Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past*

We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.
The earth is a cyclical system..

View attachment 406523

Warming spikes are seen every time we begin a cooling cycle and we are over due...
But the red spike at the far right goes off the chart for the first time, and the blue part is more bunched up closer to today, also for the first time. What exactly are you trying to prove?
End points are not averaged.. If we average the end point it disappears. The earth has been over 400ppm very often in data sets that have higher resolution.

Stomata and CO2.png


Tell me what was happening in the years of 800 to 1300 and why the CO2 levels mirror todays levels?
 
Last edited:
Since it’s so damn hot. Why don’t all you liberals go ahead and move to Antarctica.

If you believe in Global Warming wouldn’t you take advantage of the opportunity to be the first to civilize Antarctica?
I bet you voted for Trump. Amirite or AMIRITE? :biggrin:
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.
The earth is a cyclical system..

View attachment 406523

Warming spikes are seen every time we begin a cooling cycle and we are over due...
But the red spike at the far right goes off the chart for the first time, and the blue part is more bunched up closer to today, also for the first time. What exactly are you trying to prove?
End points are not averaged.. If we average the end point it disappears. The earth has been over 400ppm very often in data sets that have higher resolution.

View attachment 406524
Again, it gets higher and more kaotic the closer you get to today.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
What I'm saying is that the earth's temperature has been rising unnaturally fast since the industrial revolution began. All your examples of whatever don't change that fact. As for NASA faking data, put a proper link to something credible and beyond reproach, and I'll check it out.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.

The following are from NASA:

View attachment 406519

LINK

===

View attachment 406521



======

Now watch the resistance to the NASA only sources evidence from Taz....
What am I looking at? It seems like the temperature average is rising over time? And possibly accelerating the closer we get to today?
NASA cooled the past tempratures and increased the present temps. This was clearly shown in Suns previous posts. They have been caught data manipulating many, many times.
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data

Your source doesn't even address Tony Heller's claim at all, you are that easily mislead?

First of all they post his accurate claim, but ignore the NASA produced charts that supports his claim:


CLAIM
[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[...] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.

But they didn't post the link back to Heller's post showing abundant evidence of NASA alterations.

Alterations To The US Temperature Record

LINK

=====

You are apparently unaware at how easily they fooled you with that dishonest claim, since they don't even provide the link back to his website, just Murphy's website.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:


Genders are not science?
Another science denier genius. :rolleyes:


Are genders part of science or not cupcakes?
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
What I'm saying is that the earth's temperature has been rising unnaturally fast since the industrial revolution began. All your examples of whatever don't change that fact. As for NASA faking data, put a proper link to something credible and beyond reproach, and I'll check it out.

No that will be a waste of my time since YOU are on record rejecting NASA only sources for the charts I have posted, they show OBVIOUS changes to the temperature change profile.

You are being dishonest here.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:


Genders are not science?
Another science denier genius. :rolleyes:
WOW another science denier and dupe...


He is trying reallly hard for to get preganant with his husband to prove us all wrong.


His husband thinks it is funny and just smirks.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
What I'm saying is that the earth's temperature has been rising unnaturally fast since the industrial revolution began. All your examples of whatever don't change that fact. As for NASA faking data, put a proper link to something credible and beyond reproach, and I'll check it out.


No, the warming trend it no higher than previous warming trends back to the 1880's.

Dr. Jones himself said so:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Excerpt:


A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

LINK

=====

It has been COOLING for more than 4 1/2 years now, showed you this before that you ignored, going to ignore it again?

1603644120290.png



LINK

===

About .10C warmer since 1998.

1603644270620.png



LINK

=====

YOU have been well served, try to be honest in your replies.
 
Last edited:
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.

The following are from NASA:

View attachment 406519

LINK

===

View attachment 406521



======

Now watch the resistance to the NASA only sources evidence from Taz....
What am I looking at? It seems like the temperature average is rising over time? And possibly accelerating the closer we get to today?
NASA cooled the past tempratures and increased the present temps. This was clearly shown in Suns previous posts. They have been caught data manipulating many, many times.
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data

Your source doesn't even address Tony Heller's claim at all, you are that easily mislead?

First of all they post his accurate claim, but ignore the NASA produced charts that supports his claim:


CLAIM
[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[...] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.

But they didn't post the link back to Heller's post showing abundant evidence of NASA alterations.

Alterations To The US Temperature Record

LINK

=====

You are apparently unaware at how easily they fooled you with that dishonest claim, since they don't even provide the link back to his website, just Murphy's website.
Every graph in your link is trending upwards. Thanks for clearing that up. As for the difference in data graphs, there's not much difference, and does NASA explain it rationally why they did it like that?
 
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science.
.......Just like the leftists that claim multiple genders. Got it again.

So when you approve of it, science isn't being ignored because it confirms your biases.
You are coming through loud and inconsistent! Just as I'm certain you will ignore the opinions and findings of these NASA scientists.

 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
What I'm saying is that the earth's temperature has been rising unnaturally fast since the industrial revolution began. All your examples of whatever don't change that fact. As for NASA faking data, put a proper link to something credible and beyond reproach, and I'll check it out.

No that will be a waste of my time since YOU are on record rejecting NASA only sources for the charts I have posted, they show OBVIOUS changes to the temperature change profile.

You are being dishonest here.
Does NASA ever explain why they chose to do that? Maybe there's a logical reason?
 
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science.
.......Just like the leftists that claim multiple genders. So when you approve of it, science isn't being ignored.
Got it! Just as I'm certain you will ignore the opinions and findings of these NASA scientists.

They aren't denying climate change, just that CO2 is responsible for a large part of it. I wasn't disputing what is causing climate change, because it could be a combination of factors, but rather the peeps here were saying the climate change isn't happening.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.

The following are from NASA:

View attachment 406519

LINK

===

View attachment 406521



======

Now watch the resistance to the NASA only sources evidence from Taz....
What am I looking at? It seems like the temperature average is rising over time? And possibly accelerating the closer we get to today?
NASA cooled the past tempratures and increased the present temps. This was clearly shown in Suns previous posts. They have been caught data manipulating many, many times.
NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data

Your source doesn't even address Tony Heller's claim at all, you are that easily mislead?

First of all they post his accurate claim, but ignore the NASA produced charts that supports his claim:


CLAIM
[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[...] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.

But they didn't post the link back to Heller's post showing abundant evidence of NASA alterations.

Alterations To The US Temperature Record

LINK

=====

You are apparently unaware at how easily they fooled you with that dishonest claim, since they don't even provide the link back to his website, just Murphy's website.
Every graph in your link is trending upwards. Thanks for clearing that up. As for the difference in data graphs, there's not much difference, and does NASA explain it rationally why they did it like that?

Your deflection is complete, you are one dishonest man who refuses to admit that NASA altered their data over time, I showed this using their own published charts, you ignore with your obvious to see deflection to say it is warming, which NO ONE is denying.

People like you have helped me show how dishonest warmist/alarmists really are, my own family have grown quiet after seeing the deflecting bullcrap from science illiterates like you.
 
Last edited:
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
What I'm saying is that the earth's temperature has been rising unnaturally fast since the industrial revolution began. All your examples of whatever don't change that fact. As for NASA faking data, put a proper link to something credible and beyond reproach, and I'll check it out.


No, the warming trend it no higher than previous warming trends back to the 1880's.

Dr. Jones himself said so:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Excerpt:


A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

LINK

=====

It has been COOLING for more than 4 1/2 years now, showed you this before that you ignored, going to ignore it again?

View attachment 406534


LINK

===

About .10C warmer since 1998.

View attachment 406538


LINK

=====

YOU have been well served, try to be honest in your replies.
Your graphs are trending up again.
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.

You are deflecting, since I made the claim NASA alters temperature data, you requested evidence, I supported my statement, now you are saying they don't mean much.

Pathetic.
What I'm saying is that the earth's temperature has been rising unnaturally fast since the industrial revolution began. All your examples of whatever don't change that fact. As for NASA faking data, put a proper link to something credible and beyond reproach, and I'll check it out.


No, the warming trend it no higher than previous warming trends back to the 1880's.

Dr. Jones himself said so:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Excerpt:


A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

LINK

=====

It has been COOLING for more than 4 1/2 years now, showed you this before that you ignored, going to ignore it again?

View attachment 406534


LINK

===

About .10C warmer since 1998.

View attachment 406538


LINK

=====

YOU have been well served, try to be honest in your replies.
Your graphs are trending up again.

Your deflecting, dishonest replies are off the charts.
 
They aren't denying climate change, just that CO2 is responsible for a large part of it. I wasn't disputing what is causing climate change, because it could be a combination of factors, but rather the peeps here were saying the climate change isn't happening.
I don't think it is happening in the way the kooks and extremists would like to believe (I.E. the Greta Thunbergs or Paul Erlichs of the world). The people with a perverted psyche who want to paint the darkest most dire pictures of the future seem to get all the attention.

Try reading an expert on the matter, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, for a less strident more fact based take on global warming. Get the facts straight | Bjorn Lomborg
 
We just had an all time record snow for Oct and now cold weather for MN this week.
Until I see Palm Trees on the shores of Lake Superior I will be sceptical of this calamity of global warming.
Those Palms do start growing here, I will then believe the warming and celebrate with a Mai Tai on the beaches of Duluth.
Why is it that everyone who voted for Donnie denies science?
Like the liberals who claim multiple genders?
That's simply trying to help people who are going through a personal crisis, but you'd need empathy for that, which Trump voters also don't have.
You actually deny science. :cuckoo:
How so?
I welcome the supposed warming. Still waiting for it to kick in. The climate has changed constantly for the planets entire history. That doesn't signify a world calamity. Species evolve or die out. That is nature and tough luck for some.
A scientist is supposed to be sceptical of supposed claims of consensus.

So when does your scientific consensus of the end of snow start? I am getting impatient with the yearly normal cold assed winters.
Man, what's it like to purposely choose to be ignorant, when you can read up on all the GW science out there on the internet. :rolleyes:
The IPCC garbage is hyperbole... Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.
Oh great, another clueless noob just in to say something inane. :biggrin:

Taz, who can't answer the question, yet has the gall to insult a scientist working on his PHD over it.

Here is the tuff question Taz ignores....

Tell me how CO2 is storing energy AND WHERE IT IS. I'll wait.

It appears another leftist AGW believer failing to defend the ideology.
Is this question supposed to prove that NASA is faking their data?

Answer the question fella, your dodging the question is boring.
LOL

I've given up on him.... He spouts crapola and has no science to back up his assertions..
I back what I say with NASA. You peeps have nothing but more fake news.
I will provide a link again to the basics of Anthroprogenic Global Warming. Most of the facts are not in dispute. There is conjecture around the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere. The ERBE satellite data shows there is no hot spot and that the input/output balance is unchanged by adding more CO2.


Again, even NASA has not answered the question of how and where their missing energy is..

View attachment 406494
So they're saying that 2/3 of the CO2 increase is from a feedback loop and amplification. Ya, so what? It means that the CO2 we put into the system amplifies itself to make it worse? Is that about right? Or did I get something wrong?
Does CO2's interaction with water vapor actually amplify or does it dampen? ERBE shows a dampening and thus no hot spot. With out this basic premise CAGW FAILS...
I'm not sure how these separate details all plug in with GW, because taken as a whole, the temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution, and is predicted to keep on rising into the future.
The earth is a cyclical system..

View attachment 406523

Warming spikes are seen every time we begin a cooling cycle and we are over due...
But the red spike at the far right goes off the chart for the first time, and the blue part is more bunched up closer to today, also for the first time. What exactly are you trying to prove?
End points are not averaged.. If we average the end point it disappears. The earth has been over 400ppm very often in data sets that have higher resolution.

View attachment 406524
Again, it gets higher and more kaotic the closer you get to today.
Because real-time data collection is more accurate, duh.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top