Climate change causes and impacts are accelerating, experts warn - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15045321
Truth To Power wrote:No, I am being accurate and honest.

Because the down-phase of the 60-year PDO cycle was opposed by the multi-millennial high in solar activity, as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, multiple times.


If you are arguing that the solar activity that Solanki described combined with this trendless 60 year cycle to create current global warming, then there would have been a sharp increase in temperature in the mid 1930s because of the high solar activity starting then.

There is none.

Your hypothesis does not match reality.

No.


Yes.

Anyine can look at the grey bars that show level of uncertainty and see that many of them are larger than the supposed drop in temperature between 1940 and 1970.
#15045486
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are arguing that the solar activity that Solanki described combined with this trendless 60 year cycle to create current global warming, then there would have been a sharp increase in temperature in the mid 1930s because of the high solar activity starting then.

There is none.

Not any more. But there was at the time. The temperature records have been retroactively falsified to remove the warming of the 1920s and 30s, which was widely remarked in the media at the time, and the cooling of the 1940s-70s, which was also well known before being erased by liars.
Your hypothesis does not match reality.

Yes, it does. It is retroactively falsified temperature records that do not match reality.
Anyine can look at the grey bars that show level of uncertainty and see that many of them are larger than the supposed drop in temperature between 1940 and 1970.

I am old enough to remember when the "supposed" drop in temperature was common knowledge.
#15045500
The temperature records are not retroactively falsified. There have been modifications based on improved knowledge but the net effect is pretty minimal. Just look at the HADCrut records yourself and you can see this claim is an out and out lie.

It is absolutely hilarious that someone would post temperature records that they believe prove their point on warming/cooling and then accuse those who generated those records of lying, effectively destroying their own argument in the process.

If the 20s and 30s were so warm, it appears the sea ice extent in the summer didn't notice

Image

The sources for this older information is the digitising of news and other sources from the time:

The sea ice edge positions in the North Atlantic, between 1850 and 1978, derived from various sources, including newspapers, ship observations, aircraft observations, diaries and more.

Sea ice concentration data from regular aerial surveys of ice in the eastern Arctic by the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia, beginning in 1933.

Sea ice edge positions for Newfoundland and the Canadian Maritime Region from observations, for 1870 to 1962.

Detailed charts of ice in the waters around Alaska for 1954 to 1978, originally the property of a consulting firm (the Dehn collection).

Arctic-wide maps of ice cover from the Danish Meteorological Institute from 1901 to 1956.

Whaling ship logbook entries that noted ship position along with an indication of whether the ship was in the presence of ice 
#15045515
Truth To Power wrote:Not any more. But there was at the time. The temperature records have been retroactively falsified to remove the warming of the 1920s and 30s, which was widely remarked in the media at the time, and the cooling of the 1940s-70s, which was also well known before being erased by liars.

Yes, it does. It is retroactively falsified temperature records that do not match reality.

I am old enough to remember when the "supposed" drop in temperature was common knowledge.


If you are now retreating into conspiracy theory, then you have failed to support your claim.

Bye.
#15045538
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are now retreating into conspiracy theory, then you have failed to support your claim.

:lol: I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," there has never been a conspiracy, and there never can be, because conspiracies exist only in the imagination of people who "retreat into conspiracy theory"?

How convenient for conspirators.
#15045539
Truth To Power wrote:
I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," there has never been a conspiracy, and there never can be, because conspiracies exist only in the imagination of people who "retreat into conspiracy theory"?

How convenient for conspirators.



Extravagant claims require similar levels of support from the evidence.

Otherwise, you live in a silly fantasy world where you just make a wish and all that ugly reality just disappears with a poof.
#15045543
BeesKnee5 wrote:The temperature records are not retroactively falsified.

Of course they are. The liars have even gone back and altered centuries-old sunspot data to remove the relationship between solar activity and temperature.
There have been modifications based on improved knowledge but the net effect is pretty minimal.

The effect is large, and is always to degrade formerly accurate data and make the past seem cooler than it was.
Just look at the HADCrut records yourself and you can see this claim is an out and out lie.

Which HADCRUT records? The old ones are gone, retroactively altered to agree with hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.
It is absolutely hilarious that someone would post temperature records that they believe prove their point on warming/cooling and then accuse those who generated those records of lying, effectively destroying their own argument in the process.

Ahem. Those who produced accurate records for an organization in the past are not the same people as those producing falsified records for the same organization now.
If the 20s and 30s were so warm, it appears the sea ice extent in the summer didn't notice

Image

That graph is a joke. Where is it from? What is the methodology?
The sources for this older information is the digitising of news and other sources from the time:

To minimize or remove the actual recorded variations.
The sea ice edge positions in the North Atlantic, between 1850 and 1978, derived from various sources, including newspapers, ship observations, aircraft observations, diaries and more.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.
Sea ice concentration data from regular aerial surveys of ice in the eastern Arctic by the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia, beginning in 1933.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.
Sea ice edge positions for Newfoundland and the Canadian Maritime Region from observations, for 1870 to 1962.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.
Detailed charts of ice in the waters around Alaska for 1954 to 1978, originally the property of a consulting firm (the Dehn collection).

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.
Arctic-wide maps of ice cover from the Danish Meteorological Institute from 1901 to 1956.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.
Whaling ship logbook entries that noted ship position along with an indication of whether the ship was in the presence of ice 

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

Where are the source data, or a description of the methodology?
#15045549
Truth To Power wrote::lol: I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your, "mind," there has never been a conspiracy, and there never can be, because conspiracies exist only in the imagination of people who "retreat into conspiracy theory"?

How convenient for conspirators.


We actually had a thread about whether or not climate change is a hoax quite recently.

In that thread, I pointed out that there seems to be no way to get the vast majority of climatologists to simultaneously lie.

@Sivad claimed that the hoaxers control the funding, and therefore control the climatologists.

To be able to control the funding, the funding would have to come from a small number of funding sources.

If you believe that it is a conspiracy, and that climatologists are being coerced through funding, please show that the funding comes through a small number of sources.

Thanks.
#15045558
Pants-of-dog wrote:We actually had a thread about whether or not climate change is a hoax quite recently.

In that thread, I pointed out that there seems to be no way to get the vast majority of climatologists to simultaneously lie.

The vast majority are probably honest. The liars just get all the coverage in the corporate media.
@Sivad claimed that the hoaxers control the funding, and therefore control the climatologists.

It's certainly true that the hoaxers control government funding, which is the great majority of it, and the peer-reviewed journals, which are the certifiers of scientific credibility. Sorta like bond rating agencies....
To be able to control the funding, the funding would have to come from a small number of funding sources.

If you believe that it is a conspiracy, and that climatologists are being coerced through funding, please show that the funding comes through a small number of sources.

Most climatology funding comes from government, one way or another.
#15045563
late wrote:Extravagant claims require similar levels of support from the evidence.

There's nothing extravagant about it. The climategate emails proved that.
Otherwise, you live in a silly fantasy world where you just make a wish and all that ugly reality just disappears with a poof.

What ugly reality? Where is the evidence of any climate crisis, or climate emergency? Where is the evidence that the earth is burning up, or is even any warmer now than it was in the 1930s, or the 930s? Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s if it is any warmer now.
#15045576
Truth To Power wrote:The vast majority are probably honest. The liars just get all the coverage in the corporate media.


This has been disproved.

Studies show that almost all climatologists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

It's certainly true that the hoaxers control government funding, which is the great majority of it, and the peer-reviewed journals, which are the certifiers of scientific credibility. Sorta like bond rating agencies....

Most climatology funding comes from government, one way or another.


Present evidence for the claim that the vast majority of climate funding comes from government.

We will look at the rest of the claims after you have proven this one.
#15045587
Truth To Power wrote:Of course they are. The liars have even gone back and altered centuries-old sunspot data to remove the relationship between solar activity and temperature.

The effect is large, and is always to degrade formerly accurate data and make the past seem cooler than it was.

Which HADCRUT records? The old ones are gone, retroactively altered to agree with hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

Ahem. Those who produced accurate records for an organization in the past are not the same people as those producing falsified records for the same organization now.

That graph is a joke. Where is it from? What is the methodology?

To minimize or remove the actual recorded variations.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

And then altered to remove the records of reduced sea ice in the 1920-40s.

Where are the source data, or a description of the methodology?


The HadCrut versions are all available for comparison.


Image

More than that the raw data from the monitoring stations is available to overlay onto Google earth
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem/ge/

You just get better and better,
This conspiracy of yours now includes Canadians, Russians and Danes. You'd think they might have something to say if their data is being tampered.

As for the whaling ships.
Look for yourself
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/rediscover/whaling-ships-nbwm
#15045945
BeesKnee5 wrote:The HadCrut versions are all available for comparison.

Image

Garbage. The earliest version there is 1999, but the data go all the back to 1850. The 1999 version had already been falsified to reduce the 1920s-40s warming and 1940s-70s cooling, and create a spurious warming trend.
More than that the raw data from the monitoring stations is available to overlay onto Google earth
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem/ge/

Link does not work.
This conspiracy of yours now includes Canadians, Russians and Danes. You'd think they might have something to say if their data is being tampered.

The tampering is in the transcription, summarizing, and interpretation of the data. The fraudsters haven't (yet) gone back and altered the original source material.
As for the whaling ships.
Look for yourself
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/rediscover/whaling-ships-nbwm

And...? We already know that arctic sea ice was much less in the MWP and much greater in the LIA. So the straight line in the graph is a fabrication.
#15045948
Pants-of-dog wrote:This has been disproved.

No it hasn't.
Studies show that almost all climatologists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

False.
Present evidence for the claim that the vast majority of climate funding comes from government.

:roll: Seriously? Here:

https://www.heritage.org/environment/co ... ange-money
We will look at the rest of the claims after you have proven this one.

I'm betting you will dismiss the proof based on ad hominem and/or poisoning the well fallacies, as you always do.
#15045956
Truth To Power wrote:Garbage. The earliest version there is 1999, but the data go all the back to 1850. The 1999 version had already been falsified to reduce the 1920s-40s warming and 1940s-70s cooling, and create a spurious warming trend.

Link does not work.

The tampering is in the transcription, summarizing, and interpretation of the data. The fraudsters haven't (yet) gone back and altered the original source material.

And...? We already know that arctic sea ice was much less in the MWP and much greater in the LIA. So the straight line in the graph is a fabrication.


You think the HADCrut dataset has been released regularly since 1850?
LOL!!!

The research began in the 1970s and the first CRUTEM dataset wasn't compiled until the 1980s
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... nload=true

The 1999 HadCrut uses the CRUTEM dataset published in 1993 which became known as CRUTEM 1

I think it's time you came up with a weather monitoring station where the temperatures recorded in the current data no longer matches the data as originally recorded for a period prior to the first publication of the HadCrut dataset.

The link is a plug in to Google earth and it works fine for me.

Image

So Canada Denmark and Russia have shared their data and are happy for it to be misinterpreted. How about you show me the source data and how it has been manipulated in the research.

Your choice to gloss over actual records from ships who recorded information at the time is noted.
#15046745
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the relevant text.

"According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
...
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
...
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” -- a number estimated at $5 trillion."
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

By minorities I mean mostly South Asian and Afric[…]

Sanders is not a socialist he is a social demokrat[…]

"Me" -- ?? You're trying to *individua[…]

Coronavirus fvcking my portfolio got me feeling li[…]