3 ms·

>> what is the natural explanation that you are providing for the increase in global mean temperatures since industrialisation? Since industrialization i.e. th

>> what is the natural explanation that you are providing for the increase in global mean temperatures since industrialisation? Since industrialization i.e. the 20th century? It's quite possible that there actually hasn't been any increase if you look at the original thermometer readings and take the trend over the period since the start of industrialization. That's why the record is full of cases where climatologists went back and revised old thermometer readings (by several degrees in some cases!), to make it seem like there has been. This shows up in old documents as references to various "pauses", "plateaus", "blips" and the "global cooling" period between 1945 and 1975 that can no longer be seen in current temperature databases. Back in 1999 NASA was complaining that there'd been no warming in America in the 20th century: https://web.archive.org/web/20090404150607/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ https://web.archive.org/web/20090404150607/http://www.giss.n... How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. If you compare modern temperature graphs of the USA in the 20th century to the one they present there, you won't be able to understand what they're talking about because since then climatologists rewrote the temperature databases to create large amounts of 20th century warming in the USA. NASA has totally changed their claims about the past. When they did that it was controversial. They justified it by saying the source data from the weather stations must be corrupted (because it didn't match their theory). A new weather station network was built in 2005 to address this concern. It also shows no warming since the day it opened. It's entirely possible the trend line for temperatures in the USA is zero since the start of industrialization. What about elsewhere? Hard to say because long term data is sparse, often corrupted by urban development and also gets modified all the time. The NASA slider graph in your third link hides the fact that most of the temperature data they show for the globe over the 20th century is interpolated or modelled, not recorded with actual thermometers. Satellites? The show a bit of warming but also show long plateau periods where temperature doesn't move, and the data doesn't go back far enough to draw conclusions. A trend line of zero since the start of industrialization doesn't mean temperatures don't sometimes go up. If you look at the 'real' data then you see a sine-wave like shape in the long term and a series of step changes in the short term, the so-called multidecadal oscillation and El Nino/La Nina factors. What causes it? Nobody really knows, maybe a combination of things, but there's no explanation for how human activity can cause this shape and plenty of evidence that climate has always been changing.

mnky9800n 4y ago
if you don't believe temperature data go look at pictures of glaciers that go back 100+ years https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ what makes them melt? must be photoshop of the pictures by climatologists right? so maybe it's photoshop, but then where does all the sea ice go? probably climatologists lying about it right? are the satellites even in space? maybe they are a lie just like the moon landing. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-ext... you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA. i gave you links to temperature data collected in the usa, the soviet union, and china. yet you come back with no physical explanations and hint at vague conspiracies? Then you tell me to "look at the real data" when I gave you data collected by governments who have no desire to agree with each other in some global conspiracy. so like, whatever man.
- revelio 4y ago
  "you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA." I know, the article I linked to is on the NASA website. That's exactly what I'm saying - guys like Hansen were distressed by the lack of warming despite their predictions to the contrary and then changed the data to create it, mostly by cooling the past. It's visible when comparing graphs of the same time period from older and newer documents. That one is an older document. You seem to think there's a contradiction here but I don't see it. Glaciers, how do they work? Dunno, let's ask the archaeologists who know that in the past it was massively warmer where glaciers are found today: http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Schaer_Wisent_published.pdf http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Sch... Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today. But that was in the Roman era so it can't have been CO2 making that warmth. Also very important: 4-7 degrees hotter but no runaway climate self-destruction. Then you go off on some jibber-jabber about conspiracy theories. That's what always happens when people can't accept the truth on this topic, they try to shoot the messenger. All you need for this outcome to occur is the mundane reality that without predictions of doom nobody would care about climatology. It doesn't matter if the researchers are American or European or Chinese. Their income and prestige depends on claiming that they (a) understand the climate and (b) know how to explain all changes and (c) that those changes are controllable with sufficiently big actions. Unfortunately none of that seems to be correct.

mnky9800n 4y ago

if you don't believe temperature data go look at pictures of glaciers that go back 100+ years https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ https://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ what makes them melt? must be photoshop of the pictures by climatologists right? so maybe it's photoshop, but then where does all the sea ice go? probably climatologists lying about it right? are the satellites even in space? maybe they are a lie just like the moon landing. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-ext... you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA. i gave you links to temperature data collected in the usa, the soviet union, and china. yet you come back with no physical explanations and hint at vague conspiracies? Then you tell me to "look at the real data" when I gave you data collected by governments who have no desire to agree with each other in some global conspiracy. so like, whatever man.

revelio 4y ago
"you linked to an article by james hansen then said you can't find what he is talking about because climatologists covered it up. james hansen is one of the most famous climate scientists ever having originally presented this to congress as a world crisis during his tenure at NASA." I know, the article I linked to is on the NASA website. That's exactly what I'm saying - guys like Hansen were distressed by the lack of warming despite their predictions to the contrary and then changed the data to create it, mostly by cooling the past. It's visible when comparing graphs of the same time period from older and newer documents. That one is an older document. You seem to think there's a contradiction here but I don't see it. Glaciers, how do they work? Dunno, let's ask the archaeologists who know that in the past it was massively warmer where glaciers are found today: http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Schaer_Wisent_published.pdf http://www.museumgolling.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/9_Sch... Oaks (Quercus) at an altitude of 1,450 metres around 2,000 years ago also indicate a climate approximately 4 to 7 °C warmer than today. But that was in the Roman era so it can't have been CO2 making that warmth. Also very important: 4-7 degrees hotter but no runaway climate self-destruction. Then you go off on some jibber-jabber about conspiracy theories. That's what always happens when people can't accept the truth on this topic, they try to shoot the messenger. All you need for this outcome to occur is the mundane reality that without predictions of doom nobody would care about climatology. It doesn't matter if the researchers are American or European or Chinese. Their income and prestige depends on claiming that they (a) understand the climate and (b) know how to explain all changes and (c) that those changes are controllable with sufficiently big actions. Unfortunately none of that seems to be correct.