Dangerously Cold Record Low Temps

[genuineoriginal]

Making 1934 Disappear Prior to government data tampering, 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US. This was unacceptable to climate scientists who depend on global warming junk science funding, so they changed the data.

​

 

[User Name]

That's why the Left wants the U.S. to go as green as possible, as fast as possible.

That's right! Germany's economy has hit depreshion level devistation since they went "green". The same with Iceland and the Scandanavian countires!

The only way to move forward is to burn fuels that pump as much CO2 into the atmospheres as possible, as fast as possilbe!

 

[genuineoriginal]

How do you know that temperatures are actually decreasing if they are "unmeasurable"?

We have the historic measurements from before they were tampered with to show that the temperatures are actually decreasing.

What is unmeasurable is the "global temperature" from 1900-1978, since "global temperature" is measured estimated by satellite.

 

[ok doser]

Exactly! Nations such as Germany, Sweden and Iceland have been switching to so-called low CO2 "renewable" energy sources and their economies have been absolutely devastated! If the USA follows suit, we will surely go down the tubes!

first of all, iceland has a population of twelve, so i wouldn't draw any conclusions from them - and they have geothermal sufficient to supply those twelve with their needs

as for sweden and germany - were their economies historically based, in any part, on energy exports?

 

[ok doser]

We have the historic measurements from before they were tampered with to show that the temperatures are actually decreasing.

What is unmeasurable is the "global temperature" from 1900-1978, since "global temperature" is measured estimated by satellite.

 

[User Name]

as for sweden and germany - were their economies historically based, in any part, on energy exports?

Sweden and Germany are in the tank. Their economies have been devistated because of "green" energies. Its there own falts, they Should have known beter and stuck to coal and oil!

 

[musterion]

:mock:
estimated by satellite.

 

[WizardofOz]

Making 1934 Disappear Prior to government data tampering, 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US. This was unacceptable to climate scientists who depend on global warming junk science funding, so they changed the data.

​

Even if true, 1934 would be the anomaly and the graphs end at the year 2000. From more recent data, the hottest 5 years on record all occurred after 2000.

 

[ok doser]

Sweden and Germany are in the tank. Their economies have been devistated because of "green" energies. Its there own falts, they Should have known beter and stuck to coal and oil!

i'm fine with following sweden's example and relying more on nuclear

we'll see how germany fares turning away from nuclear :idunno:

in the short term, it has meant burning a lot more coal

 

[The Barbarian]

I remember the heat waves from 1987-1988, and we haven't seen that kind of heat waves since that time.

I notice that Wiz just blew that story out of the water. Keep in mind that the US, being a smaller sample, is less accurate measure of global warming than the average of the planet.

Regulating carbon dioxide will have no effect on climate change

I know you want to believe that, but if we could reduce carbon emissions, it would indeed reduce the warming. For reasons that everyone understands.

but will destroy the economies of the first world nations.

The existence of a problem does not depend on how much money it might take to fix it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Even if true, 1934 would be the anomaly and the graphs end at the year 2000. From more recent data, the hottest 5 years on record all occurred after 2000.

The graph with the NASA 1999 data does end at 1998, since NASA did not have any data after the year 1998 when they published the data in 1999.
The 1999 graph shows four years hotter than 1998.

The graph with the NASA 2017 data shows that the reports can't be relied on because the historical data was changed to make it appear that temperatures in 1998 and later were hotter than the earlier temperatures.
The 2017 graph shows none of the years before 1998 were hotter, because the historical data was changed, not because 1998 was hotter than all the previous years.

We can't rely upon recent reports about hottest years on record if the record of the prior years are changed to make them look cooler than they were.

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you know that temperatures are actually decreasing if they are "unmeasurable"?

You see, data that indicate lowering temperatures would be accurate, but any data indicating rising temperatures would be "unmeasureable."

It has to do with how much each would cost to recognize as true. Inexpensive facts are true; expensive facts are not.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I notice that Wiz just blew that story out of the water.

You aren't paying attention. No suprise there.

I know you want to believe that

Yes, I want to believe the truth, no matter how many people are fooled into believing a lie.

, but if we could reduce carbon emissions, it would indeed reduce the warming.

:rotfl: I know that is a lie.
If you want to continue believing that lie, go ahead.

For reasons that everyone understands.

There has been a lot of lies about the effects of reducing carbon emissions, but reducing carbon emissions will have ZERO effect on the climate.

The existence of a problem does not depend on how much money it might take to fix it.

Sure it does.
The problem is not climate change.
The problem is the hoax that carbon emissions cause global warming.
A lot of money was spent to create that hoax.
A lot of money is being spent to keep the hoax alive.
It will take a lot of money to counter the hoax with the truth.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You see, data that indicate lowering temperatures would be accurate, but any data indicating rising temperatures would be "unmeasureable."

Local temperatures can be measured and the unaltered historical data can be used to determine whether the local temperatures are changing.
There are no measurements for historical "global temperature" to use to determine whether the "global temperature" is changing.

 

[User Name]

The problem is not climate change.
The problem is the hoax that carbon emissions cause global warming.

Does carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Local temperatures can be measured and the unaltered historical data can be used to determine whether the local temperatures are changing.
There are no measurements for historical "global temperature" to use to determine whether the "global temperature" is changing.

It has to do with how much each would cost to recognize as true. Inexpensive facts are true; expensive facts are not.

Real data is expensive.
Fake data is inexpensive.

 

[The Barbarian]

The graph with the NASA 1999 data does end at 1999, since NASA did not have any data after 1999 in 1999.
The 1999 graph shows four years hotter than 1999.

The graph with the NASA 2017 data shows that the reports can't be relied on because the historical data was changed to make it appear that 1999 and later were hotter than the earlier temperatures.

Well, let's take a look at that...

Green line is the corrected data; red is the uncorrected data. If they were doing the corrections to make it look hotter, they certainly didn't do a very good job, did they? The old data shows the same warming trend as the corrected data to a high degree of precision.

The 2017 graph shows none of the years before than 1999 were hotter, because the historical data was changed.

See above. Someone's taken advantage of your trust in them.

It is, however, a fact that the average temperatures for the last five years have been hotter than any previous global averages on record. And this in spite of a solar minimum so strong that the last time we had one like that, it was the "little ice age" in Medieval Europe.

I don't blame you for being fooled. Some unscrupulous congressmen doctored the information to make it appear that the corrected data was very different from the uncorrected data.

 

[The Barbarian]

Does carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation?

It does. The real issue is that it absorbs infrared at frequencies other common greenhouse gases do not. So it has a larger effect than it might otherwise have.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, let's take a look at that...

(posts graph with fake data)
Green line is the corrected data; red is the uncorrected data. If they were doing the corrections to make it look hotter, they certainly didn't do a very good job, did they? The old data shows the same warming trend as the corrected data to a high degree of precision.

You were fooled.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It does. The real issue is that it absorbs infrared at frequencies other common greenhouse gases do not. So it has a larger effect than it might otherwise have.

CO2 Forgetting To Trap Heat In The Arctic Last year, temperatures were not as cold as they usually are near the North Pole. This was blamed on CO2 trapping heat. This year, temperatures are very cold near the North Pole. Apparently CO2 is getting lazy with its heat trapping capabilities. CO2 appears to be a very fickle gas.

​