100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

[Curious Cdn]

Waaaa . How to hit the troll below the belt > insult his father . Waaa And a shot at his age always brings a quick response .

Seriously, buddy. Do you ever read what you post? You're subnormal, by any measure that I'm aware of.

 

[Bar Sinister]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08...ing-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/

How does the earth gain both land and water increases? Because of this thing called "glacial rebound". The earth is actually growing slightly in diameter with the loss of the huge loads of water on the continental shelves.

Of course there is a limit to this but that limit hasn't been reached yet and this latested warm period is near it's end. So we are likely to see the end of the melting of the lower latitude glaciers and a halt to sea level growth.

We have seen theories that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't caused by the Milankovitch Cycles but from a very large volcanic eruption in Indonesia I think. Surely there are geological markers of that. But that is probably not the reason because it wouldn't answer why the extremely complex climactic patterns over time that are also marked in our geology.

CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas in the manner in which it has been portrayed. It probably does have this effect at concentrations below a quarter of what they are now. But CO2 quickly reaches saturation with the available energy from the Sun since the absorption lines are so narrow and in areas where there really aren't much energy available.

Here is a reasonably simple article on what is going on. Fudge Factor.


Your father was there 65 years ago and little atolls disappeared. Aren't you the one that was telling me that I had to have the highest quality sources? But YOUR FATHER who is probably dead or senile now is YOUR source?

I was working at Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories while you were in diapers. Exactly what scientific credentials do you have?

You are still being taken in by pseudo-scientific garbage that no climatologist accepts. And you continue to ignore these salient facts - The last three decades are the warmest in recorded history
Glaciers are in retreat worldwide
The Arctic Ocean no longer freezes over in winter
Vast subterranean rivers are eroding the Greenland ice sheet
Huge chunks of Antarctica are close to breaking off the continent

BTW glacial rebound has nothing to do with climate, other than the fact that the land is no longer being held down by ice. And volcanoes tend to cool the planet not warm it.

 

[Wake]

I was working at Sandia National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories...

I'm sure that you kept their toilets sparkly shiny


...while you were in diapers.

Well, I'll be 61 in a few months, which puts you somewhere in your eighties. That, of course, is not a crime but it begs the question of whether you are fully compos mentis at this point in your life .. sufficiently so to weigh in on complex questions such as how human activities affect the climate. You would have been educated primarily in the 1940s, before powerful enough computers were available to model the atmosphere or before mathmaticians even dreamt of being able to model the planet's climate. You were already doing whatever scientific wonders you were doing (you were unspecific ... janitor in a facility that was making atom bombs?). You also predated the remote sensing revolution that gave us the ability to look at our planet in sufficient detail to observe it thawing out, warming up. Essentially, you are totally obsolete, maybe in the early or middle stages of dementia and no longer qualified to pee in a toilet, let alone comment on the most pressing crisis that the human race faces.

t YOUR FATHER who is probably dead or senile now

My father would turn 100 this year, if he were still alive. He was not the least bit senile when he died and I would advise you not to smart-a55 your betters, like that. All that I see in you is a phoney baloney, perhaps an obsolete and washed up octogenarian technician who was born in the Age of Steam and purports to know something about modern science. Perhaps, your just another snot-nosed Alt-Reich troll, spreading their poison in an internet forum and who, upon closer examination, is really not the sharpest pencil on the drafting board (did you use one of those?)

Another possibility is ... which oil company's communications department employs you, again? Big tobacco did things like that, all of the time, denying a cancer link to their products. No one seems to wonder if the oil companies are using the same, time honoured technique.

No I am not in my eighties but half way into my 70's. I have worked in research and development in virtually every scientific field for 50 of those.

I want you to understand that when I want to know what sort of qualifications you have it isn't to insult you. It is to actually get through to you that reading an article in Popular Science does NOT give you an education in a field. That "peer review" does NOT lend the least bit of authenticity to a research paper.

I have been there and I have had to shake entire groups of PhD's up because of the same lax attitude you have about "It must be true because it's from someone smarter than me".

The inability to maintain a skeptical point of view in every field of science is what breeds entire generations with totally wrong ideas about entire sciences.

The initial claim of 97% of all scientist believe in AGW was the DEAD giveaway that it was ALL BS. And research into that number turned out to show it to be one of the largest lies ever perpetrated upon the world.

Let me explain something to you - you are saying that the sea levels are rising. Are they? If MORE land is now on the globe than water has it? If you can go down to the docks in San Francisco and see the water level guide on the dock put there in the 1850's and high tide is no higher today than it was at that time would that bear any meaning to you?

If you DON'T know what climate is how can you tell me that it is changing? If you can go to the latest issue of the Smithsonian Institutes magazine and read an article on how conditions in Greenland were more moderate than today why would you say that we are warming and not in a natural climate cycle?

When you have been propagandized that CO2 is some sort of "greenhouse gas" when the effect of it is a 2 preceded by FIVE zeros percent how are you to know what you're talking about?

As for Volcanoes exactly why are you talking about their effect when you don't have the slightest idea WHAT they do? 25% of the exhaust from volcanoes is CO2 and there are some 500 known volcanoes on this earth that have erupted at some time in human history what does that tell us about you who are telling us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

You are not educated in real science and as far as I can make out the ONLY education you seek is anything that will back your OPINION. I suggest you either change that attitude or stop responding to things that you don't understand.

 

[EagleSmack]

No I am not in my eighties but half way into my 70's. I have worked in research and development in virtually every scientific field for 50 of those.

Don't sweat CuriousCdn. He's a poster child of everything that's wrong with the Canadian Education System.

Plus he's an old fake war hero. Just ask him about the sea battles he fought against the Soviet Navy during the 1970s off the Canadian coast.

 

[darkbeaver]

Waaaa . How to hit the troll below the belt > insult his father . Waaa And a shot at his age always brings a quick response .

Seriously, buddy. Do you ever read what you post? You're subnormal, by any measure that I'm aware of.

So your'e aware at a subnormal level as well.

 

[petros]

The initial claim of 97% of all scientist believe in AGW was the DEAD giveaway that it was ALL BS. And research into that number turned out to show it to be one of the largest lies ever perpetrated upon the world.

97% of 34%

 

[MHz]

97% of 34%

Thank you for adding that bit of clarity.

 

[Curious Cdn]

So your'e aware at a subnormal level as well.

You must know all about subnormal, living in South Pusskatwatty, N.S., where everyone is named "Mac".

No I am not in my eighties but half way into my 70's. I have worked in research and development in virtually every scientific field for 50 of those.

I want you to understand that when I want to know what sort of qualifications you have it isn't to insult you. It is to actually get through to you that reading an article in Popular Science does NOT give you an education in a field. That "peer review" does NOT lend the least bit of authenticity to a research paper.

I have been there and I have had to shake entire groups of PhD's up because of the same lax attitude you have about "It must be true because it's from someone smarter than me".

The inability to maintain a skeptical point of view in every field of science is what breeds entire generations with totally wrong ideas about entire sciences.

The initial claim of 97% of all scientist believe in AGW was the DEAD giveaway that it was ALL BS. And research into that number turned out to show it to be one of the largest lies ever perpetrated upon the world.

Let me explain something to you - you are saying that the sea levels are rising. Are they? If MORE land is now on the globe than water has it? If you can go down to the docks in San Francisco and see the water level guide on the dock put there in the 1850's and high tide is no higher today than it was at that time would that bear any meaning to you?

If you DON'T know what climate is how can you tell me that it is changing? If you can go to the latest issue of the Smithsonian Institutes magazine and read an article on how conditions in Greenland were more moderate than today why would you say that we are warming and not in a natural climate cycle?

When you have been propagandized that CO2 is some sort of "greenhouse gas" when the effect of it is a 2 preceded by FIVE zeros percent how are you to know what you're talking about?

As for Volcanoes exactly why are you talking about their effect when you don't have the slightest idea WHAT they do? 25% of the exhaust from volcanoes is CO2 and there are some 500 known volcanoes on this earth that have erupted at some time in human history what does that tell us about you who are telling us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

You are not educated in real science and as far as I can make out the ONLY education you seek is anything that will back your OPINION. I suggest you either change that attitude or stop responding to things that you don't understand.

You're in your seventies in a pig's eye. You have all the ageless wisdom of a Millenial.

Yet another Alt-Reich Troll on this board... They reproduce like marmots.

Okay, Mr.Science. Refer us to one of your peer-reviewed publications.

 

[Bar Sinister]

97% of 34%

Rubbish - that was an obviously contrived statistic based on a single meeting. There are tens of thousands of climatologists in the world and they are pretty much unified when it comes to global warming.

 

[DaSleeper]

Rubbish - that was an obviously contrived statistic based on a single meeting. There are tens of thousands of climatologists in the world and they are pretty much unified when it comes to global warming.

Broad statement with no bloody proof!

And the other guy says that all who don't believe in that religion are trolls .......ROFLMAO

 

[Wake]

You are still being taken in by pseudo-scientific garbage that no climatologist accepts. And you continue to ignore these salient facts - The last three decades are the warmest in recorded history
Glaciers are in retreat worldwide
The Arctic Ocean no longer freezes over in winter
Vast subterranean rivers are eroding the Greenland ice sheet
Huge chunks of Antarctica are close to breaking off the continent

BTW glacial rebound has nothing to do with climate, other than the fact that the land is no longer being held down by ice. And volcanoes tend to cool the planet not warm it.

Firstly, there has been no change in the MGT in the last 20 years. The BS they've been handing out is hundrdths of a degree when the limits of errors is a tenth of a degree. It always helps to be ready to lie about anything.

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ –

THE ARCTIC OCEAN NO LONGER FREEZES OVER???

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

Tell you what, I have a boat that you can buy from me.

Thank you for adding that bit of clarity.

Thank you for not reading - or not comprehending.

 

[Danbones]

...and some saltwater dockage in the Halliburton high lands

can't wait to be in ontario and on an ice free sea coast too

 

[Wake]

You must know all about subnormal, living in South Pusskatwatty, N.S., where everyone is named "Mac".


You're in your seventies in a pig's eye. You have all the ageless wisdom of a Millenial.

Yet another Alt-Reich Troll on this board... They reproduce like marmots.

Okay, Mr.Science. Refer us to one of your peer-reviewed publications.

One thing that stood out from your posting - you didn't volunteer any credentials and attempted to impune mine.

I'm a VFW from Vietnam and to see silly comments like yours does give me a giggle. You probably didn't even know that Canada had military troops in Vietnam. Were you of age you'd have been too busy hiding under your bed to protect the war.

Rubbish - that was an obviously contrived statistic based on a single meeting. There are tens of thousands of climatologists in the world and they are pretty much unified when it comes to global warming.

Why do you repeat utter rubbish because you WANT to be right and not have to work at being smart?

Climate Change: No, It

 

[Curious Cdn]

One thing that stood out from your posting - you didn't volunteer any credentials and attempted to impune mine.

I'm a VFW from Vietnam and to see silly comments like yours does give me a giggle. You probably didn't even know that Canada had military troops in Vietnam. Were you of age you'd have been too busy hiding under your bed to protect the war.


Why do you repeat utter rubbish because you WANT to be right and not have to work at being smart?

Climate Change: No, It

I don't lie and claim to be a scientist, as you do. Which oil company pays you to spread dis-information and confusion?


BTW, I remember both the ICC and the even more pathetic ICCS and I was in the Forces when the second lot were doing doodly-doo to stop the final conquest of the South. You really are a troll, dredging up something like that.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I'm a VFW from Vietnam and to see silly comments like yours does give me a giggle. You probably didn't even know that Canada had military troops in Vietnam. Were you of age you'd have been too busy hiding under your bed to protect the war.


Why do you repeat utter rubbish because you WANT to be right and not have to work at being smart?

Climate Change: No, It

Canada had military in Vietnam? Only as peacekeepers when the US was pulling out. Your post is an attempt at misinformation. But no surprise there considering the rubbish you post about climate.

 

[Cliffy]

 

[petros]

They were the dark ages because Climate Change

https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q2/211/groupE/andy.html

 

[Wake]

How about the parts of the US coast that are now under water at high tide? Did the stupid citizens of the southeast coasts deliberately build their infrastructure so that it would be flooded or is something else happening?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/...used-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html

You can deny global warming all you like, but the evidence seems to be getting in your face.

Don't allow yourself to be led around by the nose.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/explained-the-supertide-that-swallowed-a-french-abbey/

Very high tides occur several times a year and supertides perhaps once a decade or so. It's easy to show something like that and NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to back it up.

Is sea level rising?

"In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present)."

Does THAT picture look like 2.6" to you?

In San Francisco on the docks that have been there almost since the 1850's there are tide markers and do not show any change in sea level at all.

When someone is trying to take you to the cleaners perhaps it's time to do your own wash.

They were the dark ages because Climate Change

https://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q2/211/groupE/andy.html

The way that dendrochronology gives us important information is in many ways. When growing conditions are bad there are many things that can cause it. But when growing conditions are good there is only ONE manner in which that can be true. You have to have sunlight, water and CO2.

If you look at very large areas and match the good and bad years you can get a good estimation of the amount of vegetation was generated. One of the recent studies looked at a data base that has been used for a long time to report an estimated level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It turns out that the scientists who did the original study on which this data base was generated did NOT correct previous studies with substandard methods because they thought that changing the numbers over two large areas could lead to confusion.

Going back and correcting these two areas revealed that average CO2 was probably higher than today at least two times in the last 2000 years or so.

https://climateaudit.org/2016/08/16/re-examining-cooks-mt-read-tasmania-chronology/#more-22805

And a study from 2008 pointed out that the presently used CO2 charts are from the Antarctic Ice Cores and that this area would be expected to have very low levels. The Northern Hemisphere levels using DIRECT atmospheric sampling and chemical analysis showed CO2 levels ALL over the place and as high as 600 ppm with NO effects shown in the claimed temperature curves.

Yet another paper: (this is a simplified version with REFERENCES to the original study.)

Fudge Factor.

shows that CO2 already absorbs ALL of the energy in it's absorption bands at any levels above 80-100 ppm. This means that the only "greenhouse effect" it can have is slightly less than O2 and N. The REAL controlling factor for atmospheric retaining of heat is H2O. So CO2 has NO EFFECT on the heat and the only causes of warm periods are the input from the Sun and the normal delayed reactions of the atmosphere since it is so damned big and slow acting.

In fact the climate change claims are mostly false:

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

Too bad you are far too stupid to know history. Most of the science in the world CAME from religion paying it's way. But having the education 3 tiers below standard you wouldn't understand that.

 

[Cliffy]

Too bad you are far too stupid to know history. Most of the science in the world CAME from religion paying it's way. But having the education 3 tiers below standard you wouldn't understand that.

Well, normally I would not respond to azzholes, but hey... Most mathematics and science came to the west via the Muslims during the crusades. Muslims pulled us out of the dark ages and now Trump and his minions would take us back to the dark ages.
How is your supply of toilet paper, Mr. Sphincter Lock?

 

[petros]

How will Trump induce this volcanic eruption?