Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:54 pm

I became a skeptic in Feb 2010.

Why? What does that even mean?

Inspired by

gnome wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:29 pm Skeptic of the phenomenon, its causes, or the appropriate response to it? Or some combination?

What led to your change of mind?

(edited to change topic title 6-14-2020)

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:47 pm

I remember like it was yesterday. I was helping a neighbor shovel snow after the third blizzard in DC. It was either Snowmageddon or snow Paco lips, we had actually run out of names for what had happened. Everything was just buried in snow, the power out, roads impossible, the government shut down, and the US post office closed for the first time in history. I said, half in jest, “oh well this is global warming”, and he looked at me and laughed, and said “yeah right”, and something clicked. So I started looking at the data

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:52 pm

The climate gate emails that come out months earlier, And a lot of things shown there were bothering me, so I was already questioning. But it really was the data that got me really skeptical

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:28 am

Where are the graphs and science shit?

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:07 am

Oh this just great. The one computer that I run my software on, which is the only reason I even use it, I spilled coffee on it, and it’s fubar

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:02 am

I'm still hoping you will narrow down your skepticism a bit--I think these are three reasonable buckets to choose from:

- Doubt that a warming trend is occurring at all.
- Agree that there is a warming trend but doubt that it is significantly driven by human activity
- Agree that there is a warming trend that is significantly driven by human activity, but that we are choosing the wrong solutions.

If there's a different category by all means describe it. Too many people dance around all three when they are nearly exclusive positions.

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:56 pm

gnome wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:02 am I'm still hoping you will narrow down your skepticism a bit--I think these are three reasonable buckets to choose from:

- Doubt that a warming trend is occurring at all.
- Agree that there is a warming trend but doubt that it is significantly driven by human activity
- Agree that there is a warming trend that is significantly driven by human activity, but that we are choosing the wrong solutions.

If there's a different category by all means describe it. Too many people dance around all three when they are nearly exclusive positions.

That is very good reminder, and all the trauma of losing my precious laptop, which I only use because I have to use Windows, I actually forgot about that part.

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:09 pm

I’m going to label the buckets to save typing -
A) Doubt that a warming trend is occurring at all.
B)Agree that there is a warming trend but doubt that it is significantly driven by human activity
C)Agree that there is a warming trend that is significantly driven by human activity, but that we are choosing the wrong solutions.

After thinking about it, it appears that there really are only two questions that involve data.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Wed Mar 25, 2020 11:53 pm

...well, which is it young feller?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dF9OLZKSC5k/hqdefault.jpg

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:54 am

Putting these to rest
A) Doubt that a warming trend is occurring at all.

The question is not exact enough for an answer.

B)Agree that there is a warming trend but doubt that it is significantly driven by human activity

Can’t be answered for same reason

C)Agree that there is a warming trend that is significantly driven by human activity, but that we are choosing the wrong solutions.

Can’t be answered same reason.

“A warming trend” is not scientific. My skepticism is specific, about many things being claimed, based on the basic global warming theory. BGWT

Claims about the BGWT, using computer models, and even old fashioned calculations, were the first thing I looked at.

In the ten years since that epic winter, a lot more data has been gathered. One thing that BGWT definitely predicts (not a projection) is the most warming will be observed in winter, with the most warming happening over land, at extra tropical latitudes, and high elevations. And at night.

This is simple to explain. CO2 caused warming (carbon) is supposed to be happening where water vapor (WV) isn’t overwhelming any carbon effect. WV usually dominates any carbon heating, the original objection to the BGWT

Plass and others brought the theory back showing a carbon effect at high altitudes, where the dry air is free from WV, and this led to calculations and the BGWT coming back as the main driver of climate change (explaining the ice ages)

So while the ice ages were once again explained by the BGWT, a water vapor feedback was added to try and explain some of the unsolved parts of the theory.

The biggest problem was, and still is, how can an ice age start the glacier building phase when carbon is at the peak levels? Just because the AGW theory replaced BGWT as the dominating factor, did not make this huge problem go away.

If you are objecting already to these statements, which is most often the case, you may get be in over your head already.

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:57 am

One reason I rarely even try to discuss this shit online is the self expert idiot problem. If you don’t know anything about the BGWT, how the fuck can you chime in about it?

Hotarubi · Post by **Hotarubi** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:55 am

Still no graphs or science.

Reminds me of a climate change thread.

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:56 am

What do you want see?

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:58 am

Of course the science is the BGWT. It’s always a delight to encounter the internet blowhard that can’t even describe the theory.

Hotarubi · Post by **Hotarubi** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:13 pm

robinson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:56 am What do you want see?

Graphs and science.

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:31 pm

Hotarubi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:13 pm
robinson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:56 am What do you want see?
Graphs and science.

You have progressed from tits and ass. Congratulations.

Hotarubi · Post by **Hotarubi** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:35 pm

ed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:31 pm
Hotarubi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:13 pm
robinson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:56 am What do you want see?
Graphs and science.
You have progressed from tits and ass. Congratulations.

I can look at T & A whenever I want tyvm.

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:06 pm

Of course.

Even better I can teach you how to create your own. What I don’t have is custom made ones I create from raw data

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:25 pm

Doing this from my phone is a pita

But experience has shown that when it comes to climate change/global warming

Facts rarely matter

robinson · Post by **robinson** » 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

robinson · Post by **robinson** » 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

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:34 pm

Sources available on request

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:45 pm

I get nervous when i see univariate regression. You have made me nervous.

The first question is wtf is this data? What does it purport to represent? Does, it then, actually represent it? In other words is it valid. "Alabama temperature" is simply meaingless.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:01 pm

Not if you're in Mobile. Fag.

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:47 pm

Even there.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:28 pm

What if it's really really hot? I bet it does then.

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:59 pm

ed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:45 pm I get nervous when i see univariate regression. You have made me nervous.

The first question is wtf is this data? What does it purport to represent? Does, it then, actually represent it? In other words is it valid. "Alabama temperature" is simply meaingless.

The source is wxshift.com for the “Getting hotter” graphs

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:02 pm

The other graphs are from NOAA pages

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide ... e=binomial

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-prec ... omparison/

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:02 pm

They all claim to show data for Alabama

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:06 pm

ed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:45 pm Does, it then, actually represent it? In other words is it valid. "Alabama temperature" is simply meaingless.

The meaning of the data shown in the graphs is the combined data from GHCN STATIONS. Tmax is daytime highs, Tmin is night time lows.

If I have to explain monthly or seasonal graphs and what February means I will have to kill you.

:De_Bunk:

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:13 pm

Where are these stations? Whar are the surroundinds? Has there been building near them over the time period?

Validity my child, validity

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:19 pm

ed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:13 pm Where are these stations? Whar are the surroundinds? Has there been building near them over the time period?

Validity my child, validity

the stations are GHCN STATIONS

You are definitely getting ahead in the thread. The issues of station sighting, station changes, instrument changes, changes in surrounding vegetation and land use, all of these factors are considered when dealing with the global historic climate stations.

GHCN (Global historic climate network) stations are the ones used for climate. They are rural and have requirements to meet in order to be used. Questions about the validity of the data from them are many and the issue are very contentious

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:19 pm

There is an entirely new network very high-quality stations that are only for climate. They are considered the gold standard but they only started in 2002

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:36 pm

I am contentious by nature.

I need the moral equivilent of double blind, peer reviewed and replicated. If not its bullshit .

"Considered" is a weasel word that has no place in my lexicon.

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:43 pm

Btw, to what extent have they monitored thw water table? As you know, that acts as a heat sink and moderates temperature. In many areas the table is lowering. This fact should obviate data from some stations.

May we assume that this has been adequitely accountted for? If so we can go over the details. We are a long way from even graphs.

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:43 pm

We used to call it data hygiene

Hotarubi · Post by **Hotarubi** » Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:55 am

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

Unfortunately, my data graph of climate destroys your claims with proven data and science.

https://i.imgur.com/Uch01ry.jpg

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:07 am

ed wrote: ↑ As you know, that acts as a heat sink and moderates temperature. In many areas the table is lowering. This fact should obviate data from some stations. Hi a

That’s a novel and extremely stupid claim. But if you have a scientific source for it, I’m all ears

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:20 am

I already provided the sources for the following graphs. The first one is from a website that promotes global warming and tries to convince people that it’s really bad.

download/file.php?id=10406&mode=view

They only show the trend from 1970, one of the coldest periods In our short climate history. This gives the illusion of great nighttime warming in February, usually the coldest month in Alabama. Why this would be important is only known to a small group of people. People who understand the basic global warming Theory

If you are skeptical you might check the data they used by to create their graphic, and find it tells a different story.
download/file.php?id=10407&mode=view

This is a small example of the reeking horseshit that is easy to find all over

robinson · Post by **robinson** » Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:23 am

For the truly ignorant, the graphs show an adjusted dataset created by averaging all the Tmin days for February, from all the GHCN stations in Alabama