Climate Change Consequences

You want to just keep reading the article? Or do you need me to answer these questions first?

 

The fact that you didn't understand what I wrote only shows that you simply have no idea of data validity.
If the standard average is 10 deg and the ship readings are 12 deg then the variation is +2. If the buoy readings are 8 deg then the variation is -2.
You are saying the buoy data should be changed to *also* be a +2 variation instead of the -2 variation it actually shows.
That *is* direct manipulation of the data to make it seem like the ocean is warmer than it actually is.
That's why more and more people are turning away from the climate models and the data they are built upon!

 

I read the article. I quoted the most relevant part. The part that shows that what is happening in Syria is not unique to today.

 

But....but....that doesn't then produce statistical warming...... can't you see???? It must show statistical warming....

 

The title specifically mentions Climate Change and you can't be bothered to quote the part of the article that discusses Climate Change?

 

Pure nonsense. Where is your "standard average" coming from and what is it supposed to mean?

If reading USED to be primarily from ships and they show "X" and buoy readings are now being used and they show "X-2" and this is consistent...to NOT adjust for that MEASUREMENT difference would give bogus data ...which seems to be what you favor

 

I find it hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't even know how the datasets are formulated. It seems you mostly search the internet for snippets that you think support your opinion - even though many times they say something different than what you think.
go here: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/seas_ann_means.html
Maybe this will help you understand though I doubt it. You should already know this.
Or try here: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

 

Your link says nothing about how to reconcile two different measuring devices.

Please explain in plain language what you think you know.

That appears to be about how they calculate monthly means and account for seasonal differences.

AGAIN...if you use one device for a number of years...and then use a different device that reads cooler...if you want to understand whether or not you have an increase you need to factor in the difference of the MEASURING devices.

You link said nothing about that.

I guess you'll have to back to claiming reading temps in an oean is no different than doing so in a a still bathtub..eh?

 

You factor in the difference by *lowering* the ship measurements to what the more accurate buoy's show for temperature.
Why you simply refuse to understand this is beyond me. Artificially inflating the temperature readings of the more accurate device is why critics don't believe in the computer models any more. It artificially inflates the averages used to determine variations. It builds in an arbitrary bias to the data. When the AGW religionists like you talk about the ocean being warmer just how do you know when the temperatures being compared have been artificially inflated?
Couple that with the fact that the ocean in the Southern Hemisphere has a dearth of both buoy and ship measurements leaving much of the temperatures as nothing but guesses, along with much of the land measurements in the southern hemisphere being guessed at as well, and a lot of the temperature data is nothing more than a "best guess", which is probably one reason why the land/sea data sets are so different from the satellite data sets!
And what do the AGW religionists try to accomplish? You would think a major effort would be made to reconcile the models with the satellite data sets. But no, the major effort has been to artificially manipulate the satellite data to erase the warming hiatus it shows!

There *is* a reason why the satellite data is so different from the models results. But you'll never get the AGW religionists to explore why.

 

Say!!! Incase you missed it, the creator of the mythical "hocky stick" prediction of "global warming" has adjusted the year beyond which the planet is doomed if we don't immediately give the climate hoaxers all of our money and control over our lives all the way out to 2020. Yep, instead of 1995, 2000, 2004, 2010 and all the other predicted dates in the past after which we are doomed if we don't act RIGHT NOW, we are now saved out until 2020.....say, isn't that the next presidential election year? Why, yes, yes it is. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/09/michael-mann-adjusts-the-climate-turning-point-out-to-2020/

So, THIS time Mann, Hansen, Gore, Pitt, and all the other hoaxters will be right. Those past doomsday predictions where, say, Gore predicted the ARctic would be ice free by 2014 that didn't come true despite the 97% agreement among "scientists" about "global warming" were just preludes. THIS time, THIS time, they are right, by golly, so start handing over your money NOW, you fools. You don't want them to call you a "denier" do you?

 

Simply put, (Michael) Mann made warming.

 

They test blast nuclear bombs in the ocean, you think they care about corals or marine life? Do you think they care about "climate change"? They just want your money, it's rather straight forward.

Those who complain about climate change, do nothing to prevent it. They also needed somebody who is considered "high counsel", to tell them climate change is even occurring. Otherwise they would be silent.

 

Answer this one...........have you sent Al Gore your offering or tithe?

 

Do not discuss Al Gore with me.

 

For thousands and thousands of years children knew what snow was and glaciers never melted...then Al Gore was born and the snow went away and glaciers disappeared.

Sounds suspicious to me!

 

Starfish making a comeback on US west coast...

Starfish making a comeback on US west coast after illness killed millions
Thu, Dec 28, 2017 - Starfish are making a comeback on the US’ west coast, four years after a mysterious syndrome killed millions of them.

 

Climate change is a government attempt at charging the people for the very air they breathe. You must acknowledge that air is owned by the government, not only do we need their permission to breathe it, but we also must pay for it.

Tree hugging liberals are unaware that carbon emissions will be charged, they already have the patent and the devices to place on all businesses and homes. And once one crosses that emission point, they are then cut off, or they must purchase from somebody else who did not cross the limit.

The climate is getting warmer, there is no denying that. The question is, is it man-made, and if so, to what degree? Because if it's man-made, then throwing money at it, will only make it worse, it damn sure won't fix anyhing. Why? Because if climate change is man made, than obviously the way of our life, in which we currently live, must change. How can one say the climate change is man-made, we need to do something about it, and the solution is the same lifestyle, which is the very problem in the first place?

 

The Iron Law of climate policy is that any energy policy that will reduce CO2 enough to significantly affect the rate of increase in temperature is politically impossible.

 

Of course there are two sides the truth and government hunting power by any means necessary just like always. The medieval Wam period was warmer than anything we've seen sense based on Ice core and other data from around the world. With few exceptions it was a damn golden age in which humanity world wide prospered like never before. It was ended by the Little Ice Age which was an unmitigated disaster world wide. The chief casualty of global warming if we continue to buy into the alarmist view will be human freedom on a grand scale.