2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

This has been a good rain season but not even close to bonafide El Nino yrs [exception: 2015]. Drought is becoming the norm per global warming. Noteworthy has been the rain and record cold since February. Not freezing temps per se but very cool maximums.

 

Actually, NASA data shows that the past 25 years have seen ocean level changes at around double the annual average change of the previous 120 years

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

An interglacial is literally caused by warming average global temperature. You might as well be arguing that ocean levels are rising as expected during rising global temperature. The former does not contradict latter, it parallels it.

This is the science on the matter-> https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

How about data not paid for by the government?
https://www.breitbart.com/radio/201...-corrupt-scientists-hooked-government-grants/

 

This may be the single most doltish post I have seen on these forums. If you're looking for scientific research on the earth's climate that is not government funded, you can look into the research of the AAAS, the ACS, the AGU, the AMA, the AMS, the APS, or the GSA. Patrick Moore's field of study is forest life, he has not been a part of any kind of scientific research on the earth's climate.

You can also look into the research on climate from the scientific societies outside of the US, they all say the same thing. The lower atmosphere has warmed while the upper atmosphere has cooled, meaning the causes for rising temperatures on the earth's surface is not caused by solar activity.

If you're looking to join the discussion on the science of climate change, please provide a source that has conducted scientific research on the subject matter. Thank you

 

Whenever I see something like that from a Lefty, I know they have nothing to dispute my post. There are plenty of links that dispute the alarmist sky is falling narrative.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ea...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

But, I don't intend to get into another 100 page debate on this subject, so carry on.

 

No trend in droughts globally. You keep falling for the hype.

 

By a simple trick of tacking on the recent satellite data to the tide gauges. Two different measurements. Only tide gauges are used for local planning and not one tide gauge worldwide shows any acceleration.

 

Sweet. Now demonstrate how the <4% of total CO2 output by man vs the 96-97% of CO2 output naturally makes any difference....

 

Did you ever once ask the question, why are there already deserts in Cali? I mean, drought isn't new, is it? I mean, see the deserts... the absence of water... Thanks for the laugh though.

 

Oh really?

 

Declining C14 ratio also indicates volcanic source. Keep in mind that Carbon 14 is formed in the atmosphere by collisions between cosmic rays and Nitrogen. It has a very short half life. Carbon from volcanoes has effectively no C14.

 

Yes that seems to be true. I wonder if humans will be able to get to safety before that 1/8th inch rise per year drowns them.

 

Why not concede the point? 1/8th of inch/yr of sea level rise could only be construed as a looming threat by the most chicken little of chicken littles. Humans can and do move all the time. Las Vegas was nothing 75 years ago and look at it now.

 

I haven't because it aint my point.

We detect the difference between 300 and 400 ppm with ease.

 

There is hardly any C14 in the atmosphere to begin with. So that's a bogus argument.

 

And you still source someone who has a theory only. There is no evidence this theory is correct nor do they have any example of what CO2 levels are human caused when looking at CO2 as a whole in the Atmosphere.

Come back when its more than an unsupported theory.

 

That's annually adding 3.62%. So that adds up massively over 2 decades.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man’s-contribution-to-global-warming/

 

There is nothing weird about NOAA explaining this to dummies. They got a multi billion budget controlled by Trump.

 

So where are the numbers? Clearly you believe your fake scientists so specifically what CO2 is actually measured using your own worthless claim and separates human produced CO2 and nature in actual measurements with actual facts?

You know, for us dummies who don't blindly believe claims with no evidence.

 

Not only that, oceans have risen 400 feet in the last 20,000 years, that's an average of 1/4" a year. So the recent rate is 1/2 the 20,000 year rate.

 

On the subject of the science of climate change, this is not a debate. You have yet to bring any scientific study to the discussion

Your first source is an article written by a journalist who majored in history, who has not been a part of any sort of scientific research on the earth's climate, and makes no attempt to cite any scientific source to back his narrative

Your second source is even worse, as it is a daily mail article that cites John J Bates as it's main source, who later came forward to criticize the articles made on his behalf. In other words, the article's own source does not agree with the article.

Your third source is the same as the second (it uses John J Bates as it's source), but published from a different news source.

More importantly, your latter sources also do not provide any kind of counter research. It uses a complaint that John J Bates made regarding the NOAA's protocol that he himself stated were being mischaracterized

Something he himself explains here https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

here
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

and here
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/



If you're looking to join the discussion on the science of climate change, please provide a source that has conducted scientific research on the subject matter. Thank you

 

A journalist?

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/patrick-moore

Naturally he is criticized from all directions by anyone pushing the sky is falling narrative. So far I don't have a link to any source for the science or data behind his viewpoints. Considering the groups he was involved with, he must have something to base it on.

 

I was referring to the first source in post #455

In regards to Patrick Moore, as I explained in post #454, his field of study is forest life, he hasn't been a part of any scientific research on climate change. Your own link in post #472 also specifies his field of study being in forest life

 

One day I will try to research where he gets his conclusions from. I just need to do it within 12 years.

 

I can field that for you, he has been a part of 0 scientific studies on climate change, his field of study is in forestry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)