2015 the hottest year on record

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

[daisycutter 28,484]

59 minutes ago, dieter said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......................................................................................................

[dieter 3,325]

14 hours ago, daisycutter said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......................................................................................................

My Hottentott Commie mate has asked me to alert the moderators that the above is a very obscene swear word in Swahili.

Figures....

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 28/10/2017 at 9:20 AM, Jara said:

Wrecker - are you being deliberately obtuse? You really think the Black Saturday fires were caused by fallen power lines? 

 

Answer me this. If you were standing by a smoker and he dropped a match, would you rather the two of you were standing in a field of snow or a pool of petrol?

Of course I would prefer to be in snow but I wouldn't be standing near a smoker in the first place. I dislike actual pollution.

It is a long bow to draw that CO2 and not natural climate variations caused the tinder like conditions in 2009. If CO2 caused the conditions surely we can expect it to get worse every year proportionately as CO2 in the atmosphere rises?

[Jara 1,149]

6 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Of course I would prefer to be in snow but I wouldn't be standing near a smoker in the first place. I dislike actual pollution.

It is a long bow to draw that CO2 and not natural climate variations caused the tinder like conditions in 2009. If CO2 caused the conditions surely we can expect it to get worse every year proportionately as CO2 in the atmosphere rises?

I was responding to your disappointingly ill-informed comment about the fires being caused by fallen power lines.  Black Saturday was caused by the conditions: a heat wave that broke every record coming at the end of the worst drought we'd ever seen. 

 

I'm not saying it was definitely caused by global warming, but it's part of a pattern. The fact that we haven't had another disaster since then proves nothing. It's only been eight years. These disasters seem to come every 25-30 years. If they start to occur more frequently, as the experts I spoke to feared was happening, then we'll be pretty sure we're in trouble, long-term.

[old55 21,227]

On 10/26/2017 at 6:06 PM, ProDee said:

What is continually overlooked is that mankind contributes 3% of atmospheric CO2 compared to the 97% which occurs naturally. 

3% of what though?  3% ever? 3% per year?  There's a big difference.

[Gator 16,891]

4 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

3% of what though?  3% ever? 3% per year?  There's a big difference.

I think they mean 3% now from annual measuring of atmospheric carbon having grown since the industrial revolution some 150 years ago. There's no doubt we're producing more carbon today than 50 years ago, so that percentage should keep increasing. 

[Gator 16,891]

A question to the climate worshippers.

Do you think NASA and NOAA manipulate data to suit their own ends ?

[hardtack 10,126]

43 minutes ago, ProDee said:

A question to the climate worshippers.

Do you think NASA and NOAA manipulate data to suit their own ends ?

Maybe first define what “their own ends” means?  And then perhaps ask the same question of the fossil fuel industry and the scientists they employ to play down the impact of global warming.

[Gator 16,891]

12 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Maybe first define what “their own ends” means?  And then perhaps ask the same question of the fossil fuel industry and the scientists they employ to play down the impact of global warming.

Their "own ends" means fraudulently manipulating historical data to make previous data sets look different. i.e. making cooler periods now warmer than they were. 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

[hardtack 10,126]

4 hours ago, ProDee said:

Their "own ends" means fraudulently manipulating historical data to make previous data sets look different. i.e. making cooler periods now warmer than they were. 

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Sorry, but you still haven’t explained what “their own ends” are... what do they, NASA and NOAA hope to gain from this supposed manipulation... and once you’ve explained that, let’s apply the same question to the fossil fuel industry and the scientists they employ. 

[Gator 16,891]

8 hours ago, hardtack said:

Sorry, but you still haven’t explained what “their own ends” are... what do they, NASA and NOAA hope to gain from this supposed manipulation... and once you’ve explained that, let’s apply the same question to the fossil fuel industry and the scientists they employ. 

To show a warming that isn't there. To continue a narrative that the planet is warming dangerously.  They do this to support a view they genuinely believe, but can't always prove and to also receive the funding they've been accustomed to receiving. 

It's not hard. 

And even if you astonishingly still don't understand the question you can still answer it. 

Do you think NASA and NOAA have altered historical data sets to show a warming that didn't exist to make it now appear that it did ?

Hint: there are 4 possible answers.  Yes, no, maybe, or don't know.

[hardtack 10,126]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

To show a warming that isn't there. To continue a narrative that the planet is warming dangerously.  They do this to support a view they genuinely believe, but can't always prove and to also receive the funding they've been accustomed to receiving. 

It's not hard. 

And even if you astonishingly still don't understand the question you can still answer it. 

Do you think NASA and NOAA have altered historical data sets to show a warming that didn't exist to make it now appear that it did ?

Hint: there are 4 possible answers.  Yes, no, maybe, or don't know.

I'm not sure what you are hoping to gain from this... I will answer that I Don't Know. 

Now perhaps you can answer the my question with a response from the same range you requested (yes, no, maybe, don't know):

Do you think the fossil fuel industry and the scientists that they employ, manipulate data to suit their own ends?

Note that if you answer with a 'No', I will expect to see some sort of supporting evidence from reputable sources (not from the industry, not from scientists employed by the industry, and not from known or reputed deniers or supporters of the industry)... and just to save you asking the question later, I'm sitting on the fence and saying Maybe... this being based on the fact that they probably stand to lose a lot more than the climate change proponents (much like the tobacco industry who had numerous scientists on their books in a vain effort to disprove any causal links between smoking and cancer).

[Gator 16,891]

44 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I'm not sure what you are hoping to gain from this... I will answer that I Don't Know. 

Now perhaps you can answer the my question with a response from the same range you requested (yes, no, maybe, don't know):

Do you think the fossil fuel industry and the scientists that they employ, manipulate data to suit their own ends?

Note that if you answer with a 'No', I will expect to see some sort of supporting evidence from reputable sources (not from the industry, not from scientists employed by the industry, and not from known or reputed deniers or supporters of the industry)... and just to save you asking the question later, I'm sitting on the fence and saying Maybe... this being based on the fact that they probably stand to lose a lot more than the climate change proponents (much like the tobacco industry who had numerous scientists on their books in a vain effort to disprove any causal links between smoking and cancer).

I have no idea.  I've never studied or investigated anything to do with the fossil fuel industry.

In my spare time I've looked into the merits of specifically climate change.

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

I'm not sure what you are hoping to gain from this... I will answer that I Don't Know. 

If you have an open mind re the climate I encourage you to listen to the talk given by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) linked below.

Heller was a global warming enthusiast from 1980-2003.

In this talk he irrefutably proves that NASA and NOAA fudge their data to suit the narrative they want to portray.  He shows graphs, articles, and emails.

It's very informative for even someone like yourself, who seemingly believes man is dangerously warming the planet and billions being spent to combat it is somehow a good thing.

After you've had time to view it let me know what you think.

EDIT: for some reason the video starts at 8 minutes 50.  Just scroll back to the beginning.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by ProDee

[old55 21,227]

18 hours ago, ProDee said:

I think they mean 3% now from annual measuring of atmospheric carbon having grown since the industrial revolution some 150 years ago. There's no doubt we're producing more carbon today than 50 years ago, so that percentage should keep increasing. 

Wow that would be some revelation!  Even on the most cursory analysis, if true, it is impossible to reconcile with man-made CO2 induced climate change.

Who is "they"?  Very keen to see your source for this.

[Gator 16,891]

1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

Even on the most cursory analysis, if true, it is impossible to reconcile with man-made CO2 induced climate change.

What does this comment even mean ?

I'm just citing commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution.

If you're genuinely interested do your own frigging research and come back and share your discovery.

[old55 21,227]

23 minutes ago, ProDee said:

What does this comment even mean ?

I'm just citing commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution.

If you're genuinely interested do your own frigging research and come back and share your discovery.

What I mean is this: if true that man-kind has only contributed 3% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 as you claim, then such a small percentage cannot possibly be responsible for climate change.  Even the most superficial analysis can understand this.  That's why what you posted stood out to me on even a cursory reading.

Can you please link to the "commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution" that you base this on?

I will do some investigation.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Fifty-5

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

What I mean is this: if true that man-kind has only contributed 3% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 as you claim, then such a small percentage cannot possibly be responsible for climate change.  Even the most superficial analysis can understand this.  That's why what you posted stood out to me on even a cursory reading.

Can you please link to the "commonly referred to discussions re mankind's percentage contribution" that you base this on?

I will do some investigation.

It's not as simple as that.

The claim is that man's contribution is not easily absorbed and has upset the "natural balance".  So even though it's relatively small it's very significant.  About 40% of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed into the ocean and vegetation and approx. 60% remains in the atmosphere.  Due to man's contribution CO2 levels (ppmv) are at their highest levels for 15-20 million years, or so the claim goes (and I'm not disputing it).

Unfortunately for the zealots their models have been wrong and the planet hasn't been warming as they predicted even with these higher carbon levels.  So what to do ?  Tamper with the data and try and show that it has been.

There's nothing earth shattering about the 150 years claim.  It simply coincides with increased human activity with coal burning and deforestation.  150 years ago CO2 was 280 ppm and now it's 400 ppm.

One of the questions is could the increase in CO2 be natural or is it all the fault of we bad humans.  Some scientists argue one way, some another.  What nature gives to the biosphere nature takes out.  So humans piling on has a deleterious effect, because we don't take it back.  Nature emits, nature absorbs.  Humans emit...

The general consensus is that humans contribute about 3% of CO2, but this site says 5%.

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

William Whitesell's book says 3%, which is the figure usually mentioned.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sktLX1gSSOYC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=atmospheric+CO2+is+97%+natural&source=bl&ots=OP9U7d54lY&sig=pUlQ1CZpSb7nkz0P9L2PaGPW2ms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBsuuoganXAhVLU7wKHe4UC5cQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=atmospheric CO2 is 97% natural&f=false

You can buy the book here:

https://www.booktopia.com.au/climate-policy-foundations-william-c-whitesell/prod9781107002289.html

Probably the best proof of human contribution is a chart from this site:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels/

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by ProDee

[Earl Hood 5,788]

On 27 October 2017 at 5:27 PM, ProDee said:

The word "denier" is offensive, as it's intentionally linked to the holocaust.  I'm a skeptic. 

Spending billions on a problem that doesn't exist, and even if it did you can't influence anyway, is about as stupid as mankind has reached. 

Especially when some people can't afford to keep warm or turn the lights on due to the cost of energy through mad green schemes or policies. 

And the best you can do is call someone cheap ?

If the mad Greens or gutless major parties really thought we were damaging the planet they'd go nuclear.

I know you're not a stupid guy, but your brains vacate when you think of "climate change".

Denier, skeptic why should a climate zealot like myself differentiate. And yes in your definition, I put my hand up I am a zealot then because I believe in the science and therefore we need to act now and even though we are a small player in local emissions, but a large world player in our exports of future emissions, we need to take a leadership role. 

Skeptic, Denier either way you are about doing nothing while the evidence mounts, denier, skeptic, same thing. 

You realise Margaret Thatcher spoke out on the need to deal with climate change in 1989! She had a chemistry degree and believed in the science but she spoke a year after the IPCC was formed to evaluate the climate problem but before the fossil fuel industry had realised they had a PR problem and started their rear guard action to muddy the waters on climate change. How much longer do you want to evaluate the data? But then you don't believe the data so where to now for the skeptic? Sounds like more non action. 

US agencies just released a 500 page report stating that climate change is happening and it is very highly likely human induced, all this in defiance of their political masters of the Trump administration who are stated skeptics. Where is the conspiracy for this? 

As I have said before forget the predictive models if you believe they are corrupted and the data which you believe is manipulated and just observe what's happening. Temperature records are being broken regularly, 12 to 1 in favour of hotter than average vs cooler than average. Great Barrier Reef and all reefs in the Pacific bleached in successive years. 15 of the  last 16 years have seen the hottest global average temperature years have occurred this century, yet skeptics say heating has stopped? 

Wasted billions on climate change you say, wasted on what exactly? Are you referring to subsidised Solar cells? Or wind energy turbines? 

[daisycutter 28,484]

42 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

 

US agencies just released a 500 page report stating that climate change is happening and it is very highly likely human induced, all this in defiance of their political masters of the Trump administration who are stated skeptics. Where is the conspiracy for this? 

 

lol earl......you do realise the us is the home of conspiracies  it's like the 2nd amendment, it is in their dna

[Phadraig 760]

11 hours ago, ProDee said:

If you have an open mind re the climate I encourage you to listen to the talk given by Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) linked below.

Heller was a global warming enthusiast from 1980-2003.

In this talk he irrefutably proves that NASA and NOAA fudge their data to suit the narrative they want to portray.  He shows graphs, articles, and emails.

It's very informative for even someone like yourself, who seemingly believes man is dangerously warming the planet and billions being spent to combat it is somehow a good thing.

After you've had time to view it let me know what you think.

EDIT: for some reason the video starts at 8 minutes 50.  Just scroll back to the beginning.

 

He has a youtube channel which he frequently posts videos on all kinds of topics related to global warming which are very interesting. The above video is excellent and goes into all the relevant details to do with the unusual changes in data that NASA and other organisations relase. His youtube videos are much shorter if the above is too long.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos?disable_polymer=1

Edited November 6, 2017 by Rafiki

[Gator 16,891]

12 hours ago, Rafiki said:

He has a youtube channel which he frequently posts videos on all kinds of topics related to global warming which are very interesting. The above video is excellent and goes into all the relevant details to do with the unusual changes in data that NASA and other organisations relase. His youtube videos are much shorter if the above is too long.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TonyHeller1/videos?disable_polymer=1

Yes, and the following video in particular, uploaded just two weeks ago, shows NASA and NOAA for the fraudsters they are and the hysteria over nothing.

Have a listen @hardtack

 

[Gator 16,891]

16 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Denier, skeptic why should a climate zealot like myself differentiate. And yes in your definition, I put my hand up I am a zealot then because I believe in the science and therefore we need to act now and even though we are a small player in local emissions, but a large world player in our exports of future emissions, we need to take a leadership role. 

Skeptic, Denier either way you are about doing nothing while the evidence mounts, denier, skeptic, same thing. 

You realise Margaret Thatcher spoke out on the need to deal with climate change in 1989! She had a chemistry degree and believed in the science but she spoke a year after the IPCC was formed to evaluate the climate problem but before the fossil fuel industry had realised they had a PR problem and started their rear guard action to muddy the waters on climate change. How much longer do you want to evaluate the data? But then you don't believe the data so where to now for the skeptic? Sounds like more non action. 

US agencies just released a 500 page report stating that climate change is happening and it is very highly likely human induced, all this in defiance of their political masters of the Trump administration who are stated skeptics. Where is the conspiracy for this? 

As I have said before forget the predictive models if you believe they are corrupted and the data which you believe is manipulated and just observe what's happening. Temperature records are being broken regularly, 12 to 1 in favour of hotter than average vs cooler than average. Great Barrier Reef and all reefs in the Pacific bleached in successive years. 15 of the  last 16 years have seen the hottest global average temperature years have occurred this century, yet skeptics say heating has stopped? 

Wasted billions on climate change you say, wasted on what exactly? Are you referring to subsidised Solar cells? Or wind energy turbines? 

Yes, I'm aware of the funding addicted scientists who push their climate porn agenda.

I'm also aware of people like Bill Gray, who was defunded by Al Gore, because he didn't like his views.  Gray was America's pre-eminent expert on hurricanes and his views didn't fit Gore's narrative.  

'Dr. Bill Gray has passed away. He was my hero, and an inspiration. Bill was a man of the highest integrity and character. Bill had his funding cut off by Al Gore in 1993 for refusing to go along with Gore’s global warming politics. Unlike so many others, Bill chose scientific integrity over politics and money, and fought against climate fraud to his last breath.'

NASA and NOAA show a 30 year exaggerated trend by about a third of a degree due to poorly sited weather stations.

 https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Press-Release-NEW-STUDY-OF-NOAA-USHCN.pdf

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/

Look at a couple of photos on the above link to see where a weather sensor is located in a car-park near office air conditioners.

Climate scientists thought we were in a warming phase in the 1940s and then a cooling phase in the 1970s.  Now it's back to warming, even though we're about 1 degree difference since 1880.  Wow.  Can you believe it ?  A whole of a degree.  And even then, it might be a bit less.  Not to mention the planet was coming out of a little ice age in the 1800s.

James Hansen from NASA said "much of Lower Manhattan would be underwater by 2008".

The same James Hansen admitted in 1999 "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

The same James Hansen predicted the Arctic would be free of summer ice by now.

Dr Hansen was considered a climate "prophet".

In 1986 the same Hansen predicted temperatures would increase "4-6 degrees between 1958 and 2020".  It better hurry up.

Do you want more dud predictions ?  Do you want more evidence of data tampering from NASA and NOAA ?  They've fudged records to make the 40s and earlier appear cooler and from the 70s onwards to appear warmer.

Answer me this Hood.  The planet is 4.5 billion years old.  How do you know what the perfect temperature is anyway ?  There's enough evidence to suggest being warmer is better than cooler.  

CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere.  Human contributes about 3% of that.  Australia contributes 1.5% of that.  Australia contributes 0.000018% of atmospheric CO2 and almost half of that is absorbed in the biosphere.  This hoax is beyond a joke.

As for the cost ?

This article is 6 years old, but it highlights spend categories.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#1170797ebbef

CO2 has gone from 280 ppm in 1880 to about 400 ppm in 2017.  1880 wasn't far off a little ice age.  In that time the planet has barely gone up a degree in temperature.  And within that time we've had cooling and warming periods.  We've cooled as the CO2 has gone higher than 280 ppm.

CO2 doesn't drive climate, imo.  It may contribute a small amount of heating as a greenhouse gas, but it certainly isn't the "driver".

And the planet is far from warming "dangerously".  Some more warming would be GOOD.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by ProDee

[Gator 16,891]

For more than 2 million years our earth has cycled in and out of Ice Ages, accompanied by massive ice sheets accumulating over polar landmasses and a cold, desert-like global climate. Although the tropics during the Ice Age were still tropical, the temperate regions and sub-tropical regions were markedly different than they are today. There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

 

 

 

 

NOTE: All charts were plotted directly from composite data sets using Lotus 1-2-3.

CO2 Graph Sources:	Temperature Graph Sources:
2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data 1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica 1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica 2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data	2000-1979: Satellite stratospheric data 1979-1871: S. Hemisphere ground temp. data 1871- 422k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data