Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

You know the science that tracks climate change


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member

I'd like one of the resident MMCC Professors to explain why temp's dropped from around 1940 to 1975 causing massive scientific speculation we were heading to an iceage.  My bet any explanations will be natural causes like solar cycles or volcano's.   Funny how those are only relative to explaining temperature drops but never are accounted for increases.  That alone is telling on neutrality of "climate science." :lol:  

1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2

First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age. 

During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong

Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”

Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)

As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.

 


Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities

So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.
As written in a 2007 journal Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

No, none of this global warming (aka, “climate change”) alarmism is based upon objective science. It never was.

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-global-warming-ipcc/2016/05/31/id/731497/

 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Is the same kind of science that accurately told us what Harvey would do to Texas and predicted that Irma would be a monster. 

Really the same science that said Hurricane activity would increase 15 years ago only to see it decrease to it's lowest in 150 years.

Your side is the biggest fucking Cherry pickers of data I've ever seen. The vast majority of data shows your side to be wrong. That's why it went from Global warming to climate change and now every weather event be it a cold event or a warm event is labeled climate change

 

Go fuck yourself

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jtssrx said:

Really the same science that said Hurricane activity would increase 15 years ago only to see it decrease to it's lowest in 150 years.

Your side is the biggest fucking Cherry pickers of data I've ever seen. The vast majority of data shows your side to be wrong. That's why it went from Global warming to climate change and now every weather event be it a cold event or a warm event is labeled climate change

 

Go fuck yourself

 

What keeps the hurricanes from flying off the side of the earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I'd like one of the resident MMCC Professors to explain why temp's dropped from around 1940 to 1975 causing massive scientific speculation we were heading to an iceage.  My bet any explanations will be natural causes like solar cycles or volcano's.   Funny how those are only relative to explaining temperature drops but never are accounted for increases.  That alone is telling on neutrality of "climate science." :lol:  

1988 was a barn-burner year for climate alarmists. Then-Sen. Al Gore’s steamy congressional hearing trumpeted a planet on fire, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created to produce pseudo-scientific evidence blaming it on unfair capitalist industrial prosperity-spawned CO2 emissions.

Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart explained the real cause for urgency. She told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Stewart was wrong. Consequences of that phony science upon environmental and energy regulatory policies matter a great deal. So let’s consider some inconvenient facts.

1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2

First, no one I know “denies” that climate changes, both warmer and colder, and for better and worse. Not so very long ago, U.S. cooling of about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1945 and 1975 prompted The New York Times and other major news publications to headline “experts” trumpeting the arrival of a new ice age. 

During “modern times” the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino spikes, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.

U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. There have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

Based upon the most reliable land surface data (UK Hadley Center, or “HADCRUT”), the average annual planetary warming between 1850 and 2015 is virtually imperceptible . . . and certainly not “dangerous.”

2. Extreme Claims Proven Extremely Wrong

Contrary to prevalent fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of barely 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”

Periodic Arctic warming cycles have been reported by whalers and explorers dating back centuries. Alpine glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receding since the little ice age ended. (Incidentally, polar bear populations are now at a record high.)

As for the sensationalized melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a British Antarctic Survey reported that this is “within the natural range of climate variability” over the past 300 years, and that “more dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries.” Overall, the Antarctic ice mass has been steadily growing since first recorded by NASA satellites in 1979. The 2013-2014 expanses exceeded all previous measurements.

 


Regarding that “extreme weather” we’ve been warned about, no category 3-5 hurricanes have struck the U.S. coast since October 2005, setting a record lull since 1900. Both NOAA and the IPCC have admitted that there has been no increase in the severity or frequency of droughts, floods, thunderstorms, or tornadoes in decades. Nor has the number of U.S. wildfires increased.

3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities

So how much confidence should we place upon IPCC objectivity to guide regulatory policies? Consider but a couple of statements from key inside sources in their own words.
As written in a 2007 journal Nature article by Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports: “None of the [global climate simulation] models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in an internal email: “Mike [Mann], the [report] Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there has been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres candidly remarked, the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

No, none of this global warming (aka, “climate change”) alarmism is based upon objective science. It never was.

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-global-warming-ipcc/2016/05/31/id/731497/

 

The planet reacts and adapts to every change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
4 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Tell that to every dumb as shit Republican that has said "what happened to global warming?" In the middle of a snow storm.  The point is that scientists are predicting these weather patterns. They were not as accurate 20 years ago. The same type of modelling is predicting climate change and determining the cause.

yup. 

And Yup. 

Thanks for posting. 

No shit :lol: The Clown Posse hypocrisy has no limits :lmao: 

Edited by SnowRider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah Blah Blah... It's the same shit spewed out over and over and over again. Is the climate changing? Yes. What are you doing to change that?

 

Exactly. Nothing but bitch and moan in the fucking internet on your fossil fuel powered electronic devices...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Wait, what wrestling career?

Well, apparently, he posted some wrestling pics of "himself" sometime ago.  Problem is, somebody searched google and it turns out he just stole them off of google pictures and tried to pass them off as it being him (her)..

Can it get any better? :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the morons who site a cold winter as evidence there is no such thing as global warming then dismiss any record breaking events scientificly tied to climate change such as increased prominence and power of hurricanes.   Can't get dumber than that.  Weather events are the poorest of datasets when it comes to scientific research (and consensus) on climate change.

Then there's the people who say the climate has always changed and always reacts to itself but dismiss mans influence on the planet as inconsequential.

This is the crux of the intellect and sophistication of the denier cult.  It is clear that it doesn't matter what you say or what scientific evidence you share, they don't care.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...