Forums

A 25 year climate change investigation, now concludes, The Missing Link, in fact proves Trump to be correct.

A 25 year climate change investigation, now concludes, The Missing Link, in fact proves Trump to be correct.

Cosmic radiation, sun activity, combined, and we are now heading for anohter "little ice age" (a new 200 year cooling cycle), due to the fact the Sun is now in a cooling mode, and increasing !

Henning Svendsmark, with reference to "Nature Communications", Paal Brekke CERN.

SCCRENDO | January 1, 2018
KP in NPT | January 2, 2018

God.

Remnant | January 2, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 1, 2018)

<< Pretty much debunked >>

Not "debunked", just "debated" or "controverted."

A more serious objection against AGW is that a Random-Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature anomaly data fails to support an upward trend or a lack thereof.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/01/
analysis-says-noaa-global-temperature-data-doesnt-constitute-a-smoking-gun-for-global-warming/

In other words, AGW lacks factual support. It's a figment.

SCCRENDO | January 2, 2018

Mikhail Voloshin may be a quantum physicist but that dos not give him the right to make unsubstantiated statements. The Graph he shows has been demonstrated to have a statistical correlation and fit with CO2 changes. This guy just puts out a frank denial without showing his own statistics or showing why the NOAA statistical analysis is wrong. What's up with Whatsupwithat continuing to post fraudulent drivel.

science-isbetter | January 2, 2018

"Proves Trump is right."

What...that it's a Chinese hoax?

Remnant | January 3, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 2, 2018)

<< Mikhail Voloshin may be a quantum physicist but that dos not give him the right to make unsubstantiated statements. >>

Unsubstantiated ... ?!

That's the very contents of Voloshin's AGW Data Analysis. He demonstrates that there's no GW in AGW. In other words, GW is unsubstantiated, whence the A in AGW is immaterial.

It's true that that fact takes the mantle of legitimacy off the AGW cause, invalidates its claims of urgency, and makes its Apocalyptic warnings pointless, but those are effects, not the purpose of Voloshin's Data Analysis.

At the same time, such Analysis is REQUIRED, whence it's fully substantiated, by the scientific method.

Worse yet, Voloshin's Analysis dramatically exposes the poor scientific foundation of the AGW doctrines.

2018wesm | January 3, 2018

how can a flaming ball of gas go into a "cooling mode" exactly? I'm confused

SCCRENDO | January 3, 2018

@Remannt. Did you read any of it? He provides no evidence to refute the well documented NOAA data which is supported statistically

Remnant | January 3, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 3, 2018)

<< He provides no evidence to refute the well documented NOAA data which is supported statistically >>

There's no need for new evidence if you just re-Process existing NOAA Data. Voloshin does demonstrate that NOAA's statistics cannot support the warming claim.

SCCRENDO | January 3, 2018

@Remnant. Please show me where he does??

Remnant | January 4, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 3, 2018)

<< Please show me where he does?? >>

Look SaSoT, don't try to fudge the task. If you are honest in the least, you have to read the article. You have to mend your understanding of science, which should include proper Data Processing, though it does not at this time.

Stop pretending you're a scientist and learn the basics at least. It wouldn't make sense for me to copy and paste whole sections of the article for you. Just read and try to grasp the material. Here is the reference again:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/01/
analysis-says-noaa-global-temperature-data-doesnt-constitute-a-smoking-gun-for-global-warming/

SCCRENDO | January 4, 2018

@Remnant. This will explain to you the dishonesty of your link
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20...

Remnant | January 4, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 4, 2018)

<< @Remnant. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20... will explain to you the dishonesty of your link >>

How could it do that, without referencing it or its subject matter ... ???!

KP in NPT | January 4, 2018

The OP, likely a bot, has not returned. But he sure got people going.

SCCRENDO | January 4, 2018

@Remnant. Did you read both articles. The main criticism from Voloshin was that the data was adjusted. My link explains the reason for the adjustment which is quite valid. But indeed if you want to take out the adjustment it actually makes it more significant. Go back and read Voloshin's argument and then read the link I posted.
Here is a more detailed explanation for you
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitori...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global...
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

Remnant | January 5, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 4, 2018)

<< The main criticism from Voloshin was that the data was adjusted. >>

Not even close, SaSoT ... !!!

Voloshin's main criticism is NOAA Data's failure to separate the claimed warming trend from RANDOM results.

NOAA failed even to report error bars for its data! This should have triggered 1K alarms in the mind of any honest investigator.

Let 's recall Voloshin's title, "Random Walk analysis of NOAA global temperature anomaly data"

SaSoT, you're frightfully unprepared to discuss SCIENCE ... !!!!!!!!!!!

SCCRENDO | January 5, 2018

@Remnant. They are adjusted but for good reason. This link will explain it to you. Read the whole thing but the answer will be in point 7. This discusses why they need to use anomalies
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

This link will explain how they obtain temps
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-t...

georgehawley.fl.us | January 5, 2018

Donald Trunp, the climate scientist. LMAO.

Remnant | January 5, 2018

@georgehawley.fl.us (January 5, 2018)

<< ... LMAO >>

George, it's touching to see you admitting there's no difference between your ass and your mouth.

Do you happen to hold a brain somewhere?

That would be even more touching, albeit surprising!

SCCRENDO | January 5, 2018

@Remant. George has a very good brain. And it is complete. Not a mere remnant.

science-isbetter | January 6, 2018

Reposted here from a different, but similar thread.

Politicization of explainable events at the expense of science bodes ill. Leads to witch trials, racial stereotyping, ethnic cleansing and a fundamental brake on progress.

As just one example, you don't have to go very far back in time to see financial interests distort the benefits of Nikola Tesla's alternating current inventions. Eventually science won out because rational people continued to fight the good fight.

pagrimm1 | January 21, 2018

Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Left leaning basis.

pagrimm1 | January 21, 2018

Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Left leaning basis.

SCCRENDO | January 21, 2018

@pagrimm1. I guess you only trust Faux-News and Breitbart. I myself prefer credible sources.

dhcruz | January 21, 2018

Yes that proves that Trump is the missing link. Apologies to all Neanderthals and primates. SMH

paul | January 21, 2018

Most climate scientists agree the AGW is real and happening.
(the actual number is complex... see here if you want to know more:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-15/97-percent-consensus-...)

Deniers keep finding articles like the one that started this thread, and wanting to use them to show that GW is
wrong, or not caused by humans, or show we are going to start global cooling any moment now...

I can't dig into the detail of the article every time - that's not my area of expertise. However, its *just one article* and by itself proves *nothing*. Look at the consensus of the experts, at the meta studies, and the IPCC reports.

Especially have a read of this article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientif...) which focuses on trying to quantify the number of research papers that either support or reject AGW (spoiler - its 97.2% for).

FREE ENERGY | January 23, 2018

"Most climate scientists agree the AGW is real and happening."

WRONG, the "agreement" are based about CONCENSUS...hands sup .........

Cosmic radiation > never ever heard about "the little garage" during the 13-1400

SCCRENDO | January 23, 2018

@free energy. What do think consensus is???
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus

Explain to me what industries impacted climate change in the 13-1400s. The climate has been heating up since the industrial revolution. The more fossil fuel that we burn the higher the CO2, the warmer the planet!!!!

Remnant | January 23, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 5, 2018)

<< George has a very good brain. >>

If true, he's misusing it for nefarious purposes.

SCCRENDO | January 23, 2018

@Remnant. I guess George could accuse you of that as well but alas all you have is a mere remnant

Remnant | January 26, 2018

@SCCRENDO (January 23, 2018)

<< ... alas all you have is a mere [brain] remnant >>

SaSoT, your defective anti-Trump, pro-HRC Cartel, world view has been put to shame. Whether George reflects this is immaterial. What you need to take away from the recent Trump events is that the doctrinaire "Never-Trump" identity politics has flat-lined.

This was already apparent in President Trump's Warsaw & Far-East reception and speeches, but, if you still entertain any doubts, the colossal Davos success of Trump's appearances should expedite your philosophy's trip to the trash bin.

El Mirio | January 26, 2018

@Remnant you are right, it did flat line and other nations are embracing the new realities. Trump brought the rest of the world closer together, that is in fact a great accomplishment. Not sure if intended tho.

Remnant | February 3, 2018

@El Mirio (January 26, 2018)

<< Trump brought the rest of the world closer together, that is in fact a great accomplishment. Not sure if intended tho. >>

Yes, it is. And fully intended and pursued to completion.

The publication of the FISA Memorandum has been another decisive step in that direction and towards the dismantling of the Deep State.

It should be clear that the next step should be the termination of the Mueller Counsel, which lacks the criminal predicate required to exist and which otherwise is just a farcical exercise of abuse of power and a witch hunt.

SCCRENDO | February 4, 2018

@Remnant. What does a FISA warrant used to investigate Carter page have to do with the Mueller investigation? Do you have a copy of the FISA warrant to know there was a problem with it? Why was it renewed 3 times if there was knots anything there? Don’t you know that the whole Russia investigation was opened up by a drunk Papadopolous shooting off his mouth to an Australian diplomat? Did nobody tell you that Mueller has 2 indictments and 2 plea bargains so far? Why would Republican Trump appointees, Rosenstein, Wray and even Sessions be part of a Democratic-Clinton conspiracy? Your logical thought processes seem challenged.

jvs11560 | February 4, 2018

To me, science is exact, presise, and consistent. Case in point, water will freeze at 32 degree F. Water will boil at 212 degress F. No one can ague with that. Climatetologists are not scientists. This is a relatively new profession. They are wrong most of the time. In fact, most seven day forecasts by meteorologists are more accuarate than 90% of all the climate models.

Let's face it, the climate changes. Always has, and always will. Everyday, since records have been collected, there is a new record high temp and a new record low temp recorded. Everey year there are areas with new rainfall totals that broke the old record. It is the way it is. Long Island was once part of Connecticut. Thousands of years ago the entire eastern half of the United States was covered by a glacier. It was below frezing 365 days a year. For reasons unknow, the glacier melted and we now have 4 seasons. That was before we started burning coal, before Ford had a V8 engine, or any oil burning powerplants. My point is that everyone should put the whole climate issue in perspective. Afterall, we do exhale CO2. Should we get rid of 50% of the people?

In closing we should all do what we can to make our earth a cleaner and better place. I belive the future is hydrogen. It's clean, abundant, and water vapor is the by product of burning it. It is the ultimate recycling fuel.

How do gas operated flame throwers help us get to a sustainable futuyre?

SCCRENDO | February 4, 2018

@jvs11560. You are wrong on many counts. You are building many strawmen to bolster your incorrect conclusions
1. Science is not always exact perceive and consistent and is deopendent on the quality of the data and should be interpreted in that light. We know the freezing and boiling points of water but other things are not necessarily as exact
2. 7 day weather forecasts have nothing to do with climate change and it is no surprise that it is not reliable when non scientific people like weatherman-Mitch do the forecasting.
3. Yes the climate is almost changing but the planet is presently heating up as a result of greenhouse gases and the science is excellent in support of this.
4. Ignorant people and climate change deniers don’t know the reasons why glaciers are melting

I recommend you educate yourself before giving ignorant substantiated pronouncements that are completely wrong.

rxlawdude | February 4, 2018

@jvs, I promise someone living at 8,000ft ASL would argue that water boils at less than 212F.

SCCRENDO | February 4, 2018

@rxlawdude. I didn’t want to confuse the poor fellow anymore. Indeed the freezing and boiling points do change according to altitude and solute concentration. But these can be calculated exactly with the facts and formulae. So this would be the part of science that is pretty exact. @weatherman_Mitch skipped the science part at Texas A&M yet still does weather. He is still obviously using science he does not understand so perhaps not so exact.
@jvs must have skipped his science courses as well but probably scored Cs in his fictional literature classes.

MitchP85D | February 4, 2018

Captain Planet, the reason why glaciers melt is because of Interglacial Periods that last about 10-15 thousand years. Sea levels rise during the Interglacial Periods and fall during he Glacial ones. Thank your lucky stars we are living in a nice, mild Interglacial Period. Sea levels fall during the Glacial Periods because water evaporates from the oceans and fall as snow over the continents. The snow builds up and compresses into glacial ice. Water continues to evaporate from the oceans over about a 100,000 year period while being retained over the continents. This is why the sea level falls. As the earth warms during the nice Interglacial Periods, the glacial ice over the continents melt and flow back into the oceans, thus raising the sea level. Most of the sea level rise has already occurred during our current Interglacial Period. We are now waiting on the next Glacial Period which is a few thousand years away.

SCCRENDO | February 5, 2018

@Weatherman_Mitch. Except for the fact that interposed on this because of burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels are rising higher than they been since the existence of Homo sapiens, temperatures are rising and ice is melting, so sea levels are rising. This is all superimposed on the natural cycling. And if you knew some science you would realize that this is not good.

MitchP85D | February 5, 2018

Insignificant Captain Planet. If the runaway positive feedback effect from CO2 was real, the earth would have burnt to a crisp already! The CO2 experiment has already been done. Dr. Roger Revelle was already considering shortly before his death that increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere may have more benefits than harm.

Revelle, by the way, was instrumental in developing the theory of human-caused global warming. In fact, he was the college professor who inspired Al Gore to go on his ill-founded campaign to capitalize off of eco-alarmism!

SCCRENDO | February 5, 2018

@Strawman_Mitch. Nobody is claiming that the earth will be burnt to a crisp. However the amount of temp rise will still cause irreversible harm. Educate yourself man

Uncle Paul | February 5, 2018

It does not matter who is right. All that matters is what actions are being taken.

The earth is constantly heating and cooling. Trends are hard to predict because most are interested in what changes are happening to them, in their local.

A guy in the Carribean does not worry so much about what is happening to Polar Bears, and a guy in Nome does not concern him with Typhoons, but each are clues to climate change.

Everybody worries about the climate change that will effect them. Most people can adapt pretty quickly to any climate changes. Put on a sweater, move away from the coast line, slather on the Sunscreen etc.

Some look at CO2 percentages and predict disaster, others realize it will just make plants grow faster, healthier and produce more Oxygen.

Best solution is for every concerned citizen to minimize their negative impacts on the planet, but resist telling other people what to do. Nobody likes being told what to do, and especially from people with different beliefs than them.

To thine own selfe be true.

Our world is a spectacular place that should be enjoyed every day. Worrying so much about the future can ruin that.

SCCRENDO | February 5, 2018

@uncle paul. You are also an ignorant climate change denier. Some such as knowledgeable scientists understand climate change whereas others like yourself are either completely ignorant or are climate change deniers with an agenda. There is no equivalence here. Let's be clear that the harmful effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas will far exceed any minimal benefit to plant growth. And indeed the guy in the Carribean Island such as Puerto Rico will be affected by climate change.

As for your "let them eat cake comment" that those at sea level can just move. Just tell Welfare_MItch that he lives in a flood zone and should move rather than sucking welfare cheese from FEMA

Remnant | February 8, 2018

@SCCRENDO (February 5, 2018)

<< Let's be clear that the harmful effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas will far exceed any minimal benefit to plant growth. >>

But plants also consume CO2, SaSoT.

Why don't you propose a reforestation program?

SCCRENDO | February 8, 2018

@Remnant. We do propose reforestation and also strongly discourage deforestation. Yes deforestation does remove a source for CO2 removal. This is all part of the climate change problem. Perhaps if you started to educate yourself on climate change (instead of your uneducated denial) you would understand these things. Unfortunately even with a cooperative world we cannot plant enough trees to overcome the production of CO2 through fossil fuel burning. But we would encourage you to fight deforestation and assist the world with tree planting.

Remnant | February 10, 2018

@SCCRENDO (February 8, 2018)

<< Perhaps if you started to educate yourself on climate change (instead of your uneducated denial) you would understand these things. >>

Why don't you educate yourself, SaSoT?

Start with the basics:

What is the "global average temperature" (GAT), other than a dangerous, unsubstantiated figment?

And how do you measure the darn' thing ... ??????????

Can you homologate the temperature data from Accra with those from Delhi or Brisbane, or Paris, or Capetown, or Reykjavik?

Are the instruments the same? Are the times of the day the same? How would you correct for altitude, or latitude, or attitude?

You are so full of it, SaSoT ... !!!!!!!!!!!!

SCCRENDO | February 10, 2018

@Remnant. I thought we were talking about CO2. But if you are back to your temperature measurements you should look at the other thread. I guess the scientists realize that temps differ in Cape Town, Brisbane and Delhi. So thats why they use the temperature anomaly that you are trying to trash, And indeed it is very reliable. Seriously Remnant. Did you even do high school science. Because either you are too uneducated, too unwilling or too stupid to educate yourself. Try this link. I am convinced it is simple enough for you to understand
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Remnant | February 11, 2018

@SCCRENDO (February 10, 2018)

<< ... either you are too uneducated, too unwilling or too stupid to educate yourself. >>

Once again, you pontificate in the name of an alleged science you misstate, misinterpret, misunderstand, and misuse, subordinating it to service a cause that only feeds your ego and an Apocalyptic faith, thoroughly opposed to even elementary scientific principles.

To top this off, you parade credentials you don't have in order to challenge my alleged lack of credentials that I've never proffered. Note that anyone who resorts to credential comparisons blatantly illustrates an attempt to close the debate by denying the contributions of the participants whose contributions they cannot handle. In so doing, you are dishonest and intellectually impaired.

To the subject matter though, you fail to concede that Mikhail Voloshin effectively debunked NOAA and GISTEMP climate data processing. But if you want to address the basic argument of inadequate temperature measurement and conceptualization, it is sufficient to notice that the very concept of "average global temperatures" is falsified by the current state of knowledge

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now

Here is the pertinent quote from that article:

"Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:

– NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
– NOAA National Climatic Data Center
– UK Met Office Hadley Centre

The important point is that the trends that emerge from year to year and decade to decade are remarkably similar—more so than the averages themselves. This is why global warming is usually described in terms of anomalies (variations above and below the average for a baseline set of years) rather than in absolute temperature."

SCCRENDO | February 11, 2018

@Remnant. Yes we are reading the same thing. But isn’t that the point. We know that there are different methodologies between the group and that is why they don’t just pick one group or just average the groups. You are trying to make out that they use an unreliable methodology by getting measurements from these groups. Howver that is why they use the temperature anomaly. And I have attached enough links showing you that the temperature anomaly is very reliable.You are trying to make out that using the temperature anomaly is a bad thing, But indeed it is a good thing. Because it is reliable.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanc...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-t...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

I am not trying to close the debate because of your lack of credentials. But you seem incapable of understanding simple papers which explain the situation very clearly. That you fail to discuss your scientific credentials forces us to judge you by the quality of your scientifc literacy. And in my opinion someone with basic high school science has better scientific comprehension than you. Many others on these forums would share my conclusions.

Pages