Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

We are the Borg.
Hotarubi
Posts: 3854
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:12 am
Title: Enchantress
Location: This septic Isle.

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by Hotarubi »

Abdul Alhazred wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:46 pm Making graphs, any graphs really, is the perfect task for a 'bot. Just feed in any old data, get a graph.
I hope it can come up with something a bit more substantial.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

I can’t tell if the hot rub bot is dissing NOAA, GISS and the GHCN graphs or not

Like most troll bots, it’s just general snark with nothing solid at all
robinson2
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 4:02 pm
Title: I can’t be worrying about that

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson2 »

Abdul Alhazred wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:46 pm Making graphs, any graphs really, is the perfect task for a 'bot. Just feed in any old data, get a graph.
It's called a program. No AI required for data processing.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

Abdul Alhazred wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:46 pm Making graphs, any graphs really, is the perfect task for a 'bot. Just feed in any old data, get a graph.
Wolfram alpha is sort of like that. It used AI to generate graphs and graphic displays from public domain data.
robinson2
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 4:02 pm
Title: I can’t be worrying about that

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson2 »

Funny you should go there. I was just cross checking wolframalpha data displays with my own plots

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=t ... ronwood+il

Ironwood data almost matches the GHCN data

wolframalpha ironwood.png
robinson2
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 4:02 pm
Title: I can’t be worrying about that

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson2 »

But it's just the airport data, which is why it starts in 1974

The GHCN data shows the long term trend
IRONWOOD_MI_AverageMeanTemperature_Jan_Dec_1921_2019.png
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

That is kind of cool actually
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

The global alarmists have been selling the global warming story so hard, and so long now, it's possible to simply used the data from the time period of alarmists, to show why they have been wrong, and not just slightly wrong, completely wrong.

Of course this will not matter, not even a little, not even in a microscopic sense. As a matter of fact, the data will be claimed to actually support the alarmists bullshit story. I know that sounds like a ridiculous claim. (it actually is ridiculous)

But it is what happens, and frankly I am no longer surprised at all. In fact, I expect it, I predict it.

So, on with the show.

Here is last years graph from Rurgers snow lab
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_month=10
download/file.php?mode=view&id=10760

And here is this years

download/file.php?mode=view&id=10761

The astute observer might note they had to change the graphic, for the scale was too small now. 2 million square kilometers wasn't enough to show the extent. They had to raise the bar. Literally.

The amount of snow for NA in October increased that much.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

In 2007, and even 2008, the October snow extent was considered a downward trend, the reduction in snow cover was exactly what models and theory predicted. As it warms snow cover is reduced.

It should look like this
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... ui_month=6

Which of course is what we expect when it is warmer. Less snow falls, (more rain instead), and snow cover melts, and is melted by the rain. A reduction in snow cover is 100% evidence, it is an absolute indicator of climate, and climate change.

What happened when snow cover started increasing instead?

For example, 1988-2020?

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_month=10

Now snow cover is also (maybe) a sign of global warming. No, that is not a joke. Trust me. In fact, remember my prediction early on?

Yes, we will see a post in no time, in this topic, explaining how global warming is causing more snow. If they skipped reading, it will be really funny. If they read this and still post such a thing, ah, that would be perfect.

I would take the time to create images from the Rutgers data, (you can't link to their images) but it would be quite simply, a waste of time.

Here a couple of old graphs showing the declining trend for snow cover, which of course was evidence of global warming.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

And here is what it looks like now

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_season=4

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_season=1

The alarmists has no problem when faced with reality bitch slapping them in the face. They just adjust the story. And go on as if nothing actually happened.

In fact, they might get mad at anyone with the balls to point out they are wrong.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global warming with graphs and science shit thrown in

Post by robinson »

robinson wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 10:03 pm
I mean, if you have read this far down you are either interested, or really bored, or who the fuck knows. My hypothesis is that long before this point most people stopped reading, and if you actually are reading, but not engaging, then what the fuck is wrong with you?

heh

Just kidding. I actually know why you are reluctant to respond,.

Especially the current dumb as hell troll

2009, it was supposed to be warmer than ever, which most logical sane people can understand.

This was before the same thing happened so many times the story changed, In 2008, even 2009, it was reasonable to say it was natural variability, just weather, shit happens. But after it happened again, and again, and a trend showed up, colder winters with a shit ton more snow, the story changed.

Now, the record cold and snow has become evidence that it is getting warmer. In 2008 that would have sounded like crazy talk, OK it still sounds like crazy talk in 2020, but the point remains.

Which brings the discussion to the record breaking snow centered on Boston in the winter of 2014-2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... l-warming/
https://thinkprogress.org/as-bostons-cr ... a32dcda48/

Now we have the same Kevin Trenberth who noted the record cold and snow in Oct 2009 expertsplaining how record cold and snow actually is from global warming.

What? That's crazy talk. (of course it is)
So if anyone tries to tell you that climate change directly caused Boston’s record-breaking and continuing snowmageddon, that’s not true. What is true, however, is that climate change may have affected the snowstorm — may have made it more likely, may have made it worse than it would have been without so much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It bears repeating: “All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”

The question, then, becomes how? How did the warmer and moister environment in which we now live because of human-caused carbon emissions affect Boston’s historic weather event? Wouldn’t a warmer, moister environment mean less snow? How does that even make sense?
https://thinkprogress.org/as-bostons-cr ... a32dcda48/

The entire expertsplaining is at the link. Both Trenberth and Mann get in on it, Mannsplaining how the record warmth caused more mositure which caused the record snow.

Which is exactly what I thought back in February 2010, all this fucking snow is because global warming.

But in 2015, it was easy to check the data, unlike in 2010. And the data showed there was actually less water in the record snow, It wasn't even a normal amount of precip for Jan-Feb in the record snowfall.

It wasn't some record because of more water falling. It was very very cold, and because the snow ratio is based on temperature, the snow was very heavy (which means snow depth, not weight), which means the Mannsplaining was horseshit.

This can now be shown with graphs and other science shit
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

That’s a reminder to myself to post the frigging graphs
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

gnome wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:16 pm You're welcome to provide competing information and explain why it is more reliable.
that’s one issue

The other is simply showing the official data (Rutgers snow lab data, which is from satellite imaging)

Which I did, and both the data and the images showing it were ignored. In fact, because the software here tracks views, there was only 8 views, and no response at all. It’s like I said, it simply won’t matter. Not even a tiny bit.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

robinson wrote: Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:13 pm Which I did, and both the data and the images showing it were ignored. In fact, because the software here tracks views, there was only 8 views, and no response at all.
Since I posted that the views went up. lol

12 views now


(edit)

Wait a minute. Each time I reload the page it goes up. Goddamn it, that's about useless. It may be almost nobody even viewed them al at!
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global warming with graphs and science shit thrown in

Post by robinson »

gnome wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:21 pm If you were sincere about that, you would discuss this in a manner that facilitates constructive debate and effective communication, ...
Nonsense. And you just lost your MVP status as well. :mrgreen:

I am always quite clear about what I am claiming, and it's based on data, not propaganda.


As I said early on
robinson wrote: Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:25 pm But experience has shown that when it comes to climate change/global warming

Facts rarely matter
robinson wrote: Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:30 pm Putting them inline with scientific explaining rarely matters. And for an internet expert (blowhard) it really wont matter at all
When I state something, as in the post below, it is based on experience, it's not rhetoric.
robinson wrote: Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:28 pm Those six images are enough to show one important thing I found, the fraud being sold to an ignorant and gullible public
In the past year so much more data has been recorded, the point is even easier to make now.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

One thing I did not mention, is just how bad the records of weather can be, even in the country with the best records. (United States)

Records = recorded data

Most states don't even have a benchmark station, and even the ones run by the NWS have errors and missing months. The best records come from COOP observers, the ones run by the same person or family for a long time. But I digress.

So the latest cluster fuck of unimaginable proportions has to be Texas of course. It's hard to handwave away the biggest disaster in US history, especially when it involves snow. (better to somehow blame it on global warming, climate change, which is exactly what has happened)

Now I will admit I have a failing, and it is simply this. Stupid, wrong explainings bother me. When some internet moron says something stupid, no big deal. But when leading climate scientists do it, it bothers me. Especially when it is so easy to know they are either idiots, or liars. It's actually more likely they are just woke.
robinson wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 7:00 am
Surprise wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:02 am I quote

Global warmist are busy trying to decide if it’s a meaningless anomaly, or evidence of global warming
Exactly. Alarmists are so worried about record snowfall, they actually claim it's from global warming.

Oh I know that sounds crazy, but it's 100% true. Easy to prove as well.
The horrific Texas snow and cold is but the latest example of how I know these morons are full of shit.

Here's my prediction. I will provide solid evidence to support my claim. It will make not one bit of difference.
robinson2
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 4:02 pm
Title: I can’t be worrying about that

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson2 »

I bet you are wrong
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

OK you are on.
Pyrrho
Posts: 31618
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by Pyrrho »

https://i.imgur.com/IVZs0B5.jpg

:popped:
ceptimus
Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by ceptimus »

Well over a thousand degrees in Wenatchee, I see. Probably best for residents there to avoid heavy outdoor manual labor, today.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

heh
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

Pyrrho
Posts: 31618
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:17 am
Title: Man in Black
Location: Division 6

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by Pyrrho »

robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

The climate models are almost worthless for regional projections


Actually worse than worthless
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

Both New York and Germany were in the news (and alarmists talking points) because of drought recently.

It’s ironic
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

Lubbock Texas, and almost all of Texas was in the news (and alarmists blogs N such), permanent drought, worst drought ever, unending heat


Then came the flooding, and the snow, and more rain than ever before
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

gnome wrote: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:16 pm You're welcome to provide competing information and explain why it is more reliable.

Is that your claim though, that the figures in that chart are literally falsified?


Before I return to the utter futility of this, a reminder that I used to be a cynical “global warming is happening and we are all fucked” kind of dude
robinson wrote: Tue May 01, 2007 3:05 pm
gnome wrote: I think it can be, but I'm not into the alarmism[sic]... it just so happens that the solution of reducing dependence on fossil fuels happens to solve a bunch of other problems at the same time, so why the hell not?
That is a great question. The first thing that popped into my head, was because it might shift the balance of power, or maybe the overwhelming in-balance of power. Literally.
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

Slight off topic because I am using the phone, no data to look at or slap into zee topic
robinson
Posts: 15547
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

Post by robinson »

JEROME DA GNOME wrote: Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:34 pm
gnome wrote:
JEROME DA GNOME wrote:

No, you have created a strawman instead of arguing the point.


Those taxes does not denote all taxes.
What is the difference between "those" taxes and "all" taxes? It would seem that they could be directed for good use or poor use regardless of why they are collected.

"Those taxes" refer to taxes that are scared out of or "sold" to the population under false pretenses.


Look to the State of Maryland to see the corruption of environmental taxing.
on June 28, 2007

The Baltimore Sun today reports on the purchase of a farm in Grasonville on the Eastern Shore belonging to the company run by David Sutherland, who served on Governor Martin O’Malley’s transition team.

The Board of Public Works voted to purchase the land, despite some initial reservations about the price by Comptroller Peter Franchot and a representative of Treasurer Nancy Kopp. According to The Sun, the $5 million sale was “nearly a” million dollars over the appraised value of the land. Queen Anne’s County officials, who will use the land for recreational uses, also were concerned about the price but supported the deal to preserve the farm as open space.

Sutherland claims he received no special treatment. The state will pay $4.6 million the the county will pick up the other $400,000. Waterfront portions of the property not included in the sale will require more money to be spent for the state to purchase easements. One appraisal places the land value at $3.6 million and the other $4.6 million.

It later came out that the appraisals where done prior to ground water level testing which showed that one can not build on the land making it worth about 20% of the appraisal.

Keep in mind that the Baltimore Sun was and is a strong supporter of O'Malley, this is why they describe the property as a "farm". There was no farm there, it is crap land that was given a BS scam appraisal.