At the end of the year, very little of the US was in extreme drought, and much of that area is now buried in record deep snow.
https://iowaclimate.org/2019/01/02/2018-one-of-the-least-extreme-weather-years-on-record/
‘Like a Terror Movie’: How Climate Change Will Cause More Simultaneous Disasters
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
At the end of the year, very little of the US was in extreme drought, and much of that area is now buried in record deep snow.
https://iowaclimate.org/2019/01/02/2018-one-of-the-least-extreme-weather-years-on-record/
^More lies from lying jerm. Typical shifty lying lawyer crap.
Last edited:
you are an asshole...
if you were not an asshole, you would explain why the charts I posted are misrepresenting the data. Or, you would concede they are true before you started in with the ad homs.
I will leave that task up to you as I am not vouching for them... I am saying that they are easily found on google and I see nobody in the comments saying they are misrepresenting the data when I read the comments.
if you were not an asshole, you would explain why the charts I posted are misrepresenting the data. Or, you would concede they are true before you started in with the ad homs.
I will leave that task up to you as I am not vouching for them... I am saying that they are easily found on google and I see nobody in the comments saying they are misrepresenting the data when I read the comments.
Last edited:
you are responding with a completely different temperature set... the charts I showed were US temps and dealing with highs and lows.
^More lies from lying jerm. Typical shifty lying lawyer crap.
The basis for my post was something I read years ago. I don't remember the source.
In any event, my main point was the particular statistics you used do not seem to be enough to refute the global warming claim. In addition, statistics on "percent of days below xx temperature" were not included. Furthermore, the statistics you did include used 90 degrees as some sort of threshold without explaining why. Other variables such as humidity and barometric pressure should be included as well for total heat content determination of whatever medium is being measured.
With no included methodology and the fact the posted results were not symmetrical with no low temperatures makes the included statistics look contrived.
With 5000 jet planes airborne simultaneously on a frequent basis, it seems reasonable there would be measurable effects, like comparing the temperature of an urban and a nearby rural area through the 24 hour day over a period of years.
Mankind has affected the environment that surrounds him. Whether it is acknowledged or denied by society is unlikely to significantly change overall global policy in the next few generations.
The end product of the climate debate is basically whether to assign liability to industries or countries that pollute as a recapture of spillover costs for those industries or countries harmed by the emissions of the polluters.
As far as the end product being about saving the Earth, not so much it seems. The Earth's biosphere is not likely to collapse in a warmer environment. In fact, it is likely to thrive as temperatures go up.
In any event, my main point was the particular statistics you used do not seem to be enough to refute the global warming claim. In addition, statistics on "percent of days below xx temperature" were not included. Furthermore, the statistics you did include used 90 degrees as some sort of threshold without explaining why. Other variables such as humidity and barometric pressure should be included as well for total heat content determination of whatever medium is being measured.
With no included methodology and the fact the posted results were not symmetrical with no low temperatures makes the included statistics look contrived.
With 5000 jet planes airborne simultaneously on a frequent basis, it seems reasonable there would be measurable effects, like comparing the temperature of an urban and a nearby rural area through the 24 hour day over a period of years.
Mankind has affected the environment that surrounds him. Whether it is acknowledged or denied by society is unlikely to significantly change overall global policy in the next few generations.
The end product of the climate debate is basically whether to assign liability to industries or countries that pollute as a recapture of spillover costs for those industries or countries harmed by the emissions of the polluters.
As far as the end product being about saving the Earth, not so much it seems. The Earth's biosphere is not likely to collapse in a warmer environment. In fact, it is likely to thrive as temperatures go up.
I am skeptic of the idea man made co2 is causing significant warming... or even measurable warming. As a skeptic I claim no absolutes I claim the other side has not established their argument.
I simply posted the charts... to inform people about the fact that when you look at the data the idea that the US is hitting all time highs is very questionable.
Perhaps leading thinking people to to question whether the the US's overall temps data has been adjusted upward in an inaccurate manner.
And, if they are doing that in the US ... are they doing this in other data sets all over the world.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
I simply posted the charts... to inform people about the fact that when you look at the data the idea that the US is hitting all time highs is very questionable.
Perhaps leading thinking people to to question whether the the US's overall temps data has been adjusted upward in an inaccurate manner.
And, if they are doing that in the US ... are they doing this in other data sets all over the world.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
Oh you use the metric system? I degree Celsius. And there is tons of proof. That's why no publishing climate scientist denies it.
You must be another one that cannot comprehend what a greenhouse gas is or what it does.
How is it possible to be this stupid for so long?
Oh, and jerm/tjustice is a lying shifty lawyer weasle as he shows over and over with every post he makes. He's not a "skeptic", he's a slime mold liar.
Last edited:
How Temps are "adjusted" in Aus.
Scientist Jennifer Marohasy.
The Darwin record has been the subject of international concern by sceptics because it plays a significant role in the global climate picture.
The Weekend Australian revealed last Saturday that the bureau had rewritten Australia’s temperature records for the second time in six years, increasing the rate of warming since 1910 from 1C to 1.23C. The bureau has defended its homogenisation processes, which it said were needed to account for non-climate influences and changes in equipment.
Scientist Jennifer Marohasy said Darwin’s temperature record was important because the city was the only location in central northern Australia where temperatures had been measured since 1895 from within an instrument shelter. The Darwin record includes temperatures taken at Darwin post office from 1882 until 1941 and from Darwin airport from 1942 to the present.
Adjustments were made by the bureau to account for the site move and other factors, including shading from trees, that occurred after 1937. The bureau record was shortened to 1910.
Research by Dr Marohasy contends that cooling was not due to shading, but rather a cyclone in 1937 clearing vegetation that had screened the post office from the sea breeze. She said it was inappropriate to reduce all preceding temperatures as a result.
Dr Marohasy created a new minimally homogenised maximum temperature series for Darwin, correcting only for the move to the airport. This showed no overall cooling or warming trend for 1895 to 2014, consistent with the trend for Richmond in northwestern Queensland, which is the nearest site with a long, continuous temperature record.
A paper on the treatment of the bureau’s Darwin data by Dr Marohasy was accepted for publication in one of the world’s premier meteorological journals, but was pulled at the last minute.
The bureau has not accepted any challenge to its original homogenisation decisions.
“For the case of Darwin, a downward adjustment to older records is applied to account for differences between the older sites and the current site, and differences between older thermometers and the current automated sensor,’’ a spokesman said.
“In other words, the adjustments estimate what historical temperatures would look like if they were recorded with today’s equipment at the current site.”
Dr Marohasy said many would claim the raw record for Darwin must be wrong because it showed a general trend of cooling to about 1950, and then warming.
“Yet this is actually what most high-quality records, particularly from rural northern and eastern Australia, show,’’ she said. “This also corresponds with what was a widespread fear of global cooling until about 1960.”
The bureau said the adjustment of historical temperatures in its ACORN-SAT dataset did not suggest records at any point in time were too high or too low. “Both upwards and downwards adjustments have been made at many ACORN-SAT sites to ensure past observations are consistent with modern conditions,” the bureau spokesman said.
GRAHAM LLOYD
ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
Scientist Jennifer Marohasy.
- EXCLUSIVE
GRAHAM LLOYD
- 12:00AM FEBRUARY 23, 2019
- 32
The Darwin record has been the subject of international concern by sceptics because it plays a significant role in the global climate picture.
The Weekend Australian revealed last Saturday that the bureau had rewritten Australia’s temperature records for the second time in six years, increasing the rate of warming since 1910 from 1C to 1.23C. The bureau has defended its homogenisation processes, which it said were needed to account for non-climate influences and changes in equipment.
Scientist Jennifer Marohasy said Darwin’s temperature record was important because the city was the only location in central northern Australia where temperatures had been measured since 1895 from within an instrument shelter. The Darwin record includes temperatures taken at Darwin post office from 1882 until 1941 and from Darwin airport from 1942 to the present.
Adjustments were made by the bureau to account for the site move and other factors, including shading from trees, that occurred after 1937. The bureau record was shortened to 1910.
Research by Dr Marohasy contends that cooling was not due to shading, but rather a cyclone in 1937 clearing vegetation that had screened the post office from the sea breeze. She said it was inappropriate to reduce all preceding temperatures as a result.
Dr Marohasy created a new minimally homogenised maximum temperature series for Darwin, correcting only for the move to the airport. This showed no overall cooling or warming trend for 1895 to 2014, consistent with the trend for Richmond in northwestern Queensland, which is the nearest site with a long, continuous temperature record.
A paper on the treatment of the bureau’s Darwin data by Dr Marohasy was accepted for publication in one of the world’s premier meteorological journals, but was pulled at the last minute.
The bureau has not accepted any challenge to its original homogenisation decisions.
“For the case of Darwin, a downward adjustment to older records is applied to account for differences between the older sites and the current site, and differences between older thermometers and the current automated sensor,’’ a spokesman said.
“In other words, the adjustments estimate what historical temperatures would look like if they were recorded with today’s equipment at the current site.”
Dr Marohasy said many would claim the raw record for Darwin must be wrong because it showed a general trend of cooling to about 1950, and then warming.
“Yet this is actually what most high-quality records, particularly from rural northern and eastern Australia, show,’’ she said. “This also corresponds with what was a widespread fear of global cooling until about 1960.”
The bureau said the adjustment of historical temperatures in its ACORN-SAT dataset did not suggest records at any point in time were too high or too low. “Both upwards and downwards adjustments have been made at many ACORN-SAT sites to ensure past observations are consistent with modern conditions,” the bureau spokesman said.
GRAHAM LLOYD
ENVIRONMENT EDITOR