Mentioned before in the old politics thread that this should be separate so here it is
You must log in or register to see media
Off Topic Climate Change
- Thread starter Looney Leftie
- Start date
- Status
I reckon that vid might be enough to kill him
I'd be worried if it was warm.. Probably means you've strayed into the wrong type of place.
This video is extremely exclusive to any literature and political advocacy that agrees, what is missing is the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. Its an hour of, 1 assumptions leading interpretations. 2. Omission of relevant facts and findings. 3 gross cherry picking
It omits the fact that the IPCC does not look at natural causes of climate change in any of its reports. WG1 never looked at natural causes, so, how can you separate natural from man made IF you want to determine which is which
This is why no one can say how much is human and how much is natural warming
Also, ALL of the actual evidence for sea level rise shows no problem, not only that, but the atolls claimed to be doomed are growing, not vanishing. Of the 1200 solomon Islands, the majority of them are growing not vanishing, yet we were told they were vanishing.
No mention in this at all is the recent reviewed and accepted audit of the HADCRUT data set (that the met office, used to make corrections to their data with) though they didn't correct for the cooling bias in their data adjustments, sites that seen changes in hadcrut data, had all data previous to that site change cooled, that was the process they followed, creating a fake warming trend.
I mention the Hadcrut data set because it is central to the IPCC's claims.
Nowhere is it mentioned in this video that for the first couple of decades in the Hadcrut data set, there is one data point for the entire southern hemisphere.
Nowhere is it mentioned that in the same data set, there are SST data points from ships that were 80KM inland.
Nowhere is it mentioned that anomalies are statistical estimations that produce anomalies that are smaller than we can measure with thermometers we use
Nowhere is it mentioned that we have less than 80 years of reliable modern temperature record, with coverage being very poor until the 1950s.
Nowhere is it mentioned that in geological history, 600 million years of it, CO2 has never ever led temperature, it has always lagged
Why is it that they won't talk about the fact that every claim of doom, they are making now, were made 30 years ago, and that every prediction failed, sea level, temperatures, agricultural losses, drought, heatwaves, all of it was wrong.
There is no evidence in geology at all for catastrophic dangerous AGW
There is no evidence for ocean acification.
Explicit evidence means there can be no other cause as such, there is 0 explicit evidence for AGW being 1 dangerous, 2 driving all warming or most, and I challenge you to post some
The slant in this video is typical of activism.
So to that end lets take one claim at a time.
What amazes me most is, a 1% to 2% change in cloud cover over 120 years can explain pretty much all warming and cooling.
Here is the data, a correlation between temperatures and cloud cover, that is VASTLY better than any CO2 temperature correlation ever was
Cloud cover reduces, temp goes up at the same rate of increase, and as cloud cover % plateaus and is consistent, so is the primary data set of the IPCC, the HADCRUT data set, plateauing and correlating amazingly well with cloud cover.
"In conclusion, natural cyclic change in global cloud cover has a greater impact on global average temperatures than CO2. There is little evidence of a direct feedback relationship between clouds and CO2. Based on satellite measurements of cloud cover (ISCCP), net cloud forcing (CERES) and CO2 levels (KEELING) we developed a model for predicting global temperatures. This results in a best-fit value for TCR = 1.4 ± 0.3°C. Summer cloud forcing has a larger effect in the northern hemisphere resulting in a lower TCR = 1.0 ± 0.3°C. Natural phenomena must influence clouds although the details remain unclear, although the CLOUD experiment has given hints that increased fluxes of cosmic rays may increase cloud seeding [19]. In conclusion, the gradual reduction in net cloud cover explains over 50% of global warming observed during the 80s and 90s, and the hiatus in warming since 1998 coincides with a stabilization of cloud forcing."
Sunshine and max temps with UK stations, who'd have guesses it gets warmer when there is less clouds eh. Strange you never hear clouds mentioned when we have heatwaves or warm summers.
The correlation, pisses over CO2 v temperature correlation
The IPCC claims changes in clouds is caused by CO2 forcing (MORE FORCING MORE CLOUDS), it is central to their claims, but CO2 forcing increased during the periods above, and cloud cover decreased, and temperatures match cloud cover for the period, this is exactly the opposite of what IPCC reports claim
Here is the data, a correlation between temperatures and cloud cover, that is VASTLY better than any CO2 temperature correlation ever was
Cloud cover reduces, temp goes up at the same rate of increase, and as cloud cover % plateaus and is consistent, so is the primary data set of the IPCC, the HADCRUT data set, plateauing and correlating amazingly well with cloud cover.
You must log in or register to see images
"In conclusion, natural cyclic change in global cloud cover has a greater impact on global average temperatures than CO2. There is little evidence of a direct feedback relationship between clouds and CO2. Based on satellite measurements of cloud cover (ISCCP), net cloud forcing (CERES) and CO2 levels (KEELING) we developed a model for predicting global temperatures. This results in a best-fit value for TCR = 1.4 ± 0.3°C. Summer cloud forcing has a larger effect in the northern hemisphere resulting in a lower TCR = 1.0 ± 0.3°C. Natural phenomena must influence clouds although the details remain unclear, although the CLOUD experiment has given hints that increased fluxes of cosmic rays may increase cloud seeding [19]. In conclusion, the gradual reduction in net cloud cover explains over 50% of global warming observed during the 80s and 90s, and the hiatus in warming since 1998 coincides with a stabilization of cloud forcing."
Sunshine and max temps with UK stations, who'd have guesses it gets warmer when there is less clouds eh. Strange you never hear clouds mentioned when we have heatwaves or warm summers.
You must log in or register to see images
The correlation, pisses over CO2 v temperature correlation
You must log in or register to see images
The IPCC claims changes in clouds is caused by CO2 forcing (MORE FORCING MORE CLOUDS), it is central to their claims, but CO2 forcing increased during the periods above, and cloud cover decreased, and temperatures match cloud cover for the period, this is exactly the opposite of what IPCC reports claim
There is no such predictive model in science called "climate change". There is no theory called climate change.
There is Anthropogenic global warming.
There is attribution studies on AGW that ASSUME" computer models are correct, that attempt to predict the future but they are all in separate fields of science, with no link to each other and none of them can ever be validated if they claim things will happen in 2100, we'll all be dead, and almost all of them come from computer models, not current observational science. Fact
What there isn't is a unified workable predictive theory called climate change, climate change is a political term, not a scientific one.
No one even attempts to predict global climate changes. The term is nonsense
and.. any and all predicted local climate changes of doom have been wrong.
We are supposed to have 50 million climate refugees as of 2010, there wasn't even 1 to date. The UN tried to scrub the claim from its websites, and botched it, which is why we know.
Manhattan is meant to be submerged by now, as claimed in the late 80s by Hansen at NASA
IN fact at New York battery, sea level rise has slowed down and flatlined since 2008
Note there is no CO2 signal at all in New York's sea level data, how could that be?! lol
There is Anthropogenic global warming.
There is attribution studies on AGW that ASSUME" computer models are correct, that attempt to predict the future but they are all in separate fields of science, with no link to each other and none of them can ever be validated if they claim things will happen in 2100, we'll all be dead, and almost all of them come from computer models, not current observational science. Fact
What there isn't is a unified workable predictive theory called climate change, climate change is a political term, not a scientific one.
No one even attempts to predict global climate changes. The term is nonsense
and.. any and all predicted local climate changes of doom have been wrong.
We are supposed to have 50 million climate refugees as of 2010, there wasn't even 1 to date. The UN tried to scrub the claim from its websites, and botched it, which is why we know.
Manhattan is meant to be submerged by now, as claimed in the late 80s by Hansen at NASA
IN fact at New York battery, sea level rise has slowed down and flatlined since 2008
Note there is no CO2 signal at all in New York's sea level data, how could that be?! lol
You must log in or register to see images
Last edited:
****ing hell, these are like Fosse posts.
The IPCC is chaired by a man who worked most of his career for Exxonmobile, one of the leading oil companies, no conflict of interest there.What amazes me most is, a 1% to 2% change in cloud cover over 120 years can explain pretty much all warming and cooling.
Here is the data, a correlation between temperatures and cloud cover, that is VASTLY better than any CO2 temperature correlation ever was
Cloud cover reduces, temp goes up at the same rate of increase, and as cloud cover % plateaus and is consistent, so is the primary data set of the IPCC, the HADCRUT data set, plateauing and correlating amazingly well with cloud cover.
You must log in or register to see images
"In conclusion, natural cyclic change in global cloud cover has a greater impact on global average temperatures than CO2. There is little evidence of a direct feedback relationship between clouds and CO2. Based on satellite measurements of cloud cover (ISCCP), net cloud forcing (CERES) and CO2 levels (KEELING) we developed a model for predicting global temperatures. This results in a best-fit value for TCR = 1.4 ± 0.3°C. Summer cloud forcing has a larger effect in the northern hemisphere resulting in a lower TCR = 1.0 ± 0.3°C. Natural phenomena must influence clouds although the details remain unclear, although the CLOUD experiment has given hints that increased fluxes of cosmic rays may increase cloud seeding [19]. In conclusion, the gradual reduction in net cloud cover explains over 50% of global warming observed during the 80s and 90s, and the hiatus in warming since 1998 coincides with a stabilization of cloud forcing."
Sunshine and max temps with UK stations, who'd have guesses it gets warmer when there is less clouds eh. Strange you never hear clouds mentioned when we have heatwaves or warm summers.
You must log in or register to see images
The correlation, pisses over CO2 v temperature correlation
You must log in or register to see images
The IPCC claims changes in clouds is caused by CO2 forcing (MORE FORCING MORE CLOUDS), it is central to their claims, but CO2 forcing increased during the periods above, and cloud cover decreased, and temperatures match cloud cover for the period, this is exactly the opposite of what IPCC reports claim
Does he have a good explanation for coral bleacing and ocean hypoxia? The first is caused primarily by an increase in temperature and has been increasing markedly since the 80's. As for the increasing size of atolls.
You must log in or register to see images
- Status