|
|
Post by knot on Mar 1, 2019 16:50:55 GMT -5
"Data from Berkeley Earth"   Referrencing plainly left-biased information is most certainly a good way to prove it, matey.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 16:52:15 GMT -5
my main problem is most AGW-supporters are in the liberal/communist camp, which i certainly don't support. e.g pär holmgren here in sweden.if you accept agw, you automatically have to accept a whole lot of other stuff as well. just as they don't give a fuck about diversity (e.g pro race mixing, even though they know that position is less likely to bring an end to AGW). Don't fall into the partisan rabbit hole! Climate change is real and proven. Much more proven than your claims about race, and it's not a partisan issue. Almost all European right-wing parties think climate change is real. I think even the NRM believes it, and some of their members root for eco-fascist policies.
[/qu ote] 99% of agw believers put idelogy before facts, though. a good example: most progressives want africans to reach the europeans living standards. how well does that go with the "i care about muh planet"-narrative? even though that's demonstrably worse for the planet. deep down, they don't give a shit. letting africans starve to death would at least be a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 16:55:43 GMT -5
Ok assuming the data is real (not saying it's not), where is the robust proof that CO2 has caused this trend? Please don't give me a correlating graph of increasing CO2 and say that is the cause. I would more readily believe the UHI effect has more sway in the trend than >CO2.
Why shouldn't the increase of CO2 be included as a factor? If anything, the rising amount of CO2 emissions and the effect on climate can be proven.
FMI uses all kind of extrapolations, including tree-ring growth, pollen analysis and other methods to define the past mean temperature. We don't have ice-core samples but Norway for example has. UHI is not a factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 1, 2019 17:00:49 GMT -5
Annual mean temp averaged for all Finnish weather stations. If you don't see a trend, you're stupid. Ok assuming the data is real (not saying it's not), where is the robust proof that CO2 has caused this trend? Please don't give me a correlating graph of increasing CO2 and say that is the cause. I would more readily believe the UHI effect has more sway in the trend than >CO2. Besides that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas whose effect can be calculated, what more evidence do you want? We’ve had this conversation before, and it inevitably results in a dismissal of anything presented |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Mar 1, 2019 17:01:30 GMT -5
That shows it’s increasing. You want proof? Look at literally any station in North America, Europe, Asia, etc. and compare 1981-2010 with 1961-1900. 1981-2010 will be warmer. And people mentioning records? Those don’t matter. What matters and proves climate change is a continuous, gradual warming of average temperatures. Try finding a large collection of stations that have gotten cooler or places that are below average most of the time now. I bet you can’t. Are people who think the earth is flat not morons? What about people who think it’s 6000 years old? These are scientific facts, so is climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 17:01:49 GMT -5
99% of agw believers put idelogy before facts, though. a good example: most progressives want africans to reach the europeans living standards. how well does that go with the "i care about muh planet"-narrative? even though that's demonstrably worse for the planet. deep down, they don't give a shit. letting africans starve to death would at least be a good start.
Africa will never reach the living standards of Europe. But if they try, in some years the technology in developed countries have created possibilities for renewable energy sources, which African countries can afford. And if you're worried about immigrants, remember this: the better off Africa and the Middle East is, the less they will attempt to migrate to Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Mar 1, 2019 17:04:50 GMT -5
Ok assuming the data is real (not saying it's not), where is the robust proof that CO2 has caused this trend? Please don't give me a correlating graph of increasing CO2 and say that is the cause. I would more readily believe the UHI effect has more sway in the trend than >CO2.
Why shouldn't the increase of CO2 be included as a factor? If anything, the rising amount of CO2 emissions and the effect on climate can be proven.
FMI uses all kind of extrapolations, including tree-ring growth, pollen analysis and other methods to define the past mean temperature. We don't have ice-core samples but Norway for example has. UHI is not a factor.
I am not saying to exclude CO2 completely but showing a correlating graph of increasing CO2 is not proof in the slightest. The burden of proof is on the alarmists . |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 1, 2019 17:05:29 GMT -5
"Data from Berkeley Earth" Referrencing plainly left-biased information is most certainly a good way to prove it, matey. Because the physicist involved is from Berkeley ( an institution that’s had numerous Nobel prize winners in physics & chemistry) it’s biased. That’s moronic. Some of those involved were somewhat skeptical of climate records, had conservative donors like the Koch brothers. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth |
|
|
|
Post by Nidaros on Mar 1, 2019 17:06:07 GMT -5
Here you can read why the stations must be adjusted simply to avoid wrong data. The way recordings have been taken has changed a lot, but running thermometers side by side the differences can be seen. Read more here:
And imagine all the work thousands of serious scientists are doing every day....from the poles to the equator. Do you really think they do this as part of a type of conspiracy? Would it even be possible to organize such a thing in the real world?
Also think about all the signs in nature...they are not fabricated.
Oh, five provinces here just set new all-time high for Feb...no cold records. Just the ordinary stuff now.
Read more about the warming oceans here:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 17:07:34 GMT -5
it's the opposite, though. immigration is increasing exponentially the better off they get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 17:09:12 GMT -5
back in the 70s-80s, they couldn't afford that option. very simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by knot on Mar 1, 2019 17:09:22 GMT -5
That shows it’s increasing. You want proof? Look at literally any station in North America, Europe, Asia, etc. and compare 1981-2010 with 1961-1900. 1981-2010 will be warmer. And people mentioning records? Those don’t matter.
What matters and proves climate change is a continuous, gradual warming of average temperatures. Try finding a large collection of stations that have gotten cooler or places that are below average most of the time now. I bet you can’t.Are people who think the earth is flat not morons? What about people who think it’s 6000 years old? These are scientific facts, so is climate change. O' deary me, have I not mentioned the myriads of Australian stations which are seeing an average cooling trend? Contrarywise to what you lot are suggesting, thereby rendering "Global Warming" ultimately fraudulent; it may be warming in some regions of the Earth, but it is cooling in others. Ever since the bloody 70's, you AGW lot have been relentessly barking about such codswallop—with no gain to speak of, might I add! False, computer-estimated predictions as far as the eye can see. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Mar 1, 2019 17:09:51 GMT -5
Why shouldn't the increase of CO2 be included as a factor? If anything, the rising amount of CO2 emissions and the effect on climate can be proven.
FMI uses all kind of extrapolations, including tree-ring growth, pollen analysis and other methods to define the past mean temperature. We don't have ice-core samples but Norway for example has. UHI is not a factor.
I am not saying to exclude CO2 completely but showing a correlating graph of increasing CO2 is not proof in the slightest. The burden of proof is on the alarmists . If you’re trying to argue radiational physics is wrong, the burden of proof is on the “CO2 doesn’t cause warming” I really like this short article on the most likely warming from a CO2 increase. No models, just a bit of stats. Everyone here should read statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2009/12/15/say_a_little_pr/ |
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 17:11:01 GMT -5
That shows it’s increasing. You want proof? Look at literally any station in North America, Europe, Asia, etc. and compare 1981-2010 with 1961-1900. 1981-2010 will be warmer. And people mentioning records? Those don’t matter. What matters and proves climate change is a continuous, gradual warming of average temperatures. Try finding a large collection of stations that have gotten cooler or places that are below average most of the time now. I bet you can’t. Are people who think the earth is flat not morons? What about people who think it’s 6000 years old? These are scientific facts, so is climate change. This graph shows how NOAA has been tampering US data to make the past look colder than it was. Looking at the blue graph, even if the average temperature is currently going up it's nothing you haven't seen before. Both the raw and tampered datasets are available from the NOAA website if you want to compare them yourself. When stuff like this comes out, how can you believe anything they say anymore? But I get it, it's all about faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 17:15:02 GMT -5
it's the opposite, though. immigration is increasing exponentially the better off they get.
Like the emigration of Finns to Sweden? Or the emigration of Swedes to the US?
|
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Mar 1, 2019 17:17:33 GMT -5
The first thing my data analysis professor taught me was: "you can make untruthful conclusions with truthful data" Quite fascinating really. nei I will take a look at the link when I am home. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 17:19:14 GMT -5
it's the opposite, though. immigration is increasing exponentially the better off they get. Like the emigration of Finns to Sweden? Or the emigration of Swedes to the US?
we're dealing with a whole different creature here. arabs can (in rare cases) be ok, while sub-saharan africans almost always are parasites on society. no comparision whatsoever. i've observed this many times over. and probably will in the future. you can still afford to be ignorant, but i can't |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 1, 2019 17:21:36 GMT -5
This graph shows how NOAA has been tampering US data to make the past look colder than it was. Looking at the blue graph, even if the average temperature is currently going up it's nothing you haven't seen before. Both the raw and tampered datasets are available from the NOAA website if you want to compare them yourself.
Ok, even if NOAA would've been tampering the data, how about all met agencies and universities of Europe? They show similar results. If you think national and university researchers are all bought by some shadow cabal, you need to get your head checked. Or as one FMI meteorologist said to me: "where's my money? I could create a nonsense study when watching TV."
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildcat on Mar 1, 2019 17:23:20 GMT -5
I was taught in grade school that the scientific method involves testing the hypothesis with a control. Is there an alternate earth with no humans that I'm not aware of? Curious how you can treat it as a proven fact otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hiromant on Mar 1, 2019 17:24:19 GMT -5
Talking about money, keep in mind only one side of this battle is asking for billions of dollars from the public every year. Our power plants and fuels already have "carbon" taxes on them. New Zealand is about to start taxing red meat because cow farts are killing the planet. Countries are paying for quotas so they can keep their industries alive. Researchers aren't brainwashed, they just want to keep their job, funding and reputation. Always follow the money.
|
|
