Science & Technology News

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

My point was that climate trends are not measured in [cherry picked] short-term years, but in standardised 30-year standard reference periods, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), to create average ‘climate normals’, that represent what can be considered a typical climate for that period.

Changing the baseline does not change how much we’ve warmed, how fast we’ve warmed, and how much we will warm, if we continue to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature.
A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature.
The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data.
A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.

WMO Guidelines on the Calculation of Climate Normals [2017]
➥ https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=4166

New Two-Tier approach on “climate normals” [2015]
➥ https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news...rmals%E2%80%9D

The choice of baseline period is essentially arbitrary and does not affect the end result.
➥ http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8879

This is fine but, nevertheless, irrelevant to the specific argument. It's irrelevant because all the graphs in question aren't intended for exclusive scientific purposes; they're presented for consumption by Joe Average, "msm" and the Greta's of the world. Joe, msm and Greta don't care about reference points or baseline periods or climate averages. All they care about is the hard numbers and the height of the bars in the graph. Both of which have been subtlety doctored at the most fundamental of levels to (no surprises here) amplify the "problem" over time.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... All they care about is the hard numbers and the height of the bars in the graph. Both of which have been subtlety doctored at the most fundamental of levels to (no surprises here) amplify the "problem" over time.

OK. Everybody, but you and yours, is involved in a grand conspiracy to fool the world, to some evil purpose.
Thanks, for enlightening us, with you revelation*.


* Speaking of which:
‘Revelations’ states that the end of the world would be signaled by “Trumpets”.
Back in 2016, I began to think we mistranslated, and really it’s: “The end of the world would be signaled by Trump/Pence”.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Ah yes, another who needs to familiarize themselves with reflective technology.

Won't even grace this with a cursory review of the links, because, if one looks at the various yearly anomalies, one can easily see that the data points (that is, the information the graph is supplying, i.e. trends) on the two graphs are exactly the same.

The main point of contention is, ultimately, with the rate of warming, or if it's even warming at all.

That the temperature scales are placed differently could mean any number of things, from an unfortunate mistake to the two graphs having different sources to one or the other's use of adjusted data (not, as some non-understanders-of-science would have you believe, an invalidatory flaw, but a common, indeed necessary, part of the scientific method).

That someone would attempt to use such cherry-picked, unreferenced (as in no referential dialogue from the source) illustrations shows nothing at all about the articles cited, but everything one needs to know about the ingenuousness, or not, of the cherry-picker attempting their nefarious use.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The graphs are exactly the same are they? I guess that's proof enough the "ministry of truth" strategy is effective on those of your ilk.

Of my 'ilk'?

You mean someone who actually understands what they're "on about"?

If you're unable to comprehend the graphs you're posting, or even enunciate the point you're trying to make coherently, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on them or it.

And yes, the data supplied on the two graphs is exactly the same; as previously noted, they both illustrate trend data, not quantitative data. Though, as can be seen above, what I said is not what you stated; yet another example of your transparent disingenuousness.

The only one using (badly) 'ministry of truth strategy'* here is you and your denialist confreres..as is almost always the case.

*When 'data' is consistently provided that proves to be manipulated, misinterpreted , cherry-picked, or outright lies and generally a literal waste of time (since it must be analyzed to be proved incorrect), it is entirely appropriate to critique the 'messenger', or, as some thin-skinned, hypocritical members are wont to claim, "attack" the 'messenger'.

If you want to be taken seriously, try providing serious (i.e. real) data...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You really think it's cheap to explore , drill, and then setup all the equipment to pump oil out of the ground ? THATS CUTE.

Do your homework.
It costs upwards of a million five just to drill the hole even if it doesn't produce any oil.
That's just the cost to actually drill.
Overall, 74% of a typical Permian’s total cost, excluding vertical Spraberry areas, is comprised of five key cost drivers:
Drilling:
o Rig related costs (rig rates and drilling fluids) –17% or $1.28 MM
o Casing and cement – 13% or $0.98 MM
Completion:
o Hydraulic fracture pump units and equipment (horsepower) – 26% or $1.95 MM
o Completion fluids and flow back disposal – 19% or $1.43 MM
o Proppants – 17% or $1.28 MM

Are you starting to understand a tiny bit about the oil and gas industry.

https://www.oilgasequity.com/resourc...pletion-facts/

I didn't say it was cheap. I said it's profitable.

Here's my homework; not much of it required. Look particularly at marginal production cost.

Yes fossil-fuel extraction is capital-intensive, but once you start pumping, let the good times roll. And all those capital costs are the basis of someone else's profits, don't forget that. And in the US where the politics of self-sufficiency lead to expensive, questionable and unsustainable methods like fracking...

Garnish with subsidies, and serve as much and as quickly as possible. Try not to think about your kids and grandkids, who will get to pick up the real cost of our current gluttony.

[Lake-Effect]

I'll just leave this here...

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

[SailOar]

Low oxygen levels along Pacific Northwest coast a ‘silent’ climate change crisis

• Swaths of hypoxic areas have surfaced every summer on Pacific Northwest shores since it was first recorded in 2002
• They are caused by naturally occurring coastal upwellings and algae blooms, exacerbated by climate change
• The upwelled water has lower levels of dissolved oxygen, but the wealth of nutrients encourages strong phytoplankton blooms, which eventually decomposes, further consuming oxygen from the water, which can lead to marine creatures suffocating
• Typically, hypoxic conditions don’t arrived at the nearshore until mid-June or July, but this year hypoxic conditions were reported in April
• As of late September this year, upwelling is still occurring and low levels of oxygen are still persisting
• Climate change is playing a role because warmer water holds less oxygen, and because the warmer upper layer is more buoyant than the cooler, deeper, already oxygen-poor ocean layer, preventing the deeper layer from “taking a breath”

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'll just leave this here...
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

Don't worry, there are experts, who are trained to deal with the coronavirus.
We call them coroners.

I'm no expert on covid-19, but I do know the cure.
They are a band from the 80s.


And, off-topic, but slightly relevant:

9/11 was inevitable.
I'm not an expert, but I know it's is going to happen this year, as well.

After years of research, experts finally determined the leading cause of dry skin:
Towels.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

OK. Everybody, but you and yours, is involved in a grand conspiracy to fool the world, to some evil purpose.
Thanks, for enlightening us, with you revelation*.


* Speaking of which:
‘Revelations’ states that the end of the world would be signaled by “Trumpets”.
Back in 2016, I began to think we mistranslated, and really it’s: “The end of the world would be signaled by Trump/Pence”.

I'm not the one being fooled here.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Of my 'ilk'?

You mean someone who actually understands what they're "on about"?

If you're unable to comprehend the graphs you're posting, or even enunciate the point you're trying to make coherently, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on them or it.

And yes, the data supplied on the two graphs is exactly the same; as previously noted, they both illustrate trend data, not quantitative data. Though, as can be seen above, what I said is not what you stated; yet another example of your transparent disingenuousness.

The only one using (badly) 'ministry of truth strategy'* here is you and your denialist confreres..as is almost always the case.

I'm not the one with the inability to comprehend graphs, either...

[newhaul]

Interesting article . Well worth the read . And a good diversion from MMGWC postings .

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...test_Headlines

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm not the one being fooled here.
I'm not the one with the inability to comprehend graphs, either...

What do the graphs tell you?


All five datasets [1] surveyed by WMO concur that 2011-2020 was the warmest decade on record, in a persistent long-term climate change trend.


The warmest six years have all been since 2015, with 2016, 2019 and 2020 being the top three. The differences in average global temperatures among the three warmest years – 2016, 2019 and 2020 – are indistinguishably small. The average global temperature in 2020 was about 14.9°C, 1.2 (± 0.1) °C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) level.

The exceptional heat of 2020 is despite a La Niña event, which has a temporary cooling effect. La Niña and El Niño effects, on average global temperature, are typically strongest in the second year of the event. The extent to which the continued cooling effects of La Niña, in 2021, may temporarily diminish the overall long-term warming trend, during this year, remains to be seen.

The temperature ranking of individual years represent only a snapshot of a much longer-term trend. Since the 1980s each decade has been warmer than the previous one.

Temperature is just one of the indicators of climate change. The others are: greenhouse gas concentrations; ocean heat content; ocean pH; global mean sea level; glacial mass; sea ice extent and extreme events.

[1] WMO uses datasets developed, and maintained, by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Centre, and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT).

WMO also uses reanalysis datasets from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, and its Copernicus Climate Change Service, and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Reanalysis combines millions of meteorological and marine observations, including from satellites, with models to produce a complete reanalysis of the atmosphere.


WMO ➥ https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pres...t-years-record

[Tayana42]

Gord, thank you sincerely for keeping the science, rationality and even humor in this thread.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'll just leave this here...

Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug

A year ago you denied there being a smear campaign on the drug. Yesterday I stated that you had evolved, I take it back.

I will leave this here... Read it. And please watch the pre pandemic video that I posted yesterday of Fauci and friends saying that we need to have a pandemic to get the public to accept universal mrna vaccines.

Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases...
...Delhi did it right. The United States and Tamil Nadu did it wrong. It cost half a million precious lives and horrific pain and suffering for the world. The pandemic was prolonged for no good reason....The choice is clear. Ivermectin is the safe, repurposed Nobel Prize-Winning drug that effectively reduces death up to 91% from COVID-19. It does not produce blood clots, heart attacks, or strokes. It does not cause violent immune reactions. And it reduced the COVID-19 cases in Delhi, India, by an astonishing 97% in five weeks. It costs pennies.https://www.thedesertreview.com/news...2d2325a08.html

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

A year ago you denied there being a smear campaign on the drug. Yesterday I stated that you had evolved, I take it back.

I will leave this here... Read it. And please watch the pre pandemic video that I posted yesterday of Fauci and friends saying that we need to have a pandemic to get the public to accept universal mrna vaccines.

The Desert Review drank the Konspiracy Koolaid. Or ate the 'shrooms. Or dropped the acid. Whatever. They are in no way credible on this. And I'm not big on YouTube. Just cos you can find places that parrot such nonsense does not make it true. And no, I don't believe that the BBC is part of some vast undertaking to gaslight us. We know who's been gaslighted. Do you have a mirror handy?

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The Desert Review drank the Konspiracy Koolaid. Or ate the mushrooms. Or dropped the acid. Whatever. They are in no way credible on this. And I'm not big on YouTube. Just cos you can find places that parrot such nonsense does not make it true. And no, I don't believe that the BBC is part of some vast undertaking to gaslight us. We know who's been gaslighted. Do you have a mirror handy?

It's not from Youtube. It is Cspan. https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845...al-flu-vaccine

Do I have a mirror handy? I know you are but what am I. Nanny nanny boo boo. I am rubber you are glue... Really, back to this passive aggressive look in the mirror nonsense? Not only is there a smear campaign but you were determined from the start to be a part of it. But you are a lazy researcher and only post propaganda printed by corporate controlled news consortiums.

Not only is the article credible, so is this:

The Fauci/COVID-19 Dossier
https://www.davidmartin.world/wp-con...19_Dossier.pdf

And thank you again for the opportunity to post the truth.

[Lake-Effect]

From my linked bias rating for The Desert Review:

Regarding Ivermectin, The Desert Review covers it extensively to the point where you would think this is an Ivermectin promotion source. Perhaps it is as nearly every article talks about the positive virtues of Ivermectin such as this Gaslighting Ivermectin, vaccines and the pandemic for profit and this The great Ivermectin deworming hoax. Many pro-Ivermectin opinion articles are written by Justus R. Hope, MD., who admits this name is a pseudonym underneath the articles he writes. Dr. Hope also writes under his fake name in a book he authored Surviving Cancer, COVID-19, and Disease: The Repurposed Drug Revolution. The book and articles he writes focus on pharmaceutical drug repurposing. Drug Repurposing uses ‘old’ drugs to treat both common and rare diseases—for example, Ivermectin to treat Covid-19. There is nothing wrong with drug repurposing; however, in this case, there is no supportive evidence for Ivermectin.

While Ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug for treating human parasites, it is not an approved treatment for Covid-19. The Desert Review promotes its use and downplays the dangers of using the livestock dewormer of the same name, The great Ivermectin deworming hoax. Further, they have promoted false information such as this India’s Ivermectin Blackout: Part II. The article claims, “But the bottom line remains why India’s Ivermectin experience remains under a media blackout. Why does the New York Times, who should know better, say it is all a great mystery?”

It is not a mystery because there isn’t any evidence or data to suggest that Ivermectin is the cause of the decline of Covid in India.

(bolding added)