Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
motco said:
We'll all be murdered in our beds Minnie! Drowning is our fate
I'm speechless about that article!Tom Bawden said:
This is the first research to look at the impact of fossil fuel burning on the entire sheet and finds that the east sheet also gives cause for alarm.
Where is the link to the research? Where is the data?I can't find an email for this muppet, (not that they ever respond when you do) maybe someone else can, or perhaps alert Mr Dellingpole.
That is just shocking garbage reporting.
Is it wrong that I'm surprised the BBC didn't blame this on CAGW?
If you can't diagnose the heat, keep out of the hype.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
"Look at the Central Park September records...a 101F record set in 1881. All of the heat and cold records are from the distant past. 2015 was an exception."
"The 1930s to 1950s had 28 100F days in Central Park."
"The number of the 90F degree days at all US stations has been trending down not up."
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
"Look at the Central Park September records...a 101F record set in 1881. All of the heat and cold records are from the distant past. 2015 was an exception."
"The 1930s to 1950s had 28 100F days in Central Park."
"The number of the 90F degree days at all US stations has been trending down not up."
As we know - global warming seems to give journalists licence to suppress the truth and even tell outright untruths.
Drowning in untruths (may be a pearoast):
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/inde...
Drowning in untruths (may be a pearoast):
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/inde...
Perhaps not climate change specific but it is along the general misinformation lines that these people are generally involved with. A usual suspect posted this on FB this morning:
Followed by something like, how can you deny humans don't harm the planet. Said person is a PhD student in engineering. Said person should know better than to simply repost something because it appears to agree with their opinions.
It literally took 1 minute to see it was bogus and I didn't even bias my google search with words like 'debunk'. I just searched for 'Earth 1978' because I assumed someone had taken an a real image of earth from 1978 and touched it up in Photoshop against a later picture, also photoshopped. Whenever I see stuff like this my immediate thought is "its probably been 'shopped". Turns out it was even better than that!
Picture on the left isn't from 1978 at all, its a composition of images taken over the summer-fall time of 2001 by NASA's MODIS satellite that uses a Spectroradiometer (so not sure if they record color images how most people would think). The colours have then been tweaked (by the sounds of it) by using different data-sets for ocean colours and topographical colours.
The other image is from 2012, taken by a different satellite (Suomi NPP with the VIIRS Instrument), in winter, from a different angle. So right off the bat, the images aren't comparable. The image is supposed to show deforestation and desertification. But as mentioned, one image is summer one is winter...when most trees don't have leaves, so aren't green!
Best thing about critiquing this is; its all plainly available in great detail courtesy of NASA themselves (who don't use them to claim effects of deforestation as the FB poster was intimating):
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_...
So having pointed this out to the poster...can anyone hazard a guess at the response? Angry shouting maybe? Calling me a denier? or suspicious silence? (and I know they've seen it because they've been back posting all kinds of other rubbish since).
Followed by something like, how can you deny humans don't harm the planet. Said person is a PhD student in engineering. Said person should know better than to simply repost something because it appears to agree with their opinions.
It literally took 1 minute to see it was bogus and I didn't even bias my google search with words like 'debunk'. I just searched for 'Earth 1978' because I assumed someone had taken an a real image of earth from 1978 and touched it up in Photoshop against a later picture, also photoshopped. Whenever I see stuff like this my immediate thought is "its probably been 'shopped". Turns out it was even better than that!
Picture on the left isn't from 1978 at all, its a composition of images taken over the summer-fall time of 2001 by NASA's MODIS satellite that uses a Spectroradiometer (so not sure if they record color images how most people would think). The colours have then been tweaked (by the sounds of it) by using different data-sets for ocean colours and topographical colours.
The other image is from 2012, taken by a different satellite (Suomi NPP with the VIIRS Instrument), in winter, from a different angle. So right off the bat, the images aren't comparable. The image is supposed to show deforestation and desertification. But as mentioned, one image is summer one is winter...when most trees don't have leaves, so aren't green!
Best thing about critiquing this is; its all plainly available in great detail courtesy of NASA themselves (who don't use them to claim effects of deforestation as the FB poster was intimating):
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_...
So having pointed this out to the poster...can anyone hazard a guess at the response? Angry shouting maybe? Calling me a denier? or suspicious silence? (and I know they've seen it because they've been back posting all kinds of other rubbish since).
Otispunkmeyer said:
So having pointed this out to the poster...can anyone hazard a guess at the response? Angry shouting maybe? Calling me a denier? or suspicious silence? (and I know they've seen it because they've been back posting all kinds of other rubbish since).
More ammo. 1982 v 2010
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-gree...
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Sunday 13th September 16:55
t at taking data, and we already knew that.
Diderot said:
Don't forget that they've recently discovered 800% more trees than they thought previously.
Recent BBC Article said:
There are just over three trillion trees on Earth, according to a new assessment.
The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.
But Dr Crowther cautioned that the higher number did not of itself change anything.
He told the BBC's Science In Action programme: "It's not like we've discovered a load of new trees..."
The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.
But Dr Crowther cautioned that the higher number did not of itself change anything.
He told the BBC's Science In Action programme: "It's not like we've discovered a load of new trees..."
Those 'extra' trees are intended to be used when they become the reason that MMGW didnt happen even though 'it would have if not for all the very welcome extra trees gobbling up all the tax gas'
Praise be for all the extra trees, they saved our bacon in times of dire straits
Praise be
In about two years or so
(I should know better than making predictions at my age, when THEY were my age it was going to be ice floes in the Thames estuary)
Praise be for all the extra trees, they saved our bacon in times of dire straits
Praise be
In about two years or so
(I should know better than making predictions at my age, when THEY were my age it was going to be ice floes in the Thames estuary)
Radio 4 is going full warming this morning, met office numbskull sprouting the obligatory CO2 scaremongering.
Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 14th September 07:12
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Radio 4 is going full warming this morning, met office numbskull sprouting the obligatory CO2 scaremongering.
Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
As predicted in May on PH without the use of superdoopercomputer modelling and with no link to carbon dioxide: "Early signs of (El Nino) strengthening this month have already been clasped to the bosom of believers praying for a record in 2015"Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
A natural ocean-atmosphere coupling phenomenon, clearly that must be manmade, and with the very strong and prolonged event of 1939/40/41/42 still far stronger and longer than anything from 1998/99 or 2010 there's nothing to be claimed by way of extrema or trend.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Radio 4 is going full warming this morning, met office numbskull sprouting the obligatory CO2 scaremongering.
Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
Same old, same old...Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
You'd think there was a big climate conference coming up...
nelly1 said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Radio 4 is going full warming this morning, met office numbskull sprouting the obligatory CO2 scaremongering.
Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
Same old, same old...Warmest ever, turning point, melting ice caps, sea level rises etc.
Roger Harrabin is full CO2 freakout this morning, preparing to use the El nino to justify the entire edifice.
You'd think there was a big climate conference coming up...
Harrabin said:
The scientists confirm that in 2015 the Earth's average surface temperature is running at, or near, record levels (0.68C above the 1961-1990 average).
No causality to humans is established in there, precisely business as usual in the world of junkscience.In any case is that not the average temperature with the sea surface temps "adjusted" by moving the lower buoy values towards the higher and less accurate ship intakes, or something just as silly?
This is what's been going on, no dangerous warming and no causality to humans here either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff