On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 1:36:21 AM UTC-8, Just Wondering wrote:
On 12/13/2016 1:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/12/2016 3:05 AM, RD Sandman wrote:


... AGW theory is rooted in solid
science and backed by hundreds of years of data.

Hundreds of years of accurate global heat content data do not exit.

Not true; tree ring data, ice cores from Antarctica (and maybe some very
slow glaciers), historical records of (for instance) ice harvests and plant
flowering dates... Heck, regular old mercury thermometers
have been around for three centuries.

There's LOTS of data, certainly more than sufficient to draw a number
of conclusions.

Here's some (page down to the third illustration):
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change

Now care to explain the electronic weather stations that give false
values and are used ?

I have one down the street - says 36 degrees. It was 70. I switched
stations to watch.

Then there were the ones that the power is not UPS's remember electronic
- computer down - RF goes wild if the battery stands up to days of dark
sky's and the IR solar cell is dark/lack of electrons...
That one is 10 miles away. They finally moved back to the airport that
has UPS.

Then one of the actual stations in Canada that is on a black tar roof in
an L away from the typical wind and near a heater pipe... Actually
found. Said to be example of global heating. And it was used in the
data that caused this issue.

The Government has signed up to do as the mental ego's in charge tell
them. There was a melt down of one of the weather men who kept calling
for more and more Hurricanes to hit Texas and the Atlantic coast. NOT!

Martin

On 12/16/2016 12:53 AM, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 1:36:21 AM UTC-8, Just Wondering wrote:
On 12/13/2016 1:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/12/2016 3:05 AM, RD Sandman wrote:


... AGW theory is rooted in solid
science and backed by hundreds of years of data.

Hundreds of years of accurate global heat content data do not exit.

Not true; tree ring data, ice cores from Antarctica (and maybe some very
slow glaciers), historical records of (for instance) ice harvests and plant
flowering dates... Heck, regular old mercury thermometers
have been around for three centuries.

There's LOTS of data, certainly more than sufficient to draw a number
of conclusions.

Here's some (page down to the third illustration):
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:20:25 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

Now care to explain the electronic weather stations that give false
values and are used ?

I have one down the street - says 36 degrees. It was 70. I switched
stations to watch.

One of these guys fixed it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBgxER15mPw


Then there were the ones that the power is not UPS's remember electronic
- computer down - RF goes wild if the battery stands up to days of dark
sky's and the IR solar cell is dark/lack of electrons...
That one is 10 miles away. They finally moved back to the airport that
has UPS.

Then one of the actual stations in Canada that is on a black tar roof in
an L away from the typical wind and near a heater pipe... Actually
found. Said to be example of global heating. And it was used in the
data that caused this issue.

That one was kept, probably by James Hansen.


The Government has signed up to do as the mental ego's in charge tell
them. There was a melt down of one of the weather men who kept calling
for more and more Hurricanes to hit Texas and the Atlantic coast. NOT!

I liked Jim Cantore on the Weather Channel. He didn't fall for the
fake 'concensus', which doesn't exist in real science.


On 12/16/2016 12:53 AM, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 1:36:21 AM UTC-8, Just Wondering wrote:
On 12/13/2016 1:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/12/2016 3:05 AM, RD Sandman wrote:


... AGW theory is rooted in solid
science and backed by hundreds of years of data.

Hundreds of years of accurate global heat content data do not exit.

Not true; tree ring data, ice cores from Antarctica (and maybe some very
slow glaciers), historical records of (for instance) ice harvests and plant
flowering dates... Heck, regular old mercury thermometers
have been around for three centuries.

There's LOTS of data, certainly more than sufficient to draw a number
of conclusions.

Here's some (page down to the third illustration):
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change

Notice that the 800k year chart is in degrees F, with 20-25-degree F
swings. Also note that the "average" zero is at least 7-10F -above-
the mean on the chart. WTF,O?

Now note that the historic AGWK change chart is in tenths of degrees F
and they're crying about half a degree. Go figure. Recast that chart
with the same (5F vs 0.1F) increments shown in the first, show the
actual mean temp, and then see if you can even notice the changes, eh?

AGWKers. I just don't get it. When Google's time chart videos came
out a few weeks ago, I looked at all the glacier footage. MOST didn't
change. One went away, and others gained snow height and shelf ice.
AGWKers deny this, too, that climates move, some shedding heat, others
gaining, but there's pretty much a nil change overall. BUT, we're
in-between ice ages, so we're gonna gain some temp along the way.
Those two charts show us that.


--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt