Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Climate Change is a Hoax


FurriesRock

Recommended Posts

So apparently Tony H, was in AU, trying to knock some sence into some of the numbskulls we have in AU, (the d***head we have in Victoria should be tied down for this one).

So Brian Cox is wrong, NASA are lying scum, (no surprises there with the small army that fiddels with Mars images) and NASA has a history of tampering with charts,

1955 to 1980 was 1cm of sea level rise instead of 5cm, no a few feet and no a couple of metres.

So we may see a 1-3 cm sea level rise every 100 years, which explains why the FiJi island videos l posted on the mad thread show nothing over 2 years, since at worst we would get a 1mm rise over that time frame, or a joke in regards to grabbing your children and running for the hills.

I think that someone mentioned, something about NASA data proving that the end is nigh, on another thread, this shows why NASA data is rubbish.

B)

Edited by tmcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
5 hours ago, tmcom said:

I think

There's your problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

There's your problem.

How about you look at the Miami videos, and then tell us all how it is invalid?

Oh, wait l can guess your answer....Faulty video camera, the angle of the sun, the way the video was processed, the vibe.

:lol:

Edited by tmcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have the right idea, you are just not influential enough.  All you need to do is have NOAA put out an official but anonymous statement that says President Trump is right, global  warming IS a Chinese hoax.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

You guys have the right idea, you are just not influential enough.  All you need to do is have NOAA put out an official but anonymous statement that says President Trump is right, global  warming IS a Chinese hoax.

No we wouldn't do that, or we tend to stay in the middle. A case in point was the AU sensors measuring ocean levels over 30 years in the Fiji island group. They showed no rise, but our gov, said that there was no rise, but there might be in the future, or in other words, "we don't believe in impending doom, but we have to act like we do, to win votes, from the brainwashed young vote and adults that seem to believe the children".

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2019 at 5:43 PM, lost_shaman said:

CNN and the Democrats are having a 7 hour Climate Change Town hall today. Yes, Seven hours! 

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Contiguous U.S. has experienced no warming since 2005 when NOAA set up the U.S. Climate Reference Network. The USCRN consists of 114 modern triple redundant stations situated across the U.S. in pristine areas away from urban heat islands and this network needs no arbitrary adjustments to its data.

USCRN.jpeg.a97e2d1f4d1277482e7d45b95ce33060.jpeg

 

Except for its uneven spatial distribution.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2019 at 9:48 PM, Tatetopa said:

You guys have the right idea, you are just not influential enough.  All you need to do is have NOAA put out an official but anonymous statement that says President Trump is right, global  warming IS a Chinese hoax.

Trump has a new solution to the border wall problem.  Just take a picture of the border, get out his Sharpie and ....

Doug

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2019 at 5:32 PM, lost_shaman said:

That's 55% coverage at 1,200 km. That is NOT adequate to be throwing around numbers down to the hundredth of a degree Celsius. 

It's the number of stations and their spatial distribution that count, not the proportion of the area covered.  If I could find exactly the right station, I could forecast US (or global) temps using only that one station.  I wouldn't need to look at thousands of other stations.  I could get the information with less than one percent coverage.  This is the way snow surveys are done.  Only stations with proven track records are used.  

Of course, I wouldn't know it was the right one unless I compared it to a large number of other stations.  So I have to do all that work anyway.

 

Temps are listed showing the average out to two decimal places.  The standard error tells you how good the number is.  If you want to round it off to what is statistically meaningful, then round it to a value that is within 1.96 standard errors of the mean.  A standard error tells you where to find the mean if you add one more randomly-chosen station.  With a sample of over 2000 stations, the change is going to be quite small.  So carrying the averages out to two places is probably justified.

Doug

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Damn it was hot in South Carolina on the last days of September and in the first part of October.  We had five days of record highs. On Thursday, Oct  3rd we had a high of 98F and Oct 4th the high was 97F.  Then on Saturday, the 5th the high was 67F, a difference of 30 degrees.  Something is going on but I doubt man-made CO2 is the problem. I think it has something to do with wandering magnetic fields and the way they are affecting the jet streams. Can anyone prove me wrong?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

Damn it was hot in South Carolina on the last days of September and in the first part of October.  We had five days of record highs. On Thursday, Oct  3rd we had a high of 98F and Oct 4th the high was 97F.  Then on Saturday, the 5th the high was 67F, a difference of 30 degrees.  Something is going on but I doubt man-made CO2 is the problem. I think it has something to do with wandering magnetic fields and the way they are affecting the jet streams. Can anyone prove me wrong?

 

Nah, the world is ending, and we need to fry some baby's, to fix it.

PS you may realize that it is quiet here, probably because l showed solid evidence that climate change doom is nonsense,.....sorry my mistake, lol.

(mad thread, stop when you see the big image of a fortress in Sydney Harbour).

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2019 at 9:59 AM, tortugabob said:

Damn it was hot in South Carolina on the last days of September and in the first part of October.  We had five days of record highs. On Thursday, Oct  3rd we had a high of 98F and Oct 4th the high was 97F.  Then on Saturday, the 5th the high was 67F, a difference of 30 degrees.  Something is going on but I doubt man-made CO2 is the problem. I think it has something to do with wandering magnetic fields and the way they are affecting the jet streams. Can anyone prove me wrong?

 

Can anyone prove you right?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2019 at 7:59 AM, tortugabob said:

Damn it was hot in South Carolina on the last days of September and in the first part of October.  We had five days of record highs. On Thursday, Oct  3rd we had a high of 98F and Oct 4th the high was 97F.  Then on Saturday, the 5th the high was 67F, a difference of 30 degrees.  Something is going on but I doubt man-made CO2 is the problem. I think it has something to do with wandering magnetic fields and the way they are affecting the jet streams. Can anyone prove me wrong?

Nope.  That  is your job.  You made the mess you clean it up.   It is not my circus, you are not my monkey.  You are on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My tree-planting paper I mentioned earlier on this thread has been published.  "Effects of Site Treatments During 26 years for Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa Lawson and C. Lawson [Pinaceae]) Plantings in Colorado's Northern Front Range."  You can find it in Tree Planters Notes 62(1) 25-35.  It's an open-access journal run by the US Forest Service.  Or you can PM me and I'll send you a copy.

Doug

P.S.:  I will present a program on edge plots at the Forest Inventory and Analysis workshop in Knoxville in November.  It will feature two new procedures for correcting slopover of inventory plots, making forest inventory (and carbon inventory), more accurate.  This will be published in the proceedings.  But as getting proceedings published is a long, drawn-out process, it may take as long as two years to see print.

In the meantime, my shortleaf pine litter paper is still in review.  They keep sending me apologies for not getting it done.  It won't be published until late next year at the earliest, so I am not in a big hurry.  Still, it would be nice to see some movement on it.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.