ADVERTISEMENT

Global Climate Changes

Summer temperatures have warmed significantly since Olympians gathered in Paris a century ago during the summer of 1924, reported Climate Central, a U.S. nonprofit that also co-authored “Rings of Fire."

  • Average temperatures for the period of July 26-Aug. 11, the dates of this year's Games, warmed 5.5 degrees.
  • Temperatures of 86 degrees or higher were reported 188 days over the past decade, compared with 69 for 1924-1933.
  • Overnight temperatures remained at 68 degrees or above 84 nights between 2014-2023, compared with only 4 for 1924-1933
 
Wouldn’t it be better for the environment to just cancel the Olympics altogether? No telling how much CO2 is put into the environment by the athletes coming and going. And did you see that French flag made of smoke in the opening ceremony?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caveman Catfan
Summer temperatures have warmed significantly since Olympians gathered in Paris a century ago during the summer of 1924, reported Climate Central, a U.S. nonprofit that also co-authored “Rings of Fire."

  • Average temperatures for the period of July 26-Aug. 11, the dates of this year's Games, warmed 5.5 degrees.
  • Temperatures of 86 degrees or higher were reported 188 days over the past decade, compared with 69 for 1924-1933.
  • Overnight temperatures remained at 68 degrees or above 84 nights between 2014-2023, compared with only 4 for 1924-1933
How strange that you didn’t report the averages after 1933.

Peculiar, that.
 
Wouldn’t it be better for the environment to just cancel the Olympics altogether? No telling how much CO2 is put into the environment by the athletes coming and going. And did you see that French flag made of smoke in the opening ceremony?
The population of earth 100 years ago was less than 2 billion. Today it exceeds 8 billion. It would be better if people stopped breeding at will. That would cure all of earth’s problems.
 
images
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
Charlatans like Judith Curry?
Why would you think of her as a charlatan? Her credentials are sound. She has a major issue with the process of climatology research. She dislikes the groupthink that she sees and wants reform. Nothing wrong with that; it’s how science works.

From Scientific American:

For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been known for her work on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate-related topics. But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Blackboard. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.”
 

Yes of course if they remove the colder days/years then the numbers will show what they want.

As discussed numerous times, their entire ploy was literally in the leaked emails from nearly 20 years ago. Remove stats they don't like, call them outliers, produce desired results, get sweet monies.
 
Yes of course if they remove the colder days/years then the numbers will show what they want.
Not sure what you mean, each bar on the graph represents a year, the years are charted separately and none of them have been skipped. The trend is obvious
As discussed numerous times, their entire ploy was literally in the leaked emails from nearly 20 years ago. Remove stats they don't like, call them outliers, produce desired results, get sweet monies.
Not sure who you are referring to. This is from the National Oceanographic and Atmospherics Administration (NOAA). It's a scientific organization which is as credible of a source that I know of. I'm pretty sure they aren't a part of some conspiracy. Anyway you said you want to see increases over the prescribed period of time, well there it is. The data speaks for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kingseve1
Not sure what you mean, each bar on the graph represents a year, the years are charted separately and none of them have been skipped. The trend is obvious

Not sure who you are referring to. This is from the National Oceanographic and Atmospherics Administration (NOAA). It's a scientific organization which is as credible of a source that I know of. I'm pretty sure they aren't a part of some conspiracy. Anyway you said you want to see increases over the prescribed period of time, well there it is. The data speaks for itself.

Yes. Its weird how no climate cultist remembers any of that trove of leaked emails. The ones that literally said what i posted.
 
Yes. Its weird how no climate cultist remembers any of that trove of leaked emails. The ones that literally said what i posted.
I do not follow climate change closely and had not heard of this issue, so I googled to learn. Is this what you are referring to ?? If so, it appears to have been thoroughly researched by a number of scientific organizations and explained, as I assume this wiki to be credible and accurate, based on many other links, like those listed.





 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Deeeefense
I do not follow climate change closely and had not heard of this issue, so I googled to learn. Is this what you are referring to ?? If so, it appears to have been thoroughly researched by a number of scientific organizations and explained, as I assume this wiki to be credible and accurate, based on many other links, like those listed.






Only one I clicked on was the bbc link. It had an expert trying to explain why you shouldn't believe the things you read in those emails, so I assume the others are the same.

Yes you definitely should not believe the emails experts sent to one another in private explaining exactly how they were manipulating the data. Instead you should definitely believe experts that say none of that matters and you should believe them anyway because dont question the science and we're all in this together.

The last two things sound much better when everyone chants them in unison. Or so it seems.
 
Only one I clicked on was the bbc link. It had an expert trying to explain why you shouldn't believe the things you read in those emails, so I assume the others are the same.

Yes you definitely should not believe the emails experts sent to one another in private explaining exactly how they were manipulating the data. Instead you should definitely believe experts that say none of that matters and you should believe them anyway because dont question the science and we're all in this together.

The last two things sound much better when everyone chants them in unison. Or so it seems.
Thanks for the interest and the reply. I think the final link I shared was perhaps the most telling, regarding apologies and admission of error. I think the entire article is worth reading, but here are a couple of key excepts:

Steve Mosher, who was sent the hacked data, selected emails to try to claim climate change science was falsified.
Asked about CRU scientists, he said: "I'd apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities."

He said he ran his own models using the stolen data and found the results and conclusions reached by the university were correct. "In the end, when I checked my results, and my results matched Phil Jones' results - the guy who I had criticised all those years - and then I had to eat this giant irony sandwich, and damn near broke my teeth," he said.


Here is an audio file of THE HACK THAT CHANGED THE WORD, if interested, that includes and ex[plains Mosher's apology:
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the interest and the reply. I think the final link was perhaps the most telling, regarding apologies and admission of error. I think the entire article is worth reading, but here are a couple of key excepts:

Steve Mosher, who was sent the hacked data, selected emails to try to claim climate change science was falsified.
Asked about CRU scientists, he said: "I'd apologise for unkind things I said about their work and capabilities."

He said he ran his own models using the stolen data and found the results and conclusions reached by the university were correct. "In the end, when I checked my results, and my results matched Phil Jones' results - the guy who I had criticised all those years - and then I had to eat this giant irony sandwich, and damn near broke my teeth," he said.


Here is an audio file of THE HACK THAT CHANGED THE WORD, if interested:

Of course if you use their data you get their results. Why would anyone think otherwise?

They manipulated data by excluding temps as outliers. This isnt some psycho/social/criminal behavior study where outliers are important to identify. This is supposed to be a very hard measurement of temperature trends and it just plainly isnt unless all data is included.

For comparison, ithe drive from Lexington to Huntington is about 2 hours driving an average speed of 75-80. Thats an average speed which means it includes the times you had to slow for speed traps, road work, congestion/merging, etc.

What they all admitted to doing, was removing all those slow down times as "outliers" even though they are clearly not by any definition. If you removed all the slowdown, the data should tell you that trip is doable in much less time than it is.

Even with the manipulated data, the cult still has to flip flop names from global warming to climate change/disruption.
 
Of course if you use their data you get their results. Why would anyone think otherwise?

They manipulated data by excluding temps as outliers. This isnt some psycho/social/criminal behavior study where outliers are important to identify. This is supposed to be a very hard measurement of temperature trends and it just plainly isnt unless all data is included.

For comparison, ithe drive from Lexington to Huntington is about 2 hours driving an average speed of 75-80. Thats an average speed which means it includes the times you had to slow for speed traps, road work, congestion/merging, etc.

What they all admitted to doing, was removing all those slow down times as "outliers" even though they are clearly not by any definition. If you removed all the slowdown, the data should tell you that trip is doable in much less time than it is.

Even with the manipulated data, the cult still has to flip flop names from global warming to climate change/disruption.
I am neither a scientist, or a statistician, so I cannot address your analogy, but thanks for the interest and the exchange.
Like I said, I'd never heard of the issue until you mentioned it. I'm now familiar, if not smarter, because of my looking into it.
 
Why would you think of her as a charlatan? Her credentials are sound. She has a major issue with the process of climatology research. She dislikes the groupthink that she sees and wants reform. Nothing wrong with that; it’s how science works.

From Scientific American:

For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been known for her work on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate-related topics. But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Blackboard. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.”
My point was she is not a charlatan, yet she takes the opposite view of most of the paid climate scientists. Of course she is retired, so she does not pay the financial penalty she would if she were still employed in academia. Perhaps I just misunderstood your post.
 
Not sure what you mean, each bar on the graph represents a year, the years are charted separately and none of them have been skipped. The trend is obvious

Not sure who you are referring to. This is from the National Oceanographic and Atmospherics Administration (NOAA). It's a scientific organization which is as credible of a source that I know of. I'm pretty sure they aren't a part of some conspiracy. Anyway you said you want to see increases over the prescribed period of time, well there it is. The data speaks for itself.
The NOAA has, for years, systematically adjusted prior years to make them cooler. It is still possible to obtain prior graphs and compare. They do not deny doing this. They have not provided the specifics to allow checking of their methodology, so we just have to take their word that they are not corrupt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
Prompted by posts by bigblueinsanity and trying to learn and understand a little more, I did some googling and spent some time reading links like the ones I included above. I stumbled on another, not directly related to the "Climategate" issue, but I found it informative. I am sharing it for anyone who might be interested in the claim about scientists being paid and that shapes their research results. It is an older fact-checking piece on the issue, but very interesting nonetheless, in my opinion:


Here are excerpts that made some sense to me:

"What really leads to more funding and a higher salary is a scientist’s ability to produce groundbreaking research, not confirming the consensus," Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist, wrote in his book “The Madhouse Effect.”

And contrary to Mr. Santorum’s suggestion, Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies do fund research. From 1977 to 2014, 83 percent of the company’s peer-reviewed studies and 80 percent of its internal communications acknowledged that climate change is real and caused by humans, according to a 2017 study that reviewed Exxon’s documents.
---------
For me, it is very difficult to consider this issue and not think about the years of harmful health claims about smoking and how the tobacco companies and lobby tried to argue against them.
 
Last edited:
The NOAA has, for years, systematically adjusted prior years to make them cooler. It is still possible to obtain prior graphs and compare. They do not deny doing this. They have not provided the specifics to allow checking of their methodology, so we just have to take their word that they are not corrupt.
This has been debunked: Scientists make adjustments to account for changes in the way both land and ocean temperature measurements have been made over the past 150 years. The ocean adjustments make the biggest difference, and in fact they actually reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data.

 
Prompted by posts by bigblueinsanity and trying to learn and understand a little more, I did some googling and spent some time reading links like the ones I included above. I stumbled on another, not directly related to the "Climategate" issue, but I found it informative. I am sharing it for anyone who might be interested in the claim about scientists being paid and that shapes their research results. It is an older fact-checking piece on the issue, but very interesting nonetheless, in my opinion:


Here is an excerpt that made some sense to me:

"What really leads to more funding and a higher salary is a scientist’s ability to produce groundbreaking research, not confirming the consensus," Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist, wrote in his book “The Madhouse Effect.”

And contrary to Mr. Santorum’s suggestion, Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel companies do fund research. From 1977 to 2014, 83 percent of the company’s peer-reviewed studies and 80 percent of its internal communications acknowledged that climate change is real and caused by humans, according to a 2017 study that reviewed Exxon’s documents.

For me, it is very difficult to consider this issue and not think about the years of harmful health claims about smoking and how the tobacco companies and lobby tried to argue against them.
All of the integrated oil companies except Exxon have publicly acknowledged that global warming is real and most of them are working on alt energy technologies. Occidental petroleum is actually working on systems that will remove carbon from the atmosphere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: megablue
This has been debunked: Scientists make adjustments to account for changes in the way both land and ocean temperature measurements have been made over the past 150 years. The ocean adjustments make the biggest difference, and in fact they actually reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data.

I understand that NOAA is saying that. I just believe those that have tried to replicate the results, but have been rebuffed. I have read the NOAA justifications, but they are just mumbo jumbo.
 
I understand that NOAA is saying that. I just believe those that have tried to replicate the results, but have been rebuffed. I have read the NOAA justifications, but they are just mumbo jumbo.
The article cites a 3rd party study that was done The authors found the adjustments don’t have any significant effect on the average temperature or warming trend since 2004. I have not seen any evidence that suggest NOAA "rebuffed" any validation attempts, in fact one of their scientist participated in this one.
 
All of the integrated oil companies except Exxon have publicly acknowledged that global warming is real and most of them are working on alt energy technologies. Occidental petroleum is actually working on systems that will remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Lol yes with a gun to their head. They saw what obama did to coal. They arent going to make that mistake. Plus agreeing with obama helped them eliminate a market share competitor.

The other rub to it is you expect public companies to do buy researchers to produce studies that benefit them. That should absolutely never happen with the government, yet here we are.

Finally i do love that after a warm summer, we're back to global warming when the last few cooler years it was climate disruption.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT