jtssrx Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 Cuz the climate is changing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Anler said: Cuz the climate is changing... No, no, it's MMGW! Anything that is weather related nowadays is quickly label MMGW or Climate Change. If it's hot and dry, it's MMGW, if it is wet and cool/cold, it's also MMGW. The alarmists are trying to cover all basis as they have nothing to go on so they use the weather to fit into their narrative. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snopro31 Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 Those records will be ignored in 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 5 hours ago, jtssrx said: Seattle broke record high temps three days in a row in May: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/weather/seattle-broke-a-heat-record-on-thursday-will-we-break-another-on-friday/ The southeastern states saw record highs in May as well: http://www.fox13news.com/news/florida-news/record-heat-in-southern-states-as-temps-near-100-degrees It was 123 degrees in Churo, India on Saturday: https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2019-06-03-india-heat-wave-123-degrees-second-driest-pre-monsoon-since-1954 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 If ZLZEBUB was here he would tell you about HAARP which is Trumps weather machine and thats what is fucking up the climate and earthquakes and tsunamis!!!11111 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 37 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Seattle broke record high temps three days in a row in May: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/weather/seattle-broke-a-heat-record-on-thursday-will-we-break-another-on-friday/ The southeastern states saw record highs in May as well: http://www.fox13news.com/news/florida-news/record-heat-in-southern-states-as-temps-near-100-degrees It was 123 degrees in Churo, India on Saturday: https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2019-06-03-india-heat-wave-123-degrees-second-driest-pre-monsoon-since-1954 Savannah reached 100 degrees Saturday, tying a record and marking the coastal Georgia city's earliest triple-degree day "since 1953". Columbia, South Carolina, on Saturday also hit 100, just one degree shy of a record from 2000. Deadly India Heat Wave Temperature Reaches 123 Degrees in Second-Driest Pre-Monsoon "Spell in 65 Years" And still it is not as warm/hot as it was decades ago? What about the Medieval warming period centuries ago as well? Why is it such a panic situation now all of a sudden now?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snopro31 Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 People don’t want to accept the truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 54 minutes ago, irv said: And still it is not as warm/hot as it was decades ago? What about the Medieval warming period centuries ago as well? Why is it such a panic situation now all of a sudden now?? If only I had thought of that, fuck. Oh wait! I did think of that - like 36 days ago: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 19 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: If only I had thought of that, fuck. Oh wait! I did think of that - like 36 days ago: So you find a "solar physicist" video and think it is gospel? Why not look up some real science data that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it existed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period New Study Confirms Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global, And As Warm As Today https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/29/new-study-confirms-medieval-warm-period-was-indeed-global-and-as-warm-as-today/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 23 minutes ago, irv said: So you find a "solar physicist" video and think it is gospel? Why not look up some real science data that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it existed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period New Study Confirms Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global, And As Warm As Today https://notrickszone.com/2017/08/29/new-study-confirms-medieval-warm-period-was-indeed-global-and-as-warm-as-today/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period Notrickzone is a denier misdirection site. The article in your second link was written by Don Easterbrook - a known shuckster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 And the Roman warm period was warmer than that, and the previous warm period was warmer than that the overall trend is global cooling so if we are warming the planet slightly then thank goodness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 More on the blog site, nottickzone that @irv thinks qualifies as credible peer reviewed research: The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves. Despite these deficiencies, a 23 October 2017 NTZ post upped the alleged tally of climate change-disproving papers from 58 to 400 (which, to be clear, still includes those previous misrepresented studies). https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said: More on the blog site, nottickzone that @irv thinks qualifies as credible peer reviewed research: The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves. Despite these deficiencies, a 23 October 2017 NTZ post upped the alleged tally of climate change-disproving papers from 58 to 400 (which, to be clear, still includes those previous misrepresented studies). https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/ Probably the biggest farce is how they always start the alarmist chart in the late 50’s to omit the similar warming to now from 1919-1940 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, DUMPY said: Probably the biggest farce is how they always start the alarmist chart in the late 50’s to omit the similar warming to now from 1919-1940 Bigger farce is posting the regional temperature fluctuations of Greenland and passing it off as the global trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snopro31 Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 The deniers of mmgw, climate emergency and crisis will be the survivors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 @DUMPY, Dr. Alley is sick of you misinterpreting his research in regards to the Greenland GISP2 ice core: I sent a query to Dr. Alley about such interpretations of his work and the ice-core record and he sent a reply, the heart of which is pasted below. Where he refers to GISP2, he’s describing a particular ice core extracted during what was called “Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2.” First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru). After scientists have done the hard work of working out these relations, it is possible to use one ice-core record to represent broader regions IF you restrict consideration to the parts that are widely coherent, so it is O.K. to plot a smoothed version of an Antarctic temperature record against CO2 over long times and discuss the relation as if it is global, but a lot of background is required. Second, although the central Greenland ice-core records may provide the best paleoclimatic temperature records available, multiple parameters confirm the strong temperature signal, and multiple cores confirm the widespread nature of the signal, the data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise. An extensive scientific literature exists on this topic, and I believe we are pretty good in the community at properly qualifying our statements to accord with the underlying scientific literature; the blogospheric misuses of the GISP2 isotopic data that I have seen are not doing so, and are making errors of interpretation as a result. Thirdly, demonstration that there have been large climate changes in the past without humans in no way demonstrates that humans are not now responsible. Many people have died naturally but murder still exists; it is up to the police to learn whether a given mortality was natural or not, and up to climate science to learn what is causing ongoing changes (and we have good confidence that most of what is happening to climatic global average surface temperature is being caused by humanity now). Similarly, demonstration that life, and humans, survived warmer temperatures in the past in no way shows that warmer temperatures in the future are good for us. If you don’t care about humans and other things with us here, making a big change in climate might be an interesting experiment. Evolution does respond to climate change and produce novel results. I just happen to have a personal bias (shared, I believe, by the majority of the six-plus billion people on the planet) that we should ask what is best for humanity, and pursue that. An opinion, surely, and not purely scientific, but that’s my bias. So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores (which demonstrate that the GISP2 record is quite good and reproducible), and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount. > More sunshine from orbital changes produces warming. The magnitude looks consistent with our understanding of the climate system. > Some of the “wiggles” in temperature (such as the Little Ice Age signal) correlate with changes in solar output. The beryllium-10 record provides an imperfect but useful estimate of the past variations of solar output, after correction for effects of magnetic-field variation on beryllium-10 production. The resulting solar fluctuations have been small over the times of good climate records, with small climate response, as expected. Again, there is no solid evidence for any weirdness, special sensitivity of climate to the sun, or large solar variations, but instead a generally good match to expected behavior of the climate system. (I’m among those who have looked very hard to find weirdness, too.) > Nothing else really weird appears in forcings of climate change. No major changes are found in space dust, which remains rare enough that it cannot have been very important. Large changes in cosmic rays are documented in response to magnetic-field variations (the Laschamp event of about 40,000 years ago is especially prominent) with no corresponding change in climate, so any cosmic-ray influence on the climate must be very small (a weak correlation can be obscured by noise; a strong control is almost always visible “by eye,” and clearly is absent). Volcanic eruptions and local climate response are recorded, and again appear consistent with expectations of climate science. There may be small but interesting time-variations in eruptions, but the record is almost entirely one of “noise”–if volcanoes could get organized they could be very important agents of climate change, but they aren’t organized. (The recent work of Huybers and Langmuir suggests that on ice-age time scales, the loading and unloading of the planet by ice growth/shrinkage and sea-level fall/rise may weakly organize the volcanoes, but not a lot, and with nothing interesting for our time.) Climate is surely a lot of things. The data show that the sun’s variations have been small over the times we care about, the climate responds to variations in sunshine caused by orbital changes, but these are slow. CO2 matters a lot. Volcanoes make “noise.” With those in your pocket, you’re a long way to understanding changes in Earth’s climate—not done, but well on your way. The abrupt-climate-change story remains interesting, though. Today, the salty north Atlantic waters sink before they freeze in the winter. The data indicate that at times in the past, the north Atlantic was fresher so the waters froze before they sank. The resulting wintertime cooling in the north Atlantic was rather severe, and the influences far from the north Atlantic included a general southward shift of the tropical circulations and drying of monsoonal and northern-tropical regions where billions now live. The IPCC gives >90% chance that the melting of Greenland’s ice and other changes in the future will not be fast enough to trigger such a discontinuity over the next century, but >90% is not necessarily 100%. The implications, that slowing down or stopping the melting may buy insurance against a rare but catastrophic outcome, are interesting. So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 58 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: Notrickzone is a denier misdirection site. The article in your second link was written by Don Easterbrook - a known shuckster. But all your posts/stories tell the truth? Are you really that ignorant that you don't realize you are being hoaxed badly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtssrx Posted June 5, 2019 Author Share Posted June 5, 2019 2 hours ago, snopro31 said: People don’t want to accept the truth What truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 22 minutes ago, irv said: But all your posts/stories tell the truth? Are you really that ignorant that you don't realize you are being hoaxed badly? Your “sources” aren’t credible, sorry. As for the bold... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said: Your “sources” aren’t credible, sorry. As for the bold... Got anything in your own words, like what you have seen for yourself that cements your notion that the earth is warming up due to man, or are you just going to keep posting left leaning alarmist news tidbits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irv Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 Man-made climate change is brainwashing and scaremongering, there is no crisis, we will be ok and in 11 years we will see there has been little change but those who will not see reality will still cry for climate change. Our youth of today have been fed bad information and formed bad ideas. They refuse to look beyond talking points and do their own research the level of laziness is stunning. Do some research. There is NO crisis. Climate change is real, it has been real for millions of years and will be real for millions of years, it is a natural cycle of weather, not a man-made event. The best data from satellites and weather balloons show no warming for the last nearly 19 years. CO2 is necessary for plant growth and photosynthesis which creates oxygen, a fairly important gas for us all. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Antarctic ice is growing. The occurrence of catastrophic weather events is decreasing. No amount of money stolen from the people in the name of climate change will make any difference worldwide because it is all a lie and total fraud perpetrated on the world. 31.487 scientists including 9.029 PHDs signed a petition to state that there was NO evidence for man-made climate change. Do some research and find the truth for yourself in all things never accept that what you are told is factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 3 hours ago, XC.Morrison said: Bigger farce is posting the regional temperature fluctuations of Greenland and passing it off as the global trend. The global trend is still down. The biggest farce is pretending it’s not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XC.Morrison Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, DUMPY said: The global trend is still down. The biggest farce is pretending it’s not At one point, the whole surface of the planet was basically... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted June 5, 2019 Share Posted June 5, 2019 39 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said: At one point, the whole surface of the planet was basically... So you agree the earths temperature overall is cooling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.