2 degree increase is what we are looking at ?=

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > 2 degree increase is what we are looking at ?=

2 degree increase is what we are looking at ?=08-11-2014 13:56
thesaintman ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	well i think its now 0.5 and i ve heard 2 is the goal to keep it under. im wondering is this true ? can you say me it
23-11-2014 15:17
Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256)	The goal has been to keep it under 2 degrees centigrade. It is currently 0.9C+.
10-01-2018 02:12
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Abraham3 wrote: The goal has been to keep it under 2 degrees centigrade. It is currently 0.9C+. I don't know why this old post turned up at the top of my list but to answer it: We know that it probably rose around 0.5 degrees C from 1900 to 1940. We know that there was a pause from about 1940 to 1980. Now we have GREAT disbelief in any NASA or NOAA reports from 1980 onward. At that point NASA was taken over by environmentalists and the corruption started. The data strings of temperatures were changed at least 2 times in such a manner as to show increasing temperatures. These changes were in such a manner as that research papers by mathematicians say that these could not have been changed by any reasonable corrections to data, say for calibration errors or such. https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf The weather satellite data from the NASA satellite director gives an entirely different story than is coming out of the NASA management's mouths. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg This shows that only two years since 1979 were outside of normal expected variations with the summer of 1998 and the summer of 2015 being hotter than normal variations. This pretty much is to be expected as normal chaotic weather patterns. On the other hand, the NASA management has been trying to sell this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg As you can see, there is something terribly wrong at NASA.
10-01-2018 11:22
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	thesaintman wrote: well i think its now 0.5 and i ve heard 2 is the goal to keep it under. im wondering is this true ? can you say me it It's actually 0.8c above the 1850 level or whatever they have decieced is the appropriate climate for earth. I cannot see any bad things that would happen due to a 2c increase in world temperatures.
10-01-2018 18:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: Abraham3 wrote: The goal has been to keep it under 2 degrees centigrade. It is currently 0.9C+. I don't know why this old post turned up at the top of my list but to answer it: We know that it probably rose around 0.5 degrees C from 1900 to 1940. We know that there was a pause from about 1940 to 1980. No, we don't. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There has never been a record of the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: Now we have GREAT disbelief in any NASA or NOAA reports from 1980 onward. For global temperature data? Absolutely! Even BEFORE 1980! Wake wrote: At that point NASA was taken over by environmentalists and the corruption started. That IS pretty much the point that NASA lost sight of it's purpose. It's also about the time both agencies started publishing global temperature charts. Wake wrote: The data strings of temperatures were changed at least 2 times in such a manner as to show increasing temperatures. True. Guess their random numbers weren't good enough, were they? Wake wrote: These changes were in such a manner as that research papers by mathematicians say that these could not have been changed by any reasonable corrections to data, say for calibration errors or such. ...deleted Holy Link... Statistical analysis doesn't allow for corrected data. One must use the raw data only. There never was any. Wake wrote: The weather satellite data from the NASA satellite director gives an entirely different story than is coming out of the NASA management's mouths. ...deleted Holy Link... This shows that only two years since 1979 were outside of normal expected variations with the summer of 1998 and the summer of 2015 being hotter than normal variations. This pretty much is to be expected as normal chaotic weather patterns. Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. You don't know the Earth's emissivity. Wake wrote: On the other hand, the NASA management has been trying to sell this chart: ...deleted redundant link... As you can see, there is something terribly wrong at NASA. Yes...there is something terribly wrong at NASA, and NOAA. They have become agencies pushing the Church of Global Warming, rather than their intended purpose. The purpose of NOAA was to operate and coordinate the national weather service, made up of NOAA operated weather stations. Each station stores it's own log, and reports their data to the national system. The purpose of NASA was to study techniques for traveling in space, and in the atmosphere. They were to coordinate and help develop such technologies. We still use that part of NASA. That part is not corrupted. Things like precise airfoil data, hydrofoil data, planetary and moon characteristics, etc. Now both agencies publish these 'global' temperature records, when it's not possible to construct such a record. Both NASA and NOAA have been going to great lengths to justify this fake record also. This is due partly to save face, but the initial problem came in with liberals in government. Like usual, they wanted to use 'statistics' (that is, fake statistics) to cause opinion, not to summarize any actual raw data or anything. Guess NASA got bored after the moonshot program. They were ripe for the pickings when the IPCC crap came around (the real source of this fake data). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

10-01-2018 18:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Tim the plumber wrote: thesaintman wrote: well i think its now 0.5 and i ve heard 2 is the goal to keep it under. im wondering is this true ? can you say me it It's actually 0.8c above the 1850 level or whatever they have decieced is the appropriate climate for earth. I cannot see any bad things that would happen due to a 2c increase in world temperatures. Especially when you consider the temperature swings each day are more than this, and the seasonal swings are much more than this. IF things warmed by 4 deg F in a hundred years, big hairy deal. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-01-2018 21:02
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Especially when you consider the temperature swings each day are more than this, and the seasonal swings are much more than this. IF things warmed by 4 deg F in a hundred years, big hairy deal. How would you know? According to the sage of Seattle we can't measure temperature.
10-01-2018 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Especially when you consider the temperature swings each day are more than this, and the seasonal swings are much more than this. IF things warmed by 4 deg F in a hundred years, big hairy deal. How would you know? According to the sage of Seattle we can't measure temperature. We can measure temperature. We just can't measure the temperature of the Earth, or even of the United States. We can't even measure the temperature of a State. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-01-2018 23:07
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Especially when you consider the temperature swings each day are more than this, and the seasonal swings are much more than this. IF things warmed by 4 deg F in a hundred years, big hairy deal. How would you know? According to the sage of Seattle we can't measure temperature. We can measure temperature. We just can't measure the temperature of the Earth, or even of the United States. We can't even measure the temperature of a State. By your lights, since the temperature in your home is different than the temperature outside your door you can't measure any temperature.
10-01-2018 23:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Especially when you consider the temperature swings each day are more than this, and the seasonal swings are much more than this. IF things warmed by 4 deg F in a hundred years, big hairy deal. How would you know? According to the sage of Seattle we can't measure temperature. We can measure temperature. We just can't measure the temperature of the Earth, or even of the United States. We can't even measure the temperature of a State. By your lights, since the temperature in your home is different than the temperature outside your door you can't measure any temperature. Why do you keep making this kind of compositional error? Do you have a 1 bit brain with a parity error or something? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-01-2018 23:42
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: By your lights, since the temperature in your home is different than the temperature outside your door you can't measure any temperature. Why do you keep making this kind of compositional error? Do you have a 1 bit brain with a parity error or something? hollowman pinned to his own statements denies it.
11-01-2018 02:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: By your lights, since the temperature in your home is different than the temperature outside your door you can't measure any temperature. Why do you keep making this kind of compositional error? Do you have a 1 bit brain with a parity error or something? hollowman pinned to his own statements denies it. I never said it. You are making a compositional error again. I said the temperature measured in your home doesn't give you the outside temperature, or even the temperatures found around your own home INSIDE. The ONLY temperature you get is the temperature at the location of the thermometer itself and the immediate vicinity around it. That's why HVAC systems have many thermostats scattered around in large areas, dumbass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate 2 degree increase is what we are looking at ?=:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Limited Time Special Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 600+ Year More	9	04-04-2023 13:49
If You Want To Fully Understand The Secret Of Life & Increase Your Longevity, You Must Evolve	2	07-09-2021 03:10
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?	2	08-11-2019 18:45
money is the cause of CO2 increase	9	18-09-2019 05:16
CO2 increase	100	19-08-2019 09:18