News
news A Strange Case of the CIA and UFO Researchers
news MKULTRA Victims File Lawsuit
news Teddy Roosevelt's Account of a Bigfoot Encounter
news Europe’s Oldest Tree Is At Least 1,230 Years Old And Still Growing
news Davy Crockett's Bigfoot Sighting
news What Are the Implications of Quantum Mechanics?
news Supernatural Cars on the Highways
news Mormons, Aliens, and Hangar 18
news The startup that wants you to 'live to 130 in the body of a 22-year-old'
news Is your cell phone being tracked?
news Octopuses are space aliens, scientists claim


Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 12 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Damrod
Seeker of knowledge
User ID: 439553
01-03-2018 05:45 PM

Posts: 2,815



Post: #16
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Advertisement
Damrod  Wrote: (01-03-2018 05:13 PM)
Yo shitstain...

you can repost this garbage till the stars burn out and it does not make it correct.

Snowball earth to temperate forests at the poles long before humans fell out of the trees and started stacking rocks and making fire.

Your retarded need to cling to this NWO/Globalist bullshit proves that you are the enemy of freedom and should be purged accordingly.

The simple truth these educated idiots refuse to discuss is the fact the earth's climate has historically been violent.

Humans showed up and prospered in an anomalous time...a time of climate stability.

Stable climate is the anomaly for this rock...not climate change.

There is plenty of climatological evidence that the earth has gone through wild swings of climate long before humans showed up.

The agenda of these asshats is to implement laws and controls over the herds of sheep...not to "save the planet"...

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Jefferson


Everything I post is my personal opinion and should not be construed as anything more than that
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 441063
01-03-2018 09:06 PM

 



Post: #17
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
I wrote of NASA's "rubber ruler" in 2012. NASA changes the temperature "record," going back to 1880, every month. In just one month in 2012, August to September, 60% of NASA's temperature record changed. How did temperature readings in August of 2012 cause 60% of the temperatures from 1880 to 2011 to change? Anthony Watts says NASA is violating the Data Quality Act.

How does one validate a climate model using temperature observations, if those "observations" were themselves adjusted using models? Real science means using the scientific method, which means using physical measurements to test a hypothesis.

The simple explanation is that NASA is reversing that method. It apparently uses the global warming hypothesis to adjust physical measurements. That is not science. It is the opposite of science.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...z539MaJXeu
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-04-2018 08:29 AM

Posts: 8,046



Post: #18
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Dr. David SuzukiWrote:
Some have criticized the warning for being overly alarmist, but the situation is alarming, and we aren't doing enough to avert catastrophe. Where will we be 25 years from now? It won't be chance that determines our future. It will be the choices we make today.

There's a hint of hope. The scientists note that co-operative government actions resulted in a "rapid global decline in ozone-depleting substances," and that global poverty and hunger rates have dropped. Investing in education for girls and women has contributed to falling birth rates in many regions, deforestation has been reduced in some countries, and the renewable-energy sector has been growing rapidly.

We can make positive changes if we co-operate, but it will take action from all of humanity. We can't leave it to governments, especially as so many in thrall to the fossil fuel industry are failing to work for citizens. As the scientists argue, "Sustainability transitions come about in diverse ways, and all require civil-society pressure and evidence-based advocacy, political leadership, and a solid understanding of policy instruments, markets and other drivers."

The warning offers many solutions, many policy-based. They include protecting habitat on land, water and air; recognizing and maintaining the important services intact ecosystems provide; restoring forests and other "native plant communities"; re-introducing native species "to restore ecological processes and dynamics"; using policy to protect species from poaching and illegal trade; reducing food waste and promoting a shift to more plant-based diets; reducing fertility rates through "access to education and voluntary family-planning services"; promoting nature education and appreciation; shifting investment and spending to "encourage positive environmental change"; fostering advances in green technologies and renewable energy while eliminating subsidies to fossil fuels; altering the economy to reduce wealth inequality "and ensure that prices, taxation and incentive systems take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on our environment"; and "estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal."

In short, if we take the urgency to heart, there are solutions.

Popcorn

[Image: zXPwukO.jpg]
©®℮å†E
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-04-2018 09:57 AM

 



Post: #19
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-03-2018 07:54 AM)
Quote:Sixteen of the 17 hottest years in NASA’s 137-year record have occurred since 2001. The warmest year on record is 2016, and 2017 is in second place.

[img=500x500]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSftFOlW4AI0EiM.jpg

As morning temperatures across the U.S. broke records Monday ― residents of Watertown, New York, woke up to minus 31 degrees Fahrenheit and temperatures plunged to minus 19 degrees in Des Moines, Iowa ― many other parts of the world were warmer than usual.

Huge sections of the Arctic were among the areas that saw temperatures well above average, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, which compares daily temperature anomalies to a baseline of data from between 1979 and 2000.

Temperatures around the globe were nearly one full degree Fahrenheit, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, above average on Monday. The Northern Hemisphere, which is currently experiencing winter, was 1.6 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) warmer than usual. In Antarctica, where a Delaware-sized iceberg broke off last summer, temperatures were 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees C) higher than normal. And the Arctic, which is warming about twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, started 2018 with temperatures 6.8 degrees F (3.4 degrees C) warmer than average.

A peer-reviewed report released last month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the Arctic is warming faster than at any point in the past 1,500 years, with 2017 its hottest year on record.

Still, President Donald Trump ― who gutted environmental regulations and attacked efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during his first year in office ― has seized on the cold snap in the northern Midwest and eastern United States in an attempt to refute the existence climate change.

In a tweet on Thursday, the president conflated cold winter weather with climate, and suggested that the nonbinding Paris Agreement ― from which he announced plans to withdraw in June ― would cost the United States trillions of dollars. In reality, the U.S. contributed just $1 billion to the $100 billion Green Climate Fund set up under the Paris climate accord to help poorer countries invest in renewable energy and forgo coal-fired plants.

more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/n...f99e1cff97

The debate was over many years ago.
Heartflowers

and proved without a shadow of a doubt many times since then.

Hifuck

Your map shows land
Take a look to the ocean water....
WOW

https://www.seatemperature.org/

This is why the winter storm Grayson is strengthened

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wi...38.19,1511
Quote this message in a reply
blind prophet
Teiresias
User ID: 1337
01-04-2018 09:58 AM

Posts: 3,007



Post: #20
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Mehhhhh

Herant, Taahhhrrrd

Fk it all, don't tax anything I want to buy, consume, cook.

[Image: giphy.gif]

Roll the bones
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-04-2018 10:59 AM

 



Post: #21
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Ahahahahaha, on this forum, the shape of the planet is up for debate.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-04-2018 06:27 PM

 



Post: #22
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
How does the saying go....


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance.....BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLSHIT



Sorry OP, your baffling is not working. chuckle
Quote this message in a reply
Natura Naturans
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-05-2018 12:23 AM

Posts: 1,424



Post: #23
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
The Climate frauds like the AC ought to be banned to the religious subforum. There is no science to global warming, only faith.

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.” --Baruch Spinoza
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-05-2018 12:26 AM

 



Post: #24
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
what...oh wait I gotta stoke the fire again here in Floriduh!!Lmao
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-06-2018 12:10 AM

Posts: 8,046



Post: #25
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
[Image: DSwFrFIU8AAGpzq.jpg]

[Image: zXPwukO.jpg]
©®℮å†E
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-06-2018 12:28 AM

Posts: 8,046



Post: #26
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.

A ‘Perfect Storm’: Extreme Winter Weather, Bitter Cold, and Climate Change


World-renowned climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains why the bitter cold and snowy conditions gripping the US are “an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.”

The US East Coast is experiencing an “old-fashioned” winter, with plenty of cold weather and some heavy snowfall in certain places. Listening to climate contrarians like President Donald Trump, you might think this constitutes the death knell for concern over human-caused climate change.

Yet, what we were witnessing play out is in fact very much consistent with our expectations of the response of weather dynamics to human-caused climate change.

Let’s start with the record five-plus feet of snowfall accumulation in Erie, Pennsylvania, in late December. Does this disprove global warming? “Exactly the opposite,” explains my colleague, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University.

Global warming is leading to later freeze-up of the Great Lakes and warmer lake temperatures. It is the collision of cold Arctic air with relatively warm unfrozen lake water in early winter that causes lake effect snows in the first place. The warmer those lake temperatures, the more moisture in the air, and the greater potential for lake effect snows. Not surprisingly, we see a long-term increase in lake effect snowfalls as temperatures have warmed during the last century (see figure below).


How about those frigid low temperatures back east this winter? Surely that extreme cold must disprove global warming?

Once again, the claim is misguided. While we have seen some daily all-time lows for a smattering of locations in the US, these pale in comparison with the number of all-time highs we’ve seen over the past year. In fact, the record highs have outpaced the record lows 61 to seven, i.e. nine times more often (see table below), consistent with what we expect to see as the globe continues to warm.


Moreover, while we’ve seen some cold weather in the eastern half of the North America (see the pattern for New Year’s Day below), the western half of North America has been unusually warm. Indeed, most of the Northern Hemisphere, and the globe overall, have been unusually warm. That’s why we call it global warming, folks.


But what about this pattern of cold in the eastern US and warm in the western US? This so-called “dipole” pattern has become more common in recent winters, and recent research suggests that climate change may be favoring this contrast in temperature by causing the jet stream to meander in a particular pattern, with an upward meander or “ridge” in the west bringing warm air up from the south and a downward meander or “trough” in the east, bringing cold air down from the north. Some scientists think that the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic may be favoring this jet stream pattern.

Finally, the news is abuzz today with an impending “massive Nor’easter,” a “bomb cyclone” that is “set to explode” in the days ahead (see plot below). This isn’t just hype. The National Weather Service has warned that “this rapidly intensifying East Coast storm will produce strong, damaging winds — possibly resulting in downed trees, power outages, and coastal flooding.”

With a central pressure forecast to drop very low (see plot below), the storm will threaten the record set by unprecedented 2012 Superstorm Sandy as the lowest surface pressure ever measured in the North Atlantic north of Cape Hatteras (the central surface pressure of a storm is one measure of its strength).


Surely such a massive winter storm, with its promise of bitter cold winds and potentially heavy coastal snowfalls, must be evidence against the climate crisis?

Once again, rather the opposite is true. East Coast winter storms, known as “nor’easters” because of the unusual northeasterly direction of the winds as the storm spirals in from the south, are unusual in that they derive their energy not just from large contrasts in temperature that drive most extratropical storm systems, but also from the energy released when water evaporates from the (relatively warm) ocean surface into the atmosphere.

This is a characteristic that these storms share with tropical storms and hurricanes. The warmer the ocean surface, the more energy that is available to intensify these storms. And the warmer the ocean surface, the more moisture there is in the atmosphere – moisture that is available to form precipitation. As the winds wrap around in a counter-clockwise manner, they bring all of that moisture northwest, where it is chilled and ultimately falls not as rain but snow. Lots of snow.


As the oceans continue to warm, cold Arctic air masses collide with increasingly warm Atlantic Ocean waters. That means larger temperature contrasts and potentially stronger storms. But those warmer oceans also mean more moisture in the atmosphere, even more energy to strengthen the storm, and the potential for larger snowfalls. We might, if you’ll forgive the pun, call this a “perfect storm” of factors for intensification.

Indeed, climate model simulations indicate that we can expect more intense nor’easters as human-caused climate change continues to warm the oceans.


This leads us back to the current strengthening storm. The entire North Atlantic is unusually warm right now (+0.6 degrees Celsius) relative to the already-globally-warmed late twentieth century (1971-2000) average, and there are large patches of ocean water off the US East Coast that are 2-4 degrees Celsius above that average. The storm will be encountering that exceptional ocean heat as it travels northward along the US coastline, and that is part of why it has a very good chance of becoming the most intense nor’easter we’ve yet observed.

So, to the climate change doubters and deniers out there, the unusual weather we’re seeing this winter is in no way evidence against climate change. It is an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/bl...ate-change


Severe coral reef bleaching now ‘five times more frequent’ than 40 years ago
https://www.carbonbrief.org/severe-coral...-years-ago

Study finds first direct proof of ozone hole recovery due to chemicals ban

For the first time, scientists have shown through direct satellite observations of the ozone hole that levels of ozone-destroying chlorine are declining, resulting in less ozone depletion.

A new study in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, shows the decline in chlorine, resulting from an international ban on chlorine-containing manmade chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), has resulted in about 20 percent less ozone depletion during the Antarctic winter than there was in 2005, the first year that measurements of chlorine and ozone during the Antarctic winter were made by NASA’s Aura satellite.

“We see very clearly that chlorine from CFCs is going down in the ozone hole, and that less ozone depletion is occurring because of it,” said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and lead author of the new study.

CFCs are long-lived chemical compounds that eventually rise into the stratosphere, where they are broken apart by the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation, releasing chlorine atoms that go on to destroy ozone molecules. Stratospheric ozone protects life on the planet by absorbing potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, suppress immune systems and damage plant life.

Two years after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985, nations of the world signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which regulated ozone-depleting compounds. Later amendments to the Montreal Protocol completely phased out production of CFCs.

Past studies have used statistical analyses of changes in the ozone hole’s size to argue that ozone depletion is decreasing. This study is the first to use measurements of the chemical composition inside the ozone hole to confirm that not only is ozone depletion decreasing, but that the decrease is caused by the decline in CFCs.

https://news.agu.org/press-release/study...icals-ban/
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-06-2018 12:34 AM

 



Post: #27
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
It must be bring your mongoloid child to work day.
Quote this message in a reply
Homie B Honeydick
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-06-2018 12:46 AM

 



Post: #28
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
global warming......is that a thing?
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-06-2018 12:48 AM

 



Post: #29
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Lala
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-06-2018 01:00 AM

Posts: 8,046



Post: #30
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.

U.S. Fails to Submit Reports on 1 January as Required Under U.N. Climate Treaty



The United States has failed to meet a key deadline (January 1, 2018) for submitting a major report, required under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under Section 12 of the UNFCCC, countries listed in Annex I of the Convention (including the US) are required to periodically submit to the Treaty’s Secretariat a detailed “National Communication,” which presents a wide range of information regarding the nation’s implementation of the agreement. UNFCCC guidelines on reporting and review stipulate use of a common format to facilitate analysis and evaluation and allow for comparisons among the national reports. Further, CSPW sees no indication that this report is even underway; a complete failure to submit this report would be unprecedented.

The Parties to the Convention have agreed that the Annex I parties should submit the reports every four years. The Seventh National Communication (NC7) was due on January 1. Once submitted, these reports are promptly posted by the Secretariat. According to the listing, Submitted National Communications from Annex I Parties, the majority of Annex I Parties have already submitted their reports, but the United States is not one of them.

In addition to the National Communication, the US and other Annex I Parties are required to submit smaller “Biennial Reports” to the Secretariat. Here too, there are specific reporting guidelines. The third such report (BR3) was also due on January 1. According to a table published by the UNFCCC, Submitted Biennial Reports from Annex I Parties, the US is among a minority of countries that still have not submitted a report.

Again, a complete failure by the US to submit these reports would be unprecedented; the US has submitted all six previously required National Communications, traditionally calling them “Climate Action Reports.”

In addition to failing to produce and deliver CAR7 as required, the Department of State under President Trump has eliminated the previously posted CAR6/BR1 (released on December 30, 2013) from its website. The Department of State previously had posted CAR6/BR1 at https://www.state.gov/documents/organiza...19038.pdf. It also eliminated a page devoted to CAR6/BR1 at https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/car6/index.htm (now archived at https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rp...ndex.htm).

Furthermore, the department eliminated a general webpage on the Climate Action Report at http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/clima.../index.htm (it is archived here). The page led with a discussion of BR2 (with a link to the report posted on the UNFCCC), and it ended with a reference to the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Carbonization (November 2016), posted on the White House website. The report has been removed from the White House site, but is archived here


http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2018/...te-treaty/


No doubt that all these rock solid assertions that there is no warming or changes happening due to humans are so profound that people should have no need to violently argue so hard against it and to cover up any research to the contrary .. to reorganize whole government institutions to reissue new directives that virtually outlaw even the mere utterance of it in any department dialouge.

Such concrete evidence for the fact that scientists are staging a communist takeover by launching their hoax back in the 70's not to to get people to reign in their fossil fuel use but to indoctrinate young children to believe that warming is real so they will become socialist when they get older... so Heartland climate change denial Inc. must desperately correct that by infusing children's education with this solid irrefutable proof that anyone that speaks against oil/coal/mining/gas/fracking/nuclear etc etc is working to corrupt capitalist democracy to install a communist dictatorship.

[Image: zXPwukO.jpg]
©®℮å†E
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2018 01:03 AM by spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ.) Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement









Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication