Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[Mircea]

Are they lying? Its a simple question

Yes.

And "they" includes NASA, the IPCC and the Media.

An omission of relevant facts by definition is a lie.

To avoid lying, NASA can compare temperatures to the entire 140 year recorded temperature record instead of cherry-picking a date range for the deceptive purpose of proving their baseless claims.

But they don't do that.

Why do you suppose they don't do that? Because they're lying.

If you compare the annual data for the last 20 years with the entire 140 year recorded temperature record, there is no global warming.

In fact, it was 2018 (I think) where the average global temperatures decreased 1.2°F nearly wiping out the 1.4°F temperature increase over the last 140 years that everyone has been screaming about that supposedly proves global warming.

A 1.4°F temperature increase over 140 years is neither abnormal, nor unusual, nor catastrophic.

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

Uh-oh....government website.....can't scream "Koch Brothers!" or "Right-wing Blog" or "Big Oil."

Watcha gonna do now?

 

[vegas giants]

Yes.

And "they" includes NASA, the IPCC and the Media.

An omission of relevant facts by definition is a lie.

To avoid lying, NASA can compare temperatures to the entire 140 year recorded temperature record instead of cherry-picking a date range for the deceptive purpose of proving their baseless claims.

But they don't do that.

Why do you suppose they don't do that? Because they're lying.

If you compare the annual data for the last 20 years with the entire 140 year recorded temperature record, there is no global warming.

In fact, it was 2018 (I think) where the average global temperatures decreased 1.2°F nearly wiping out the 1.4°F temperature increase over the last 140 years that everyone has been screaming about that supposedly proves global warming.

A 1.4°F temperature increase over 140 years is neither abnormal, nor unusual, nor catastrophic.

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

Uh-oh....government website.....can't scream "Koch Brothers!" or "Right-wing Blog" or "Big Oil."

Watcha gonna do now?

Interesting. Is NOAA lying too? How about the national academy of Sciences.?

I have a long list of nobel laureates who believe in AGW too. Are they lying?


Thise are serious questions

 

[Mircea]

Do you have any idea why they picked those dates for baseline?

Yeah, for reasons of propaganda.

I'll tell you something else that makes NASA's propaganda even more heinous.

What happened in 1951? And continued through 1963?

Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.

Underground nuclear weapons tests do not eject material into the upper atmosphere, meaning above the tropopause and into the stratosphere. Neither do ground bursts.

But, atmospheric air bursts do.

In the troposphere (below the tropopause), a nominal-sized particle (~42 microns) falls at a rate of 2,000 feet per hour. That's just stuff you have to know when plotting fallout maps for your boss so he can inform his company or squadron commanders.

Unfortunately, particles in the stratosphere can circle Earth for up to 70 years, and ironically, there's a "half-life" meaning about half the particles have fallen out, or maybe precipitated out is a better word, around 35 years.

If we add 35 years to 1951 we get 1986. Imagine that.

It's a known fact that the particulate matter from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (consisting of un-fissioned Pu239/240 and U-235/238 used in the tamper and/or reflector, the Aluminum weapons casing and the electronics package) cause global temperatures to decrease slightly.

So, NASA isn't just cherry-picking a date range, it's cherry-picking a date range where NASA knows that atmospheric nuclear weapons testing caused global temperatures to be lower than normal.

 

[vegas giants]

I find it interesting that people will believe some of the greatest and most respected scientists and scientific agencies will all agree to some coordinated lie

 

[watsup]

If you compare the annual data for the last 20 years with the entire 140 year recorded temperature record, there is no global warming.

Source, please.

 

[Mircea]

Why were the sea levels higher in those times?

Because the other 8 previously recorded Inter-Glacial Periods were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present (4.3°C to 8.5°C if you're an Anglophobe).

In those other Inter-Glacial Periods, the Greenland Ice Sheet normally melts almost in its entirety, so if the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting, that is normal, not abnormal and not unusual and not unprecedented. Same with Eastern and Western Antarctic Ice Sheets.

When global temperatures rise another 15.0°F then there is nothing unusual, unprecedented or abnormal happening. At 15.4°F you can say global warming and I might actually listen to you.

 

[Mircea]

Source, please.

The global temperature record. Go look at it yourself. It's hard to fathom that people would argue something and not consulted sources, but then why would you? You bought into the global warming narrative hook, line and sinker.

 

[vegas giants]

The global temperature record. Go look at it yourself. It's hard to fathom that people would argue something and not consulted sources, but then why would you? You bought into the global warming narrative hook, line and sinker.

I dont think you can find a reputable scientist on earth that believes you

 

[watsup]

Because the other 8 previously recorded Inter-Glacial Periods were 7.8°F to 15.3°F warmer than present (4.3°C to 8.5°C if you're an Anglophobe).

In those other Inter-Glacial Periods, the Greenland Ice Sheet normally melts almost in its entirety, so if the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting, that is normal, not abnormal and not unusual and not unprecedented. Same with Eastern and Western Antarctic Ice Sheets.

When global temperatures rise another 15.0°F then there is nothing unusual, unprecedented or abnormal happening. At 15.4°F you can say global warming and I might actually listen to you.

Why were those periods warmer?

 

[Mircea]

So you still have nothing but nonsense, eh?

I posted science and you ignored it because you couldn't scream, "Koch Brothers!" or "Right-wing Blog!" or "Big Oil."

I even posted Wien's Law -- which is high school physics -- and you ignored that because you can't refute it.

 

[watsup]

In fact, it was 2018 (I think) where the average global temperatures decreased 1.2°F nearly wiping out the 1.4°F temperature increase over the last 140 years that everyone has been screaming about that supposedly proves global warming.

Guess not:

“NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend.
The data means that the five warmest years in recorded history have been the last five, and that 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2001. The quickly rising temperatures over the past two decades cap a much longer warming trend documented by researchers and correspond with the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity.
“We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. “It’s here. It’s now.”
While this planet has seen hotter days in prehistoric times, and colder ones in the modern era, what sets recent warming apart in the sweep of geologic time is the relatively sudden rise in temperatures and its clear correlation with increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane produced by human activity.
The results of this rapid warming can be seen from the heat waves in Australia and extended droughts to coastal flooding in the United States, in disappearing Arctic ice and shrinking glaciers. Scientists have linked climate change to more destructive hurricanes like Michael and Florence last year, and have found links to such phenomena as the polar vortex, which last week delivered bone-chilling blasts to the American Midwest and Northeast.”

It’s Official: 2018 Was the Fourth-Warmest Year on Record (Published 2019)

The only warmer years were 2015, 2016 and 2017, according to NASA records that go back more than a century.

www.nytimes.com

Plus the temps of one year have to be AVERAGED IN with the temps from the 140 other years. Just because the temps were 1.2 degrees less in ONE year does not mean that you can subtract it from the data of 140 years. Mathematically, that makes not a bit of sense. One year is not going to wipe our decades of data.

 

[watsup]

I posted science and you ignored it because you couldn't scream, "Koch Brothers!" or "Right-wing Blog!" or "Big Oil."

I even posted Wien's Law -- which is high school physics -- and you ignored that because you can't refute it.

So now you are making lame right-wing based excuses instead of answering my very relevant questions. You’re not alone. That’s a standard right wing tactic, to start in with the personal insults then the discussion gets too tough.

 

[fortune]

I do find it discouraging that the counter to global warming is collusion between all governments everywhere and if they ask any of those governments for proof that is counter they can only respond "coverup" which is supposed to be the end of discussion..

There are many cruise lines now taking the northwest passage right now that the ices has melted.... Search: cruise, northwest passage.

 

[vegas giants]

I do find it discouraging that the counter to global warming is collusion between all governments everywhere and if they ask any of those governments for proof that is counter they can only respond "coverup" which is supposed to be the end of discussion..

There are many cruise lines now taking the northwest passage right now that the ices has melted.... Search: cruise, northwest passage.

I see no coverup at all

 

[watsup]

I do find it discouraging that the counter to global warming is collusion between all governments everywhere and if they ask any of those governments for proof that is counter they can only respond "coverup" which is supposed to be the end of discussion..

There are many cruise lines now taking the northwest passage right now that the ices has melted.... Search: cruise, northwest passage.

Yes, they have a plethora of standard talking points, all of which are meant to immediately end discussion rather than to furhter it in any way.

 

[code1211]

Interesting, I was just chatting w/ an AGW advocate that insisted that we call back to 1800 and there've been others that go back a half century before to the beginning of the industrial revolution. The problem of course is that nobody has temperature measurements approaching the precision that the AGW people present --which is why they now got no idea what the temp was then, they got no idea what the temp is now, but they know for sure it's 2.763C (or whatever alarmist number u want) hotter now.

Any conclusion that all this is anything but a fraud defies reason.

The basic truth of AGW Science is that it is political, not scientific.

One poster here uses the term "Climastrologists" to describe the folks who claim to be "Climatologists".

I like his word better than theirs as it seems to be more accurate in conveying the nature of their expertise and the precision of their predictions.

In passing, are you really a transplant to Panama from the US? Do you recommend it?

 

[watsup]

The basic truth of AGW Science is that it is political, not scientific.

One poster here uses the term "Climastrologists" to describe the folks who claim to be "Climatologists".

I like his word better than theirs as it seems to be more accurate in conveying the nature of their expertise and the precision of their predictions.

In passing, are you really a transplant to Panama from the US? Do you recommend it?

Denier talking points. *YAWN*

 

[expat_panama]

The basic truth of AGW Science is that it is political, not scientific.

One poster here uses the term "Climastrologists" to describe the folks who claim to be "Climatologists".

I like his word better than theirs as it seems to be more accurate in conveying the nature of their expertise and the precision of their predictions.

In passing, are you really a transplant to Panama from the US? Do you recommend it?

Sure do, living (to me) in Panama's a lot better than living in the states. Health care's a lot cheaper & more available, the people are freindly, live is easy going --but the U.S. (to me) is a lot better place to work. So what I do is I work online in the U.S. & I live here. Costs for communication & transportation have plummeted so now it's extremly easy to chat w/ or even go up & visit anyone in the U.S. whenever I want.

Getting back to global warming, it may be that it's more than just political, it may be an illusion that's hard wired into us & not everyone can see it. If u get a chance, check out --it's an illusion that I found compelling. It seems that the power of it is hard wired into our brains so we can think faster & the illusion works by taking advantage of the shortcut. Do let me know what u think.

 

[longview]

Sure do, living (to me) in Panama's a lot better than living in the states. Health care's a lot cheaper & more available, the people are freindly, live is easy going --but the U.S. (to me) is a lot better place to work. So what I do is I work online in the U.S. & I live here. Costs for communication & transportation have plummeted so now it's extremly easy to chat w/ or even go up & visit anyone in the U.S. whenever I want.

Getting back to global warming, it may be that it's more than just political, it may be an illusion that's hard wired into us & not everyone can see it. If u get a chance, check out --it's an illusion that I found compelling. It seems that the power of it is hard wired into our brains so we can think faster & the illusion works by taking advantage of the shortcut. Do let me know what u think.

There could be a lot to that idea.
I have long considered that Humans are incapable of detecting a 1C average temperature change over a 50 year period,
but may perceive that it is warmer, because a half a century of getting older, and fatter, makes it seem warmer.
While I have little doubt that the average temperatures have increased,(~1C since 1900),
my own perspective only goes back to the 1960's. fifty some odd years ago, and quite a few extra pounds,
make the summers that were already hot, seem hotter than the summers of my youth.

 

[expat_panama]

There could be a lot to that idea.
I have long considered that Humans are incapable of detecting a 1C average temperature change over a 50 year period,
but may perceive that it is warmer, because a half a century of getting older, and fatter, makes it seem warmer.
While I have little doubt that the average temperatures have increased,(~1C since 1900),
my own perspective only goes back to the 1960's. fifty some odd years ago, and quite a few extra pounds,
make the summers that were already hot, seem hotter than the summers of my youth.

That temp increase has been about a lot in one form or another some say 1C since 1750, others say 1C since 1880, some say it's been a lot more but decline to say how much, it goes on and on. The bottom line seems to be that they all agree that we're too hot now but nobody but nobody knows what the average global temp is now --absolutely no consensus.

To me that just seems completely bonkers.

 

[longview]

That temp increase has been about a lot in one form or another some say 1C since 1750, others say 1C since 1880, some say it's been a lot more but decline to say how much, it goes on and on. The bottom line seems to be that they all agree that we're too hot now but nobody but nobody knows what the average global temp is now --absolutely no consensus.

To me that just seems completely bonkers.

One of the few things we can say for sure, is that plants are not good at lying.
Plant hardiness zones have expanded from the warmer to the cooler climates.
This is mostly a good thing, and the tropical plant zones have not lost anything.

 

[watsup]

That temp increase has been about a lot in one form or another some say 1C since 1750, others say 1C since 1880, some say it's been a lot more but decline to say how much, it goes on and on. The bottom line seems to be that they all agree that we're too hot now but nobody but nobody knows what the average global temp is now --absolutely no consensus.

To me that just seems completely bonkers.

There is consensus among climate scientists on a worldwide basis that human-produced CO2 is causing global warming and needs to be addressed. Please pay better attention.

 

[watsup]

One of the few things we can say for sure, is that plants are not good at lying.
Plant hardiness zones have expanded from the warmer to the cooler climates.
This is mostly a good thing, and the tropical plant zones have not lost anything.

Actually, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of species of both flora and fauna have been extincted and are continuing to be extincted by the human-produced global warming. How is that a good thing? What gives humans the right to engage on wholesale extinction of other species?

 

[longview]

Actually, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of species of both flora and fauna have been extincted and are continuing to be extincted by the human-produced global warming. How is that a good thing? What gives humans the right to engage on wholesale extinction of other species?

Is it global warming, or habitat loss?

 

[expat_panama]

One of the few things we can say for sure, is that plants are not good at lying.
Plant hardiness zones have expanded from the warmer to the cooler climates.
This is mostly a good thing, and the tropical plant zones have not lost anything.

--and presumably this is caused by the earth heating. It very well may be true, so that's why I'm so interested in the temp of the earth. Only prob is that the info is not available and speculating as to why is so open ended.