Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Doc »

Mr. Perfect wrote:I haven't followed MMGW for many years. When obama failed to pass a carbon system in his first 2 years, with 60% of the congress, I knew it was a dead issue.

I've been attending a LOT of biology conferences recently, and discovered some facts the innumerate warming fundamentalists seeming totally ignorant of.

1) maybe 15-20% of the CO2 comes from driving around, even including airplanes. 90% of the "solution" is focused on cars.

2) Methane gas from cows may be as much as 20 times more a greater greenhouse effect than CO2. Zero effort is spent on reducing the eating of cows. In fact, if you really believed in MMGW and wanted to reduce it, the easiest thing to do is make cow eating illegal. OTOH, production of replacement foods may still produce some methane. But everything I've seen is way less. IF you are a warmer then the biggest bang for the buck in terms of remediation would be to stop eating cows.

So warming fundamentalists are dumber than I thought.
There was something a few years ago about getting shots that make people allergic to beef. Something like that anyway.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

I would just blame any and all climate change on the sun to keep it simple. Or on God for convenience. Climate is such a complex non-linear system with zilhundreds of variables and parameters that it must be very easy for the Devil to hide himself somewhere.. and escape us forever.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote: . . .

2) Methane gas from cows may be as much as 20 times more a greater greenhouse effect than CO2. Zero effort is spent on reducing the eating of cows. In fact, if you really believed in MMGW and wanted to reduce it, the easiest thing to do is make cow eating illegal. OTOH, production of replacement foods may still produce some methane. But everything I've seen is way less. IF you are a warmer then the biggest bang for the buck in terms of remediation would be to stop eating cows.

. . .
Atmosphere of Earth

CO2: 0.04%

CH4: 0.000179%

Methane is irrelevant.

The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour: 0.001%–5%
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Agreed. The whole thing is cosmically dumb, I just discovered the dumbness was one gear higher than I thought.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Doc »

89SonD5lKGU
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

stuff thats already in the atmospheric carbon cycle is just doing its thing, changing from one state to another like it always has this includes cows farting and trees growing and burning and all that, its irrelevant and not part of the actual argument.

digging up fossilised carbon in coal or oil form, which used to be trapped deep in the earth, is the actual argument the global warming people use.

one just moves *existing* atmospheric carbon around, the other introduces *more* atmospheric carbon.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Doc »

noddy wrote:stuff thats already in the atmospheric carbon cycle is just doing its thing, changing from one state to another like it always has this includes cows farting and trees growing and burning and all that, its irrelevant and not part of the actual argument.

digging up fossilised carbon in coal or oil form, which used to be trapped deep in the earth, is the actual argument the global warming people use.

one just moves *existing* atmospheric carbon around, the other introduces *more* atmospheric carbon.
Last time I heard the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has been falling for the last million years.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Doc wrote:
noddy wrote:stuff thats already in the atmospheric carbon cycle is just doing its thing, changing from one state to another like it always has this includes cows farting and trees growing and burning and all that, its irrelevant and not part of the actual argument.

digging up fossilised carbon in coal or oil form, which used to be trapped deep in the earth, is the actual argument the global warming people use.

one just moves *existing* atmospheric carbon around, the other introduces *more* atmospheric carbon.
Last time I heard the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has been falling for the last million years.
Image

The one caveat is that CO2 data preceding the 20th century are derived from indirect proxy data.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

-gHUHoqBn-Y

It looks convincing, but... how accurate and reliable are the plotted global temperatures in that graph? And how does this raise in global temperatures compare on the larger times scales? Something at odds with the available data on natural fluctuations in the past before humans started to industrialize?

Is the correlation c02/temperature linear or is it more complex (bet yes)? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide -> If this is correct.. what is the worry.

Nother probably silly thought. The burning of fossil fuels does not only add C02 to the atmosphere but also generates heat that dissipates into the atmosphere and water systems, oceans. As do nuclear power plants. How much of this heat is responsible for how much global warming?
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

Dark Winter: How the Sun Is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell by John L. Casey

More C02 please!

A relaxing view on climate change of hammer666: Climate Change is a Non Issue (We're Doomed if It's Man Made)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Parodite wrote:-gHUHoqBn-Y

It looks convincing, but... how accurate and reliable are the plotted global temperatures in that graph?
The first thing one learns in an experimental physics lab course is that a plot without accompanying error bars is meaningless.

The people who generate the data know this, but choose to not present this information to an uninformed public

When one does look at the same data with error bars the claim is that the average global temperature back in 1900, when only a small part of the planet was instrumented, is known to within +/- 0.1C

Image

[NASA/GISS]

Data analysis is not unlike sausage making, the final product may look good, but what matters is the quality of the data/material and the process employed. The Climategate leaks showed how little confidence those at the front lines of the data analysis have in the data quality and process.
And how does this raise in global temperatures compare on the larger times scales? Something at odds with the available data on natural fluctuations in the past before humans started to industrialize?
Image

We are living in a rare and remarkably benign time in the earth's geological history.

Image

The next ice age, when it occurs, will certainly cool down overheated property markets such as Toronto.
Is the correlation c02/temperature linear or is it more complex (bet yes)? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide -> If this is correct.. what is the worry.
The CO2/T logarithmic plot is correct. To get the warming effect required, all models assume a secondary effect, rising CO2 levels will increase atmospheric water vapour, the main greenhouse gas. To date, this is still a hypothesis.

Image
Nother probably silly thought. The burning of fossil fuels does not only add C02 to the atmosphere but also generates heat that dissipates into the atmosphere and water systems, oceans. As do nuclear power plants. How much of this heat is responsible for how much global warming?
The global climate is a complex driven [sun] non-linear system far from thermodynamic equilibrium, thus massive numerical models are required to try to simulate it. These simulations, to date, have no predictive skill.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:Dark Winter: How the Sun Is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell by John L. Casey

More C02 please!

A relaxing view on climate change of hammer666: Climate Change is a Non Issue (We're Doomed if It's Man Made)
Thanks for posting Parodite. "Climate Change" is definitely a religion for modern atheists. From the preface of Dark Winter:

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we continue to see UN and US
governmental policy based on the now thoroughly discredited greenhouse gas theory and the
insignificant role mankind’s industrial CO2 emissions play in the atmosphere. In what can only be
classified as a nationwide fit of cognitive dissonance in this country, many of our leaders, including
the president and secretary of state and members of the media, have resorted to reinforcing the now
disproved myth of man-made global warming with outlandish claims and outright lies about the state
of the Earth’s climate and where it’s headed. In a predictable move to discredit those who rely on the
facts — not the politics — of climate change, these same leaders have taken to personal attacks and
name calling, labeling those who reject the politically correct version of climate science as
“members of the Flat Earth Society” and, even more insidiously, “deniers,” attempting to associate
climate truth seekers with those who dispute the reality of the Holocaust.
This effort perhaps reached its zenith with President Barack Obama’s Georgetown University
address on June 25, 2013, when he announced his “Climate Action Plan.” It signaled the latest salvo
in what has become a juggernaut of political arm-twisting and media-distributed propaganda
regarding alleged man-made global warming (aka “climate change”) to squeeze ever more political
power and money out of American taxpayers in order to pursue a predetermined agenda.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Typhoon wrote:
Parodite wrote:-gHUHoqBn-Y

It looks convincing, but... how accurate and reliable are the plotted global temperatures in that graph?
The first thing one learns in an experimental physics lab course is that a plot without accompanying error bars is meaningless.

The people who generate the data know this, but choose to not present this information to an uninformed public

When one does look at the same data with error bars the claim is that the average global temperature back in 1900, when only a small part of the planet was instrumented, is known to within +/- 0.1C

Image

[NASA/GISS]

Data analysis is not unlike sausage making, the final product may look good, but what matters is the quality of the data/material and the process employed. The Climategate leaks showed how little confidence those at the front lines of the data analysis have in the data quality and process.
And how does this raise in global temperatures compare on the larger times scales? Something at odds with the available data on natural fluctuations in the past before humans started to industrialize?
Image

We are living in a rare and remarkably benign time in the earth's geological history.

Image

The next ice age, when it occurs, will certainly cool down overheated property markets such as Toronto.
Is the correlation c02/temperature linear or is it more complex (bet yes)? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide -> If this is correct.. what is the worry.
The CO2/T logarithmic plot is correct. To get the warming effect required, all models assume a secondary effect, rising CO2 levels will increase atmospheric water vapour, the main greenhouse gas. To date, this is still a hypothesis.

Image
Nother probably silly thought. The burning of fossil fuels does not only add C02 to the atmosphere but also generates heat that dissipates into the atmosphere and water systems, oceans. As do nuclear power plants. How much of this heat is responsible for how much global warming?
The global climate is a complex driven [sun] non-linear system far from thermodynamic equilibrium, thus massive numerical models are required to try to simulate it. These simulations, to date, have no predictive skill.
Very, very well said Typhoon. Watching the AGWers assume unrealistic measurement accuracy, of an extremely complex, non-closed system, while completely disregarding the influence of the sun has been an amazing experience that makes me "think(?)" I have experienced the birth of a new religion in the last 20 years. I suspect we are now witnessing, or will soon witness it's death.

The fact that it has been taught as Gospel in US grade schools in recent years is yet another bit of evidence that it is a massive power grab.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

Thanks Typhoon for the clarifications.
Typhoon wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Is the correlation c02/temperature linear or is it more complex (bet yes)? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide -> If this is correct.. what is the worry.
The CO2/T logarithmic plot is correct. To get the warming effect required, all models assume a secondary effect, rising CO2 levels will increase atmospheric water vapour, the main greenhouse gas. To date, this is still a hypothesis.
This part I find particularly boggling. I understand they have been able to establish C02 levels in the long ago past and over time (I think measuring C02 levels of drilled ice cylinders of glaciers), but to go from C02 levels to an estimated temperature, local as well as global (!) before there were thermometers doesn't seem to be easy.

How do we know how warm or cold it was in the past? says proxies are used to determine:
Before that time not many thermometer records are available, so scientists use indirect temperature measurements, supported by anecdotal evidence recorded by diarists, and the few thermometer records that do exist. Scientists must rely solely on indirect methods to look back further than recorded human history.

Indirect ways of assessing past temperatures, using so-called temperature proxies, take measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils.

For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.

Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.

To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.
This seems a reasonable way to make good guesses about local temperatures and perhaps global averages. Not sure how good global temperature estimates can be of the long past... given how hard it is today already.

Indeed... where is the plotted uncertainty in those graphs. And how certain/accurate can one be about the levels of uncertainty.

But if one assumes that the derived temperatures are close to correct as well as the measured C02 in glacial ice samples, and if they are correlating remarkably linear (going up and down together which they do) you still have to find out how C02 and temperature correlate.

I read it is also not clear whether it is C02 causing the temperatures to rise, or a rising temperature to cause the increase of C02. This uncertainty of how one affects the other is not strange since there are more variables at work if you want to go from C02 to Temperature like water vapor, dust, clouds, volcanic activity (dust), vegetation, cyclic variations in solar radiation, ocean currents, local vs global estimates...

The whole shebang seems to boil down to:

The role and net effect of C02 on climate change = (uncertainty|assumption x uncertainty|assumption x uncertainty|assumption x constants a,b,c)

A big maybe with a lot of confirmation bias as in any religion to make C02 the Devil in this religion. Similar to how conspiracy theories build on too many assumptions and too few certainties.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

Ok, so here is a view on the whos first, rise in C02 or rise Temperature:

dHozjOYHQdE

But what about the more powerful atmospheric water vapor concentration? Is it triggered in the same way C02 is triggered and creating a similar positive feedback loop following the same curve with temperature and C02?
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:
How do we know how warm or cold it was in the past? says proxies are used to determine:
Before that time not many thermometer records are available, so scientists use indirect temperature measurements, supported by anecdotal evidence recorded by diarists, and the few thermometer records that do exist. Scientists must rely solely on indirect methods to look back further than recorded human history.

Indirect ways of assessing past temperatures, using so-called temperature proxies, take measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils.

For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.

Marine sediment cores provide temperature records spanning millions of years. They contain the fossilised shells of tiny marine creatures that preserve a chemical record of the sea temperature when they lived.

To make their temperature reconstructions as accurate as possible scientists have calibrated each proxy by testing how it changes in response to changing temperature. However, the further back in time we look, the more sparse the proxy temperature records become. Therefore the most reliable way to work out past temperatures is to combine different proxies – and to use data from many locations to screen out local temperature fluctuations.
This seems a reasonable way to make good guesses about local temperatures and perhaps global averages. Not sure how good global temperature estimates can be of the long past... given how hard it is today already.
This is the larger half of what makes the accuracy claims so outlandish, an object of religious faith.

Show me the MODERN x, y, z coordinates and time t of the current data point "Alpha," and I bet I can move x, y, or z by 300 feet and get at least a 3 degree change in temp, or change t by 60 minutes and get similar change in temperature. Now lets discuss the duration of the data point Alpha. Should it be considered a valid representative data point for 1 second, one hour, 10 hours, or one month? Now, does temperature Alpha represent a square foot, a square mile, a cubic mile, or 50 square miles of the Earth?

These are all specifications that the True Believers I have known refuse to discuss or consider. And of course they know the output of the Sun is constant, so that is never a factor.

Most of the places I have lived see a daily 20-30 degree F change and an annual 70-90 degree F change.

So the temperature gathered from ice core "Gamma" or tree ring "Epsilon" records the Earth's temperature as xx.x degrees C, with no degree (pun intended) of uncertainty, so long ago. Was that a 3 pm temperature on a summer's day or 3 am temperature on a winter's night? And does that data point represent a cubic foot or cubic mile fo the Earth?
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

Found some interesting information here:

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE
by Douglas Hoyt (bio and references)

What occurred to me doing my laymens investigation is something Hoyt said already:

“Natural variations [in climate] must be understood before mankind's impact can be separated out.”

Sounds very true....

On The water vapor feedback loop:
The standard IPCC models assume constant relative humidity as temperature increases. This assumption makes modeling calculations easy since it allows the Clausius-Clapyeron equation to be used. Keeping constant relative humidity requires a good deal of energy to maintain it in the real atmosphere where a gravitational field exists. The modelers have ignored the energy requirement resulting in a vast overestimation of the water vapor feedback warming. [...]
Just to add to the complexity...
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

Indeed SM! To have only God and the Devil correlate (even be in a consensual causal relationship) would make everything so deliciously simple! Too simple to our instincts however. At least people started to add a Holy Ghost, a Son and many Prophets. Where does it all end.... :D (I doubt one Devil can hide in many many details. More likely details are devils themselves)
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Parodite wrote:Thanks Typhoon for the clarifications.
Typhoon wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Is the correlation c02/temperature linear or is it more complex (bet yes)? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide -> If this is correct.. what is the worry.
The CO2/T logarithmic plot is correct. To get the warming effect required, all models assume a secondary effect, rising CO2 levels will increase atmospheric water vapour, the main greenhouse gas. To date, this is still a hypothesis.
This part I find particularly boggling. I understand they have been able to establish C02 levels in the long ago past and over time (I think measuring C02 levels of drilled ice cylinders of glaciers), but to go from C02 levels to an estimated temperature, local as well as global (!) before there were thermometers doesn't seem to be easy.

How do we know how warm or cold it was in the past? says proxies are used to determine:
Before that time not many thermometer records are available, so scientists use indirect temperature measurements, supported by anecdotal evidence recorded by diarists, and the few thermometer records that do exist. Scientists must rely solely on indirect methods to look back further than recorded human history.

Indirect ways of assessing past temperatures, using so-called temperature proxies, take measurements of responses to past temperature change that are preserved in natural archives such as ice, rocks and fossils.

For example, ice sheets form as snow builds up, with each year's snowfall preserved as a single, visible layer. There are measurable chemical differences in snow formed at different temperatures, so ice cores provide a record of polar temperature going back around 250,000 years for Greenland and 800,000 years for Antarctica.

Yearly banding is also found in fossilised corals and lake sediment deposits, and each band has a specific chemistry that reflects the temperature when it formed. Growth rings in tree trunks can be wider or thinner depending on the climate at the time of growth, so fossilised trees can reveal the length of growing seasons. And fossilised or frozen pollen grains allow scientists to determine what plants were growing in the past, which can give us a good idea of the climate at the time.
. . .
With regards to tree rings, the climatologists studiously ignore Liebig's Law of the Minimum

A gentleman by the name of Steve McIntyre* has done very detailed deconstructions of the tree ring temperature proxies:

https://climateaudit.org/2016/02/08/a-r ... t-al-2016/

*his previous claim to fame was to uncover a massive gold mining fraud by a company called Bre-X through an analysis of their purported results.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

Typhoon wrote:With regards to tree rings, the climatologists studiously ignore Liebig's Law of the Minimum
Makes sense. "The weakest link" knowledge quiz comes to mind.
A gentleman by the name of Steve McIntyre* has done very detailed deconstructions of the tree ring temperature proxies:

https://climateaudit.org/2016/02/08/a-r ... t-al-2016/

*his previous claim to fame was to uncover a massive gold mining fraud by a company called Bre-X through an analysis of their purported results.
Impressive. I can't fully digest his deconstruction of the tree ring temperature proxies, so I'm not sure if I summarize the conclusion correctly: more reliable results can be obtained using only randomly acquired data and doing a standard statistical analysis of them, i.e. leaving out as much as possible assumptions and even all cross correlation between data sets in as far as they contain any of those assumptions.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5641
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

While the North Pole warms beyond the melting point, it’s freakishly cold in Siberia

Meteorologists are having a difficult time recalling a more amazing contrast.

While the North Pole flirts with melting temperatures, Siberia is shivering in off-the-charts cold.

The Weather Channel described the stunning side-by-side extremes as “one of the most bizarre juxtapositions seen”.
[...]
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Doc »

Parodite wrote:
While the North Pole warms beyond the melting point, it’s freakishly cold in Siberia

Meteorologists are having a difficult time recalling a more amazing contrast.

While the North Pole flirts with melting temperatures, Siberia is shivering in off-the-charts cold.

The Weather Channel described the stunning side-by-side extremes as “one of the most bizarre juxtapositions seen”.
[...]
Not quite the most bizarre

Image
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Doc »

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11 ... alarmists/

Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Doc wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11 ... alarmists/

Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/30/ ... ntire-usa/

the only thing left to decide is whether (pun intended) to credit Obama with fulfilling another campaign promise or to blame Trump....

tough one
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Global temperature time series indistinguishable from random time series.

WUWT | Global warming fails the random natural variation contest

The links to the contest sponsor's blog are worth a read.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Post Reply