Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Yes, and that is compensated for in the adjustments. That's the point of them.

 

Not really, for instance on the east slope of the Rockies the adjustments are made to the rural stations based on urban stations. Why this is needs to be explained.

 

But that's not the case. Maximum temperatures are rising. New record highs outnumber new record lows. The new consistently higher temps will eventually decrease crop yields, and the record high temps might kill them.

And those many millions of displaced people in the third world? Screw 'em.Unless you're volunteering to let 20 displaced Bengalis move in with you.

You did make progress. You've finally figured out that a longer growing season might be a _result_ of warming, and not a _cause_ of warming, as you kept claiming. You've finally mastered the idea of cause and effect, a concept normally grasped by humans somewhere in the infant stage.

Standard cultist behavior. Religious fanatics like you believe that God has given them a free pass to lie.

I'm flattered that you steal so much of my material. But then, it is good.

No, NOAA did not say that "water vapor can make the temperature go up all by itself", which is what you claimed. You're lying about what NOAA said. It's what you do. It's pretty much all you do.

"Warmer" means the mean is increasing. You're basically the only person on planet earth who has decided otherwise. You're off in your own special reality.

Sure I can. The fact that I didn't type out pages and pages just means I wasn't catering to the rage-tantrum that you were using as a deflection.

Here's a thought. Instead of constantly demanding that we educate your lazy butt, why don't you try looking up the information yourself? I educate those willing to learn for free, but that's not you. If you want me to spend hours on you, I'll have to charge.

I suggest you start here. Cloud formation is a very complex topic, and you can't sum it up in a sentence. If I was going to try, I'd say "Moist air cools below its dewpoint as it rises, so the excess vapor has to condense out around a condensation nucleus, which creates the water droplets that form clouds."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_physics

 

What needs to be explained is your source for that claim.

 

Yes, let's parrot and obsess over long dead nothings and conveniently fail to notice increased arctic air blasts that disproportionately affect the Midwest, while increased tropical heat blasts predominate elsewhere. Oh noes though, weather in the Midwest looking to be balmy for months on end! So sad. Shameless deniers destined to simply grow lonelier and lonelier...

 

Never heart of the jet stream eh? Don't think weather ever happened in the past eh?

 

Non sequitur constantly, eh? Find yourself forever denying the obvious, shamelessly and at all costs, because still convinced promoting fossil fuels will work out best for you, eh?
In other words, to hell with future generations and everyone else, eh? You've got a good thing going and that's all that ever matters. Enjoy the added heat!@LiveConscienceFree&Deny

 

The obvious is that you have bought the alarmism hook, line, and sinker despite no evidence of the alarmist claims and in fact continued 100% failure of claims so far. That should make you think but I bet you won't,

 

Really? And how many land temp stations are located in the middle of a pond or lake. Evaporation cools the water, not the land. Evaporation fuels water vapor in the atmosphere. You know, the stuff that you keep saying precipitates out of warmer air by some mysterious process no one but you knows about.

You wouldn't know an argumentative fallacy if it bit you. You made spurious claims about my weather station site and I corrected you. I never claimed anything special about my site except that it was not as you described. And my data matches what they are finding in Iowa. Is the whole state of Iowa somehow wrong as well?

I live on a three acre site on a dead end road surrounded by soybeans and corn. Nothing has changed in the 32 years since I built the house. Stop floundering trying to make something stick. It won't. The problem is not my data, the problem is your AGW bible.

Actually quite the opposite. I have cut down one cottonwood tree and lost a pine tree. Less shade and less blocking of the wind. Less shade should have made temps go up not down.

All you are trying to do is come up with a rationalization for your irrational beliefs. You simply cannot answer my question about whether we are seeing a longer growing season or higher temps. And all you have to fall back on is your AGW bible.

 

My whole college training was on analog computers -- using op amps, oscillators, etc. With enough units I could model any physical process. My guess is that you don't even know that analog computers preceeded digital computers in creating models of the physical world!

If the whole planet agrees with you then they are all wrong. They have been subjected to political propaganda. Again, you can't even tell us if the mean is going up because of longer growing seasons or higher temperatures!

[/quote]No, I've never said anything of the sort. If you're just going to tell lies in response to anything that anyone says, why should anyone waste time speaking with you?[/quote]

Yes, you did. And everyone saw it when I posted your claim again after you denied it last time![qu

And what I gave you was the math that shows the mean can go up without having higher temperatures.

Of course you denied it. You claimed we are seeing fewer maximum temp records because temps are getting so high its hard to set records. [

The issue is your inability to read. I never claimed longer growing seasons were the cause of warming. I said longer growing seasons can increase the mean just as can higher temps. Something *YOU* denied until I rubbed your nose in it!

 

The mean going up literally means temperatures are going up on average. It takes a real dingbat to try and argue otherwise. Global Warming literally means temperatures are going up, not necessarily at your house, but on average.

 

Why not just use rural measurements then?

 

Except this isn't the case for Kansas and Iowa. You have been given that data and now you choose to ignore it.

Kansas is having fewer days over 100 an Iowa is setting FEWER record highs every year. Whee is *YOUR* reference showing we are seeing more more record highs? Or is this just dogma from your AGW bible?

Population displacements are common occurrences for all kinds of reasons. Look at the migration from he Middle East to Europe that continues apace today. At least today we have time to plan for it and do it efficiently.



[quote[You did make progress. You've finally figured out that a longer growing season might be a _result_ of warming, and not a _cause_ of warming, as you kept claiming. You've finally mastered the idea of cause and effect, a concept normally grasped by humans somewhere in the infant stage.[/quote]

Every time you repeat this you just show how poor your reading comprehension is. You've made up a strawman that you can flail away at. All you are doing is covering yourself is straw, dirty straw at that!

[quote[Standard cultist behavior. Religious fanatics like you believe that God has given them a free pass to lie.[/quote]

No lying here. If you don't understand the science and math then don't post idiotic things.

Like I said, you are a legend in your own mind.

No, NOAA did not say that "water vapor can make the temperature go up all by itself", which is what you claimed. You're lying about what NOAA said. It's what you do. It's pretty much all you do.

But the issue is *WHY* the mean is going up. You keep saying it's because temperatures are getting higher. I'm saying its because we are seeing longer growing seasons. I have the data to back up my claim. You have nothing except AGW bible quotes.

If you can then do it. Don't just claim you can. Your credibility is zero around here!

Here's a thought. Instead of constantly demanding that we educate your lazy butt, why don't you try looking up the information yourself? I educate those willing to learn for free, but that's not you. If you want me to spend hours on you, I'll have to charge.[/quote]

The only one getting an education is you. You've been shown that changes in variance and standard deviation doesn't determine the slope of the mean. You've been shown that the mean can go up without higher temperatures.

And why does it get colder? In the stratosphere the temps get higher as you go up. Sunlight impinging on the top side of clouds warms them, not cools them.

Again, you are nothing but a parrot. You have no basic understanding of physics, science, or math. You just demonstrated it again.

 

You didn't even bother to read my proof that this doesn't have to be the case, did you?

If ,in year 0, you have 90 days of 80degF and 270 days of 67degF you have a mean of 70degF.

If, in year 1, you have 120 days of 80defF and 240 days of 67degF you have a mean of 71.3degF.

Temps didn't go up a single degree.

Why are so many AGW religionists *so* bad at math?

 

After this guy claimed that water vapor ALONE is the cause of any warming of our planet...why would anyone bother to read ANY of his endless diatribes

 

Do the math. Mean temps went up "1.3degF."

Nah, you're clearly not innumerate - apparently just enjoy kidding yourself in public to avoid facing reality.

 

Because ya know...the subject is Global High Temps Increasing...not Global Warming (wrong)

Upside is as usual taking a very narrow definition and then misunderstanding (intentionally ) THAT,

We're talking about HEAT primarily. Temps are simply a measurement of heat.

 

I guess the old adage of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" applies specifically to you.

The mean going up doesn't have anything to do with temperatures going up!

The mean temperature going up in the central US has to do with a longer growing season, not higher temps.

If you have nothing of import to offer on the subject why do you insist on wasting everyone's bandwidth?

 

Again, temperature is not heat. Heat has a unit - joules. Temp has a unit - degrees. They are not interchangeable!

 

I take it back, you must be innumerate. -Or- paid to do nothing but deliberately deny, conflate, and confuse. Shameless, sad specimen of the human race in any case.

 

Temperature is not a measure of heat?

No kidding.

Add THAT to the list of things you stupidly get wrong

 

So do longer periods of high temps cause longer growing seasons or vice versa? Does a longer stretch at high temps not cause a higher mean temp? Someone led this poor horse to polluted water, then yelled DRINK! So it drank and declared it good.

 

Sure. And how many joules do you think we have in Florida today?. I just stepped out, and it's pretty "jouly".

I see you haven't given up making your own arbitrary definitions.

 

Depends on the heat capacity of the medium. For instance, 1 c heat unit I s roughly 1899 Joules.

Heat capacity is measured in joules.

Heat capacity of the oceans is measured in joules. A change in temperature is measured in Celsius.

 

So you agree that temperature is a measurement of heat (of course). Tell your stubborn friend upside