Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I don't care who funds what. Look at that example I posted above, where they grossly distort what the graphs actually show.

Also consider that one of their big arguments about 'adjustments' is that older temperatures were adjusted down and newer temperatures were adjusted up, then look again at the overlay where there are no huge changes.

a reply to: jrod


NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
principia-scientific.org...

The problem is that you can process temperature data to reflect almost any outcome, not to mention that, I believe, some of the temperature data from the last 10 years or so may have been altered. It could be that the temperature readings on specially constructed and accurate thermometers, owned and operated by large agencies, were altered before being released to the public to make temperature readings appear lower. When in reality temperatures, in most part of earth, have been rising steadily.

Rising temperatures are only one part of the problem. The other factor is geoengineering:

www.youtube.com...

The science and technology of geoengineering has advanced to the point where it is possible to temporarily and artificially reduce temperatures over a large region like the region east of the Mississippi in the United States. This may account for artificially low temperature readings in the eastern half of the U.S., while temperature readings on the Western half of the U.S. have been rising (CA has had it's rainfall diverted to other states by using aerosols that absorb moisture.) Extensive soil tests have indicated a sharp increase in the presence of nano-sized aluminum particles. These particles do not occur naturally, most natural sources of aluminum in the soil is bonded to other elements. Furthermore, soil tests going back decades also indicated a sharp increase in nano aluminum starting in the late 80s, showing that this aluminum is NOT natural.

These nano particles are sprayed in the atmosphere so as to reflect the incoming sunlight, and they are moved using large and powerful antenna arrays like the former HAARP facility. There are indications that HAARP like facilities exist throughout the continental U.S. There is a presence of Barium, which absorbs moisture, used to move rain from one area to another.

The reason for geoengineering, as stated by proponents, is to increase the light reflectivity of the Earth, so that less light makes it to the surface thereby reducing temperatures. Why would these proponents be so concerned with Reducing temperatures on the earth, artificially, if it weren't for the fact that temperatures would be rising on earth, naturally?

a reply to: seasonal

Principia Scientific is bat# insane, even Dr. Roy Spencer called it out. Do not waste my time or anyone else's time with that idiocy. They don't believe or understand many fundamental physics laws or calculations.

E: as an example for people who don't read links, this is the first thing their insane ramblings say in response to Dr. Spencer's criticism:

There is no greenhouse effect

originally posted by: jrod
The study was done by the Cato Institue, which is funded by the Koch's. To but it simply, the 'liberterian free market' think tank that Cato is, is funded heavily by fossil fuel interests.

Amazing how quick you guys are quick to dismiss the findings of NASA, NOAA and thousands and thousands of actual universites, yet jump on a pro-Oil, right wing think tank bandwagon.

More on the Cato Institute here:
www.sourcewatch.org...

NOAA and NASA are pushing an agenda, thats easy enough to see. Give Trump some time to drain that swamp and we will see that they have been misleading us.

DESPITE NOAA DENIAL, GROWING NUMBER OF NEW STUDIES CONFIRM GLOBAL WARMING HIATUS

www.climatedepot.com...

a reply to: Greven
Frost and Frozen Corn in the Fields USA June 26 & 27th | Mini Ice Age (405)
Published on Jul 3, 2017
The agriculture community chat boards and twitter feeds are loaded with images and amazement of frozen solid corn on the stalks, frost on corn, flooded fields, mega drought and horrendous conditions for growing this year. The IPCC models surely cannot say they predicted state wide swaths of deadly frosts across the grain belts of the USA the last week of June and first week of July. I wonder how the CO2 global warming crowd will try to spin this event.

"Torture numbers long enough and they'll give you any answer you want."
-anon

a reply to: Greven

Oh, they said it was crap info...

DeSmog

a reply to: KoranBeliever

What does this weather have to do with the climactic trends?

a reply to: KoranBeliever

Welcome to ATS.

There is always odd and out of the ordinary weather. Trying to explain it and quantify it has proven to be difficult. And with difficult things you have the mental midgets who lie about it to prove their point.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Greven

Oh, they said it was crap info...

DeSmog

Let me put this very simply:
Principa Scientifc claims the Greenhouse Effect does not exist.

If you somehow believe this is true, then this is a waste of time. If you believe this to be false, then you must reject that site as propaganda of the insane.

So, which is it?

a reply to: Greven

Green house gas is a term used to scare people.

Carbon dioxide is a natural occurring gas-byproduct and catalysis for growth.

a reply to: Greven

Can you take 10 minutes to read this short report from the CIA and tell me your thoughts?
If anything would be cause for fear it would be global cooling.
Can you show me anything that would indicate that C02 is anything more than a small contributor to any warming that the earth has experienced?
www.climatemonitor.it...

a reply to: seasonal

I didn't say Carbon Dioxide or Greenhouse Gas, I said Greenhouse Effect.

Does it exist or not?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Greven

Green house gas is a term used to scare people.

Carbon dioxide is a natural occurring gas-byproduct and catalysis for growth.

Seems to me that greenhouses gain their heat from the glass panels they are built from, which stop the wind from cooling them down.
The ones I worked at supplemented with C02 to enhance the plants growth, very beneficial gas that C02, this should be known as the Global Greening Era. We have an increasing population to feed, crop yields going up from the C02 fertilization effect should be welcomed.

Global Warming Vs Global Greening, Cost benefit analysis.

www.thegwpf.com...

Let me turn to the topic of fossil fuels.

To paraphrase Monty Python, What have fossil fuels done for us?

Apart from a new continent’s worth of green vegetation.

And removing the need to cook over a wood fire, the smoke from which is one of the biggest killers in the world, dispatching over three million people a year according to the World Health Organisation.

And removing the need to fetch wood from the forest and dismantle an ecosystem in doing so.

Apart from that what have fossil fuels done for us?

Well, I suppose they supply the power to pump water so that it does not have to be fetched.

They allow electric light and hence help literacy and education.

They bring the refrigeration of food and vaccines.

They enable the child to catch a lift to school.

They make the fertilizer that raises farm yields, ending most hunger and sparing land for wildlife.

Yes, but apart from ending starvation, enabling kids to get to school, refrigerating vaccines, boosting literacy, pumping water, reducing the pressure on forests, reducing indoor air pollution, and creating 14% more green vegetation – apart from all this, what have fossil fuels done for us?

“Fossil fuels don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous, they take a dangerous climate and make it safe,” says Alex Epstein.

a reply to: Greven

No, Co2 is a (supposed) major cause of the greenhouse effect. The info that I have seen (and it has been massive) is inconclusive at best.

But there is huge $$$ being made.

a reply to: KoranBeliever

Shhhhhh.... common sense has no place here./sarc

originally posted by: KoranBeliever
a reply to: Greven

Can you take 10 minutes to read this short report from the CIA and tell me your thoughts?
If anything would be cause for fear it would be global cooling.
Can you show me anything that would indicate that C02 is anything more than a small contributor to any warming that the earth has experienced?
www.climatemonitor.it...

Can you take 1.5 minutes to review this which predates that 1974 report by 16 years:


There is no global cooling. Late frosts unsurprisingly happen in the Dakotas, for example in 2012. Mostly they're dealing with drought right now.

The physics are very simple - here's what a satellite from 1970 recorded:


CO2 is not as potent as H2O overall because it is not as common in the atmosphere; the difference is that CO2 hangs around for a very long time, while H2O vanishes quickly. Given that by calculations the Earth should be freezing in the absence of a greenhouse effect, what do you suppose put that water vapor in the atmosphere to begin with?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Greven

No, Co2 is a (supposed) major cause of the greenhouse effect. The info that I have seen (and it has been massive) is inconclusive at best.

But there is huge $$$ being made.

You keep saying CO2.

I asked whether you believe the greenhouse effect exists or not?

THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION WHY WONT YOU ANSWER IT?