparse on details care to recap
/
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well a couple things, I'm always will to discuss rationally.
40 year data set is a eye blink in Climate Science.
The extrapolation line in Red is false.
The Blue lines show a distinct slowing of the rate.
A true extrapolation will show that Red line producing a distinct flattening out (inconvenient)
I no more trust skeptical science blogs than I trust NASA on this. It is obvious to me this is a cover-up.
The graph you provide is worthless and only proves one thing. The foregone conclusion. The smug to glug.
Why do you care if I don't fall for it? Because it is political agenda. And the nature of agenda is right-fight.
40 year data set is a eye blink in Climate Science.
The extrapolation line in Red is false.
The Blue lines show a distinct slowing of the rate.
A true extrapolation will show that Red line producing a distinct flattening out (inconvenient)
I no more trust skeptical science blogs than I trust NASA on this. It is obvious to me this is a cover-up.
The graph you provide is worthless and only proves one thing. The foregone conclusion. The smug to glug.
Why do you care if I don't fall for it? Because it is political agenda. And the nature of agenda is right-fight.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
ok then lets see your sources so we can get this discussion going....
you know like show your work
you might be a conspiracy theorist dullard but your paranoia alone does not make it true
reality cares not your belief
Doer
Well-Known Member
Another 30 year, and not contiguous data, thus another sparse set.
Please read what the Berkley report has to say about these worthless data sets.
And I have shown an entire Cloud Conference of peer review presentation.
You don't understand the Science and you won't say what is your background.
Science has shown through observation that we are in a warming trend over the last 30-40 years. But, I also posted early on, some longer term periodicities. those data show that these sparse sets are not enough to say anything outside of Political Guilt/Fear/Power agenda.
Please read what the Berkley report has to say about these worthless data sets.
And I have shown an entire Cloud Conference of peer review presentation.
You don't understand the Science and you won't say what is your background.
Science has shown through observation that we are in a warming trend over the last 30-40 years. But, I also posted early on, some longer term periodicities. those data show that these sparse sets are not enough to say anything outside of Political Guilt/Fear/Power agenda.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
i have..
i have also see the results of the berkley report and guess what they match all the other models
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
the lead auther now agrees that AGW is the driving force in climate at present
his data shows the same thing
so what am i supposed to be looking for?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Closed loop feedback with Cloud Effect on Surface Temps. 100 years. The Royal Navy goes back another 300 years and shows the same flat temp over time. Pure mitigation of surface temp by the extra albedo produced when temps rise.
Sure the Berkeley Report seems supportive if you don't read past wikipedia and the popular sources. Mostly, however, the BEST study does not support AGW.
BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming.
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon.
Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information...
" We can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions."
Here's what the leader said, "
BEST founder Richard A. Muller told The Guardian "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," "...we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]
The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)[4], and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]
It actually was un-biased but that that didn't stop the power mongers from spinning it for their purpose.
See the current wikipedia for BEST and ask yourself. Does it mention this? No.
- BEST results show little, if any, warming over recent years
- BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
- BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
- BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
- BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
- BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
link for the chart what paper did it come from??
you said you have a degree in physics why are you quoting wikipedia on this can you not goto the papers themselves?
EDIT PS I took the charts straight from berkleys OWN SITE
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
yeah right back at you...
but please have you got a link to which paper that chart came from
we're all big boys here instead of linking to "wiki" lets have a look at the papers themselves?
i linked to berkleys site wouldnt the relevant data be there?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Doer, some of the best discussions are driven by animosity. Humans are creatures of passion. It motivates us.
But reading "I don't want to" as "I can't, but won't say so" is a valid objection imo. The supreme defense is to prove your opponent wrong, not merely declare it. Jmo. cn
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
so you have nothing of substance and cry like a baby when asked for evidence
is my job here done?
Doer
Well-Known Member
you don't have a job here, your mommy does about your low self esteem and trollishness
The lazy would rather disrupt or dismiss than do the research themselves. I'm disussing climate, not proving or disproving or whatever else a particular toad stool, might think.
Pacific Decadal Oscilliation
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Atlantic Decadal Oscilliaton
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Lee_Wang_JPO.pdf
The main conclusion of this study is that the equatorial
atmosphere–ocean can be affected by the extratropical
forcing through the atmosphere–ocean coupling
(both thermal and dynamic) and that the ocean
dynamics plays a crucial role in bridging the dipole oscillation
and the equatorial system.
But, this is for the serious types that are not closed minded.
Wang mentions negative feedback due to depth mixing, but cannot conclude if cross-equitorial factors are in play.
Really we should be studying the various periods, solar, ocean, atmosphere, ice and land before we jump to conclusion.
We don't know the cycles or the feedbacks that control them.
The lazy would rather disrupt or dismiss than do the research themselves. I'm disussing climate, not proving or disproving or whatever else a particular toad stool, might think.
Pacific Decadal Oscilliation
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Atlantic Decadal Oscilliaton
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Lee_Wang_JPO.pdf
The main conclusion of this study is that the equatorial
atmosphere–ocean can be affected by the extratropical
forcing through the atmosphere–ocean coupling
(both thermal and dynamic) and that the ocean
dynamics plays a crucial role in bridging the dipole oscillation
and the equatorial system.
But, this is for the serious types that are not closed minded.
Wang mentions negative feedback due to depth mixing, but cannot conclude if cross-equitorial factors are in play.
Really we should be studying the various periods, solar, ocean, atmosphere, ice and land before we jump to conclusion.
We don't know the cycles or the feedbacks that control them.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lets take this one step at a time cause your obviously getting cranky at the "hard stuff"
where did you get this picture from? which study does it come from?
Doer
Well-Known Member
You guys are just blowing smoke. Try inhaling and holding for a 10 count first. 
Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research?
This says the opposite.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.
"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."
So, Harris-Mann guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point.
Earth Temperature back to 2200 BCE
Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research?
This says the opposite.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.
"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."
So, Harris-Mann guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point.
Earth Temperature back to 2200 BCE
Doer
Well-Known Member
You guys are just blowing smoke. Smug canndo says the heating is unabated. Why do you make me do the research.
This says the opposite.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.
"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankinds activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the Urban Heat Island Effect, are making conditions worse and this will ultimately enhance the Earths warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."
So, Harris-Mann this guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point.
View attachment 2375724
This says the opposite.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
You deniers of Cloud Effect are just not looking because of Idealogical fear. OK, this paper does make the assumed, unabashed top cover statement. I stipulate.
"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankinds activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the Urban Heat Island Effect, are making conditions worse and this will ultimately enhance the Earths warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."
So, Harris-Mann this guys are still singing the political tune as we see in so many of these articles. But, editorial ruse is not my point.
View attachment 2375724