Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is from NASA. Antarctic Ice Mass in gigatonnes:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Average rate of change, -127 gigatonnes per year.
 

Marc Morano’s book cites many scientific studies that indicate:
(1) Historical records of global warming show that temperature increases begin hundreds of years before carbon dioxide (CO2) levels follow. Plants and animals flourished in past ages when CO2 levels were more than twice as high as now.
(2) At least 90% of greenhouse gas warming is due to water vapor and clouds; thus, CO2 level deserves less concern.
(3) Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tornadoes have been less frequent during years after 1988 than before 1988, when atmospheric CO2 was 15% lower.
(4) Since computer models failed to predict the slowdown in rate of global warming between 1998 and 2013, they cannot reliably forecast climate changes decades in the future.
(5) EPA’s Clean Power Plan would not significantly reduce global CO2 emissions. In 2025, total annual CO2 emissions by USA would be offset by three weeks of CO2 emissions by China.
(6) UN’s 2015 Paris Climate Agreement would reduce global temperature about one degree Centigrade by 2100 AD, but would cost many trillions of dollars, would subjugate economic independence of participating nations, and would require global wealth redistribution.
(7) Eliminating use of fossil fuels for electricity generation would deny developing countries the opportunity to electrify and improve living conditions. In sub-Saharan Africa, gas-fired power projects would supply electricity for three times as many people as renewable energy projects would supply for the same cost.
 
Last edited:
This is from NASA. Greenland ice mass variation since 2002:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Average rate of change: -286.0 gigatonnes per year.
 
This is from NASA: The CO2 concentration compared to the last 400,000 years.

8572687b33abad3cb880f1bd955eee8b2aa395e7.jpeg
 
Considering that NASA only dates from 1958, I think this chart conclusively proves that NASA has invented time travel.
 
https://www.amazon.com/Holes-Ozone-...3&s=Books&sr=1-1-fkmrnull&ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1

This book is extraordinary!!!

The graphs on pages 76 and 122 are not duplicated anywhere else, except in G.M.B. Dobson’s original work.

It was not until after Dobson died on March 10 or 11 of 1976 that the manipulations of the data began.

It would be helpful if the newer researchers had continued Dobson’s graphical displays showing how stratospheric ozone varies with latitude and with the month of the year, showing the natural variations AND how there are anomalies in various places.

But they don’t do that.

Instead they focus on minute changes by day of the month, which is nuts when considering natural phenomena.

In addition, right at the alleged ozone hole is a HUGE source of natural chlorine: Mt. Erebus, a continuous caldera volcano that expels vast amounts all year long. And it is so high [ 3,794 metres (12,448 ft) ] that the eruptions are already two miles high. Since then a number of books and papers have been published about atmospheric ozone. But they are scattershot rather than methodical … collections of anecdotes … stories. They present no data that can be readily compared to previous data in any consistent way. Although the new guys pay homage to Dobson by giving his name to the unit of measure, they NEVER refer to Dobson’s 40+ years of work, or to his writings, or to his data.

For example, Dr. Dobson published the key graph [ Maduro p 76] in both his 1963 and 1968 editions.

And in 1968, he published the graph published by Maduro p 122.

These excellent graphical presentations have not been updated with newer data. Nor have they been correlated with the monstrous South Polar Vortex which comes and goes with the rising sun.

[0.25 cm = 250 Dobsons = 1/8" thickness of ozone spread thru 30 km of altitude!]

The new guys fuss over 6% “depletion”! A 6% variation of an average cannot be measured with ANY certainty thru 30 km of upper atmosphere!

Dobson’s May to April graphs {2} of the first measurements of Antarctic ozone correlate with the Arctic cycle (adjusted by six months).

[Seasonality in the southern hemisphere is out of phase with ours.] Halley Bay is at 76 degrees S. latitude; Spitzbergen at 80 degrees N. latitude. Dobson also discovered ozone anomalies in Canada and northern India.

Instead of updating the early data, his successors homogenize data {3} and use one-time readings which tell us very little. They use selective data {4}, make retroactive adjustments, and devise theoretical models to create imaginary trends which they then pit against Dobson’s documented observations and experiments (“The Hole in the Ozone Scare”, Maduro & Schauerhammer, 1992). In 1982 Dobson’s instruments were replaced and , voila!, the scary “hole” suddenly appeared.
 
Last edited:
Considering that NASA only dates from 1958, I think this chart conclusively proves that NASA has invented time travel.
Not only that, but would someone explain why the temperature isn’t above 200ºF!!
 
Last edited:
continued:

Gribbin (1998) uses some undefined composite {3}, which shows little fluctuation over the years, in an effort to demonstrate long term stability of the ozone layer until the surprise “discovery” of ozone depletion. By contrast, Dobson data show minor fluctuation at the equator but DRAMATIC seasonal (and daily) variation at both poles {1}, {2} … around 40% even in the 1950’s (in the pre-Freon era) … with a 60% difference between polar and equatorial readings! One could even say that the year-round normal polar ozone level is around 250, but INCREASES to 400+ with spring warming!! NO HOLES!!!

An apocalyptic graph {4}, with a misleading vertical axis, does not help us understand what is really happening, especially in light of the conflict with Dobson’s work.

Other elements ignored by all of the disaster mongers include: Mt. Erebus, the surface caldera volcano 18 miles upwind of McMurdo; 1958 French polar vortex data; long-term solar cycles; 1988 Japanese data; bacterial and ocean floor interactions with CFCs; and gross oversimplifications in the computer models. (Maduro). Scientists are required to answer and satisfy ALL criticisms of their theories. But instead, the current crop is trying to bury and intimidate its critics.

Finally {5}, Dobson shows some of the major forces impacting the earth’s atmosphere. Fewer and fewer scientists believe the “ozone hole” theory. Air conditioners, vaccine refrigerators, and Halon fire extinguishers are not threats. Man’s forces are not as powerful as God’s.

So let’s be honest. We should repeal the law that bans CFC manufacture after 1995. The sky is not falling. Technology is not killing us. There is not now and never has been a “hole”. (Just seasonal peaks!) Be of good cheer!! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!!

Other References Cited:
Farman, J.C., Gardiner, B.G., & Shanklin, J.D., Nature 315, 207 - 210 (1985).
McElroy, et al., Nature 321, 759-762 (1986)
Stolarski, R.S., Scientific American 258, 30-36, January 1988
 
Last edited:
This from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
According to the American Meteorological Society’s State of the Climate in 2017 , the year brought an end to the three-year streak of new record temperatures that were set each year from 2014–2016. Depending on the data set used, 2017 came in second or third warmest, after 2016 (warmest) and 2015 (second or third warmest). The near-record temperatures occurred in the absence of El Niño, which is usually a factor in extreme global warmth. For much of 2017, El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions were neutral, and October 2017 brought the start of La Niña, which typically drops global temperatures. Despite this, 2017 readings were 0.38–0.48° Celsius (0.68–0.86° Fahrenheit) above the 1981–2010 average, depending on the dataset. It was the warmest non-El Niño year in the instrumental record.
Here is a history of global temperatures since 1880: (for more, click here.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
More evidence is in the shrinking of glaciers:

Among the most dramatic evidence that Earth’s climate is warming is the dwindling and disappearance of mountain glaciers around the world. Based on preliminary data, 2017 is likely to be the 38th year in a row of mass loss of mountain glaciers worldwide. According to the State of the Climate in 2017,
The cumulative mass balance loss from 1980 to 2016 is -19.9 meters, the equivalent of cutting a 22-meter-thick (72-foot-thick) slice off the top of the average glacier.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It is notable that not only are the glaciers shrinking, but they are accelerating.
 
Last edited:
This is from NASA:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The point being made here is that this is the graph of adjusted data. The graph of the raw data looks very different. This is what the raw v. adjusted data for the US looks like.
 
Last edited:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
This is from NASA:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The point being made here is that this is the graph of adjusted data. The graph of the raw data looks very different. This is what the raw v. adjusted data for the US looks like.
https://i0.wp.com/realclimatescienc...2-28-at-5.45.44-AM-1.gif?resize=673,626&ssl=1
You are putting more trust in the hoax that says the adjustments were incorrect than in science behind the adjustments.
 
You are putting more trust in the hoax that says the adjustments were incorrect than in science behind the adjustments.
I am pointing out the fact that virtually all of the warming demonstrated in this graph is there because of the adjustments to the data. The un-adjusted data looks very different. I have said nothing whatever about whether the adjustments were incorrect, although they are curiously all in the direction that creates the most warming. Even the latest, most accurate data is still being adjusted. The older data was made colder, the newer data is being made warmer, thus the resultant graph shows warming over time. With the raw data, not so much.

I do think the NASA adjustments to the data for this century that eliminated the 18 year hiatus in warming was fraudulent.
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You are putting more trust in the hoax that says the adjustments were incorrect than in science behind the adjustments.
I am pointing out the fact that virtually all of the warming demonstrated in this graph is there because of the adjustments to the data…
You are pointing out a coincidence that has been built into a hoax.
 
You are pointing out a coincidence that has been built into a hoax.
The first step is to determine whether or not the statement is true: does virtually all of the warming seen since 1880 flow from the adjusted data?
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You are pointing out a coincidence that has been built into a hoax.
The first step is to determine whether or not the statement is true: does virtually all of the warming seen since 1880 flow from the adjusted data?
“Happens to be similar to” does not mean “flows from.” If the adjustments are correct, they are not the “cause” of the fact that the graph shows warming.
 
“Happens to be similar to” does not mean “flows from.” If the adjustments are correct, they are not the “cause” of the fact that the graph shows warming.
You didn’t answer the question so I’ll repeat it:

Does virtually all of the warming seen since 1880 flow from the adjusted data?

I’m looking for something like yes or no. Is that too much to ask?
 
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
“Happens to be similar to” does not mean “flows from.” If the adjustments are correct, they are not the “cause” of the fact that the graph shows warming.
You didn’t answer the question so I’ll repeat it:

Does virtually all of the warming seen since 1880 flow from the adjusted data?

I’m looking for something like yes or no. Is that too much to ask?
With my understanding of what “flow” means, I would say the answer is “no.”
 
Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years.

People in New York should know that … the mile-thick glaciers in NYC have been long gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top