Let´s hope the best!
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
!
We feel here in Southeast Europe climate changes... heat wave Lucifer hit us..
over 40 C and huge humid,its unbearable as it last for weeks..,you cant sleep
in night and just rolling on a bed,sweating abnormal.. so you wake up
pissed and tire in a morning.. didnt sleep proper for weeks..
Saturday they say the rain will fall.. you would not belive how much everybody
expects that happends as then temps will be 20C..
whoohoooo..
over 40 C and huge humid,its unbearable as it last for weeks..,you cant sleep
in night and just rolling on a bed,sweating abnormal.. so you wake up
pissed and tire in a morning.. didnt sleep proper for weeks..
Saturday they say the rain will fall.. you would not belive how much everybody
expects that happends as then temps will be 20C..
whoohoooo..
!
i don't really know either, the lies the scientists cooked up don't tend to convince me though, and my personal observations disagree with their conclusions.
i'll trust my senses before their consensus.
I am so tired, of posting in my bad english,....but exactly what you wrote is right. Since years I see in TV or read in the papers some little mosaic stones, from everywhere of the world that make a bigger, sader picture.
Just before some minutes I read in a book, what could happen geo strategical in the Arctic. The russians are very well prepared just now in opposite to all other countrys in the arctic area. They, the west, have a lot to do for the coming run of the mineral resources.
Hugh, Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake (Sitting Bull) spoke
I appreciate the sincerity that many of you "climate changers" display, so please appreciate my sincerity of being a "skeptic". As I understand it, the primary objective of the Paris Accord/Climate Change is to reduce the world's temperature 0.05°C by 2100 (that is two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction) which I assume is after applying the "margin of error" (MOE).
Let's talk about the MOE, the June 2017 NOAA Global Climate Change report https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201706 uses a MOE factor of ± 0.14°C. Which means June's average world temp (sea and land) of 13.5°C ± 0.14°C means the actual temperature is somewhere between 13.36°C (minus 0.14) and 13.64°C (plus 0.14).
The goal of Paris Accord is 0.05°C decrease (-0.05°C). After applying NOAA's MOE of ± 0.14°C, the range of "correct answers" could be somewhere between -0.19°C decrease (-0.05° minus 0.14°C) and +0.09°C increase (-0.05° plus 0.14°C). Yep, statistically speaking, a 0.09°C increase could arguably be equal to a 0.05° decrease, after applying the ± 0.14°C Margin of Error.
See the hazards of establishing a statistical goal that is within the MOE? Impossible to definitively prove anything.
Now $64,000 question is, anyone know what is the baseline temperature that will be used in the Paris Accord? What is the exact degrees Celsius that will be used to calculate the 0.05 °C decrease? The answer will surprise you.
Let's talk about the MOE, the June 2017 NOAA Global Climate Change report https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201706 uses a MOE factor of ± 0.14°C. Which means June's average world temp (sea and land) of 13.5°C ± 0.14°C means the actual temperature is somewhere between 13.36°C (minus 0.14) and 13.64°C (plus 0.14).
The goal of Paris Accord is 0.05°C decrease (-0.05°C). After applying NOAA's MOE of ± 0.14°C, the range of "correct answers" could be somewhere between -0.19°C decrease (-0.05° minus 0.14°C) and +0.09°C increase (-0.05° plus 0.14°C). Yep, statistically speaking, a 0.09°C increase could arguably be equal to a 0.05° decrease, after applying the ± 0.14°C Margin of Error.
See the hazards of establishing a statistical goal that is within the MOE? Impossible to definitively prove anything.
Now $64,000 question is, anyone know what is the baseline temperature that will be used in the Paris Accord? What is the exact degrees Celsius that will be used to calculate the 0.05 °C decrease? The answer will surprise you.
Last edited:
i went a searching for the source of this info, it did seem to have a science 'base' to it
found it on https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39193/are-global-temperatures-cooler-in-2017-than-2007
and a more complicated picture emerges, this is the rebuttal answer i saw posted by Oddthinking
This is a partial answer because the data analysis here will require additional research. The data in the plot is heavily reinterpreted (it's not raw data), and literature on the topic discusses how this reinterpretation is highly subjective. So, is the data reflective of the climate change issue like the claim implies? I suspect not, but establishing why it's not would require further investigation.
I'd note that the source of this claim is blatantly political and seems to misrepresent a lot of information related to climate change (in addition to a strange obsession with Al Gore). As such, I think that it's a reasonable assumption that that's probably what's happening here as well. However a more complete answer would find exactly what the definition and significance of the plotted data.
It looks like the original plot came from "Weather Bell Models", however it was edited to include the "Gore wins nobel prize" and "Temps now" labels.
Unfortunately, the source website is difficult to read through and to search.
The label at the top of the plot says
NCEP CFSR / CFSv2 Global 2-meter Temperature Anomaly [°C]
To interpret that:
NCEP: National Centers for Environmental Prediction
CFSR: Climate Forecast System Reanalysis
CFSv2: Climate Forecast System, version 2
The CFS version 2 was developed at the Environmental Modeling Center at NCEP. It is a fully coupled model representing the interaction between the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, land and seaice. It became operational at NCEP in March 2011.
-The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)
Global 2-meter Temperature Anomaly [°C]: Temperature anomaly as measured at 2-meters above surface level, often abbreviated "T2m".
This data appears to be from "Seasonal climate forecast from CFSv2":
This page displays seasonal climate anomalies from the NCEP coupled forecast system model version 2 (CFSv2). Forecasts are from initial conditions of the last 30 days, with 4 runs from each day. Forecast ensembles consist of 40 members from initial a period of 10 days. The 1st ensemble (E1) is from the earliest 10 days, the 2nd ensemble (E2) from the second earliest 10 days, and 3rd ensemble (E3) from the latest 10 days. Aomalies are with respect to 1999-2010 hindcast climatology. Temporal correlations between hindcasts and observations are used as skill mask for spatial anomalies. Standard deviation to normalize anomalies is the average standard deviation of individual hindcast members. For SSTs, anomalies with respect to 1982-2010 climatology are available here.
CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks. The NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks can be found at CPC website. Model based seasonal climate anomalies are one factor based on which NCEP seasonal forecast outlook is issued.
This website provides data for "T2m", which literature papers seem to use as a shorthand for "temperature at 2-meters above surface level", as claimed in the plot.
Complication: This isn't raw data
A potential complicating factor is that we're not dealing with raw data, but "reanalyzed" data, which is what the CSFR project is all about. Apparently reanalysis for T2m is particularly subjective:
3 Climatology
In this section, we present an analysis of the annual mean climatology. We will first compare spatial maps among reanalyses and observations for precipitation, SST and the related surface heat fluxes. Climatology of the full T2m field is not discussed in this section, as it strongly depends on the topography used for each reanalysis.
-An assessment of the surface climate in the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis (2010)
That same paper goes on to discuss more about the issue of T2m reinterpretation:
4 Variability
In this section, we assess the variability of precipitation and T2m. We begin with a comparison of precipitation among R1, R2, and CFSR to see if changes in model physics during the past 15 years or so, together with the use of much higher resolution of the CFSR, lead to an improved representation of observed weather systems. We will then move on to a comparison of interannual variability of monthly anomalies among reanalyses and observations.
-An assessment of the surface climate in the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis (2010)
So, that's where this partial answer leaves off at: interpreting the significance of the reinterpreted T2m data.
found it on https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39193/are-global-temperatures-cooler-in-2017-than-2007
and a more complicated picture emerges, this is the rebuttal answer i saw posted by Oddthinking
This is a partial answer because the data analysis here will require additional research. The data in the plot is heavily reinterpreted (it's not raw data), and literature on the topic discusses how this reinterpretation is highly subjective. So, is the data reflective of the climate change issue like the claim implies? I suspect not, but establishing why it's not would require further investigation.
I'd note that the source of this claim is blatantly political and seems to misrepresent a lot of information related to climate change (in addition to a strange obsession with Al Gore). As such, I think that it's a reasonable assumption that that's probably what's happening here as well. However a more complete answer would find exactly what the definition and significance of the plotted data.
It looks like the original plot came from "Weather Bell Models", however it was edited to include the "Gore wins nobel prize" and "Temps now" labels.
Unfortunately, the source website is difficult to read through and to search.
The label at the top of the plot says
NCEP CFSR / CFSv2 Global 2-meter Temperature Anomaly [°C]
To interpret that:
NCEP: National Centers for Environmental Prediction
CFSR: Climate Forecast System Reanalysis
CFSv2: Climate Forecast System, version 2
The CFS version 2 was developed at the Environmental Modeling Center at NCEP. It is a fully coupled model representing the interaction between the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, land and seaice. It became operational at NCEP in March 2011.
-The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)
Global 2-meter Temperature Anomaly [°C]: Temperature anomaly as measured at 2-meters above surface level, often abbreviated "T2m".
This data appears to be from "Seasonal climate forecast from CFSv2":
This page displays seasonal climate anomalies from the NCEP coupled forecast system model version 2 (CFSv2). Forecasts are from initial conditions of the last 30 days, with 4 runs from each day. Forecast ensembles consist of 40 members from initial a period of 10 days. The 1st ensemble (E1) is from the earliest 10 days, the 2nd ensemble (E2) from the second earliest 10 days, and 3rd ensemble (E3) from the latest 10 days. Aomalies are with respect to 1999-2010 hindcast climatology. Temporal correlations between hindcasts and observations are used as skill mask for spatial anomalies. Standard deviation to normalize anomalies is the average standard deviation of individual hindcast members. For SSTs, anomalies with respect to 1982-2010 climatology are available here.
CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks. The NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks can be found at CPC website. Model based seasonal climate anomalies are one factor based on which NCEP seasonal forecast outlook is issued.
This website provides data for "T2m", which literature papers seem to use as a shorthand for "temperature at 2-meters above surface level", as claimed in the plot.
Complication: This isn't raw data
A potential complicating factor is that we're not dealing with raw data, but "reanalyzed" data, which is what the CSFR project is all about. Apparently reanalysis for T2m is particularly subjective:
3 Climatology
In this section, we present an analysis of the annual mean climatology. We will first compare spatial maps among reanalyses and observations for precipitation, SST and the related surface heat fluxes. Climatology of the full T2m field is not discussed in this section, as it strongly depends on the topography used for each reanalysis.
-An assessment of the surface climate in the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis (2010)
That same paper goes on to discuss more about the issue of T2m reinterpretation:
4 Variability
In this section, we assess the variability of precipitation and T2m. We begin with a comparison of precipitation among R1, R2, and CFSR to see if changes in model physics during the past 15 years or so, together with the use of much higher resolution of the CFSR, lead to an improved representation of observed weather systems. We will then move on to a comparison of interannual variability of monthly anomalies among reanalyses and observations.
-An assessment of the surface climate in the NCEP climate forecast system reanalysis (2010)
So, that's where this partial answer leaves off at: interpreting the significance of the reinterpreted T2m data.
The belief green house gases can warm the earth is the belief that
light refracting insulation
mixed into a cold bath, that's conduction chilling a rock being warmed by firelight
making less light reach and warming the rock
makes sensors detect and depict more light warming the rock.
That's immediate and outright violation of Conservation of Energy.
No negotiating, it's what it is.
Which is why every time you tell someone ''Go show me the 'other' time in all thermodynamics when
mixing light refracting insulation into a cold bath conduction chilling a light-warmed rock,
makes sensors depict more light warming the rock,
every time insulation mixed into the bath,
makes less light warm that rock.
That's the last time you ever hear from your local magic gasser about the infallibility of his climatastrophologist's guvurmint sighnts.
Hey: doant it seam like
it shoar is a co in see dents,
the same guvurmint fellurs what has dun discovered pot's devil weed jist like heroin,
who says they got the ''critical scientific peer review to prove it''
is the same buncha fellurs taught you that ''insulation making less light reach and warm a rock, causes instruments to detect and depict more light warming the object?''
AND dun tol't yew that tair CO2 is DEVIL GAiS
just like they tolt yew that tair Heroinajuana is DEVIL WEED?
yEAH those are the SAME fellas who also told your daddy that ''DEVIL FRIDGURUNTS has dun ate up awl the oH! Zones, in Aunt Articka, bless her sole.''
Devil Weed,
Devil Refrigerants
Devil Gassiness in the sky what makes instrument show more light warming a rock,
every time devilish insulation makes less light warm it.
====================================
*In case they told you at the ''devil weed's like heroin'' place
that it's not a violation of Conservation of Energy
for insulation making less light warm a rock
to make instruments show more light warming that rock,
*IT IS.
-------
Instruments detect less and less light warming the planet
with every percent otherwise available warming sunlight never reaching the planet.
Green House Gases currently stop 20% total otherwise available warming firelight from the sun from ever seeing the planet's sensors: that light refracts out to space.
Every time an additional percent light goes to space,
instruments on earth detect and depict that because that's conservation of energy.
If enough green house gases are emitted such that 21% otherwise available warming firelight from the sun doesn't warm earth,
surface temperatures will have dropped 21%.
That's just off the top.
In any case
light refracted back to the planet
less light went into
must be less.
There's no such thing as the more insulation in the bath, the more light pinging either into or out of the planet: that's all there is to it and there's not ever going to be some 'honorable surrender' for the people who didn't know that
less light warming a planet
must make instruments depict
less light warming a planet.
light refracting insulation
mixed into a cold bath, that's conduction chilling a rock being warmed by firelight
making less light reach and warming the rock
makes sensors detect and depict more light warming the rock.
That's immediate and outright violation of Conservation of Energy.
No negotiating, it's what it is.
Which is why every time you tell someone ''Go show me the 'other' time in all thermodynamics when
mixing light refracting insulation into a cold bath conduction chilling a light-warmed rock,
makes sensors depict more light warming the rock,
every time insulation mixed into the bath,
makes less light warm that rock.
That's the last time you ever hear from your local magic gasser about the infallibility of his climatastrophologist's guvurmint sighnts.
Hey: doant it seam like
it shoar is a co in see dents,
the same guvurmint fellurs what has dun discovered pot's devil weed jist like heroin,
who says they got the ''critical scientific peer review to prove it''
is the same buncha fellurs taught you that ''insulation making less light reach and warm a rock, causes instruments to detect and depict more light warming the object?''
AND dun tol't yew that tair CO2 is DEVIL GAiS
just like they tolt yew that tair Heroinajuana is DEVIL WEED?
yEAH those are the SAME fellas who also told your daddy that ''DEVIL FRIDGURUNTS has dun ate up awl the oH! Zones, in Aunt Articka, bless her sole.''
Devil Weed,
Devil Refrigerants
Devil Gassiness in the sky what makes instrument show more light warming a rock,
every time devilish insulation makes less light warm it.
====================================
*In case they told you at the ''devil weed's like heroin'' place
that it's not a violation of Conservation of Energy
for insulation making less light warm a rock
to make instruments show more light warming that rock,
*IT IS.
-------
Instruments detect less and less light warming the planet
with every percent otherwise available warming sunlight never reaching the planet.
Green House Gases currently stop 20% total otherwise available warming firelight from the sun from ever seeing the planet's sensors: that light refracts out to space.
Every time an additional percent light goes to space,
instruments on earth detect and depict that because that's conservation of energy.
If enough green house gases are emitted such that 21% otherwise available warming firelight from the sun doesn't warm earth,
surface temperatures will have dropped 21%.
That's just off the top.
In any case
light refracted back to the planet
less light went into
must be less.
There's no such thing as the more insulation in the bath, the more light pinging either into or out of the planet: that's all there is to it and there's not ever going to be some 'honorable surrender' for the people who didn't know that
less light warming a planet
must make instruments depict
less light warming a planet.
No? It's not true that
less light warming the planet,
makes instruments detect and depict,
less light warming the planet?
====================
It's such obvious violation of fundamental thermodynamics,
it reminds you of that sad, sad truth everybody likes to forget.
Public school is where people graduate 30% behind
home schooled
dinosaur riding
Christian Fundies
in
every
single
educational metric,
ever devised to hide that fact.
==================
In government schools the answer to your chemistry final in high school is ''Because pot's just like heroin and worse for me than a methyl amphetamine addiction!''
The
chemistry final question is ''Why should you call the police and turn your parents in, to the State?''
==================
In government schools, the answer to the question ''What happens to the temperatures of light warmed rocks, insulation makes 20% less light warm?''
is
''Wayle. if'n thay's got magical gaissiness what dun made less light warm the rock, then
insturmints
will detect and depict
the timpurchur of thim rocks
going UP
evur time
an nuthur pur sint light
doant warm them.
Jist as shure as pot's like heroin!''
===============
less light warming the planet,
makes instruments detect and depict,
less light warming the planet?
====================
It's such obvious violation of fundamental thermodynamics,
it reminds you of that sad, sad truth everybody likes to forget.
Public school is where people graduate 30% behind
home schooled
dinosaur riding
Christian Fundies
in
every
single
educational metric,
ever devised to hide that fact.
==================
In government schools the answer to your chemistry final in high school is ''Because pot's just like heroin and worse for me than a methyl amphetamine addiction!''
The
chemistry final question is ''Why should you call the police and turn your parents in, to the State?''
==================
In government schools, the answer to the question ''What happens to the temperatures of light warmed rocks, insulation makes 20% less light warm?''
is
''Wayle. if'n thay's got magical gaissiness what dun made less light warm the rock, then
insturmints
will detect and depict
the timpurchur of thim rocks
going UP
evur time
an nuthur pur sint light
doant warm them.
Jist as shure as pot's like heroin!''
===============
Top 10 Climate Change Lies Debunked + Two Bonus Lies at No Extra Charge
Thermophobia author Rod Martin Jr uses common sense to make short work of 12 global warming lies:
1. Global warming is bad.
2. Manmade CO2 is the cause of global warming.
3. Global warming causes extreme weather like hurricanes and tornadoes.
4. Global warming causes droughts.
5. Our current warmth is unusual.
6. Our current level of CO2 is unusual.
7. The rate of warming is dangerous.
8. The science is settled.
9. There is a consensus.
10. Science is ever done by consensus.
11. Climate change is dangerous and must be stopped.
12. Global warming makes the oceans more acidic.
To sum up: virtually everything they tell us about climate change is untrue. The purpose is to create a pretext for increased centralized control of the economy, and for international wealth redistribution.
[YOUTUBEIF]ICGal_8qI8c[/YOUTUBEIF]
Thermophobia author Rod Martin Jr uses common sense to make short work of 12 global warming lies:
1. Global warming is bad.
2. Manmade CO2 is the cause of global warming.
3. Global warming causes extreme weather like hurricanes and tornadoes.
4. Global warming causes droughts.
5. Our current warmth is unusual.
6. Our current level of CO2 is unusual.
7. The rate of warming is dangerous.
8. The science is settled.
9. There is a consensus.
10. Science is ever done by consensus.
11. Climate change is dangerous and must be stopped.
12. Global warming makes the oceans more acidic.
To sum up: virtually everything they tell us about climate change is untrue. The purpose is to create a pretext for increased centralized control of the economy, and for international wealth redistribution.
[YOUTUBEIF]ICGal_8qI8c[/YOUTUBEIF]
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change
But mankind will be blamed...right?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet
This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change
But mankind will be blamed...right?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
interesting, i think the higher priority will be dealing with the situation
not that it sounds like much could be done practically
I will use common sense to divulge lawyer-speak here to make short work of bullshit covers:
1) Global warming won't be bad for you.
2) CO2 is a gas developed by our superiorly intelligent dinosaurs, we just release it.
3) Natural things happen naturally. Science can't explain it in vague enough terms to sound subjective.
4) See above. Continuation of the same bullshit.
5) My current temperature is 98.7. That is considered usualish.
Gotta let that slide.
6) There was a time on Earth that so much CO2 existed in our atmosphere that it was void of life. Good point.
7) The rate of warming is what we have been able to deem reversable. When it's too late it's too late and your oil stocks won't rise any higher. Let's wait a little longer...
8) Science is never settled. If you knew anything about science you wouldn't claim such utter bullshit.
9) There isn't a milelong copypasta extravaganza in the Den again either.
10) See number 8. The concept of science is alien to this author.
11) Notice the shift of terms here.
12) Carbonic acid is acidic.
Crack a book.
Bother to write me like people used to do when they used stamps.
Oh and one more thing...
Why would a CEO who has built his vast fortune on life insurance want to weigh in on such a topic?
I figure stick with what you know.
Isn't that why most of us are here?
#7 should really resonate with intelligent people...
!
