Climate Change/Global Warming Hysteria with graphs!

[robinson]

I can’t tell if the hot rub bot is dissing NOAA, GISS and the GHCN graphs or not

Like most troll bots, it’s just general snark with nothing solid at all

[robinson2]

Making graphs, any graphs really, is the perfect task for a 'bot. Just feed in any old data, get a graph.

It's called a program. No AI required for data processing.

[robinson]

Making graphs, any graphs really, is the perfect task for a 'bot. Just feed in any old data, get a graph.

Wolfram alpha is sort of like that. It used AI to generate graphs and graphic displays from public domain data.

[robinson2]

Funny you should go there. I was just cross checking wolframalpha data displays with my own plots

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=t ... ronwood+il

Ironwood data almost matches the GHCN data

wolframalpha ironwood.png

[robinson2]

But it's just the airport data, which is why it starts in 1974

The GHCN data shows the long term trend

IRONWOOD_MI_AverageMeanTemperature_Jan_Dec_1921_2019.png

[robinson]

That is kind of cool actually

[robinson]

The global alarmists have been selling the global warming story so hard, and so long now, it's possible to simply used the data from the time period of alarmists, to show why they have been wrong, and not just slightly wrong, completely wrong.

Of course this will not matter, not even a little, not even in a microscopic sense. As a matter of fact, the data will be claimed to actually support the alarmists bullshit story. I know that sounds like a ridiculous claim. (it actually is ridiculous)

But it is what happens, and frankly I am no longer surprised at all. In fact, I expect it, I predict it.

So, on with the show.

Here is last years graph from Rurgers snow lab
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_month=10


And here is this years



The astute observer might note they had to change the graphic, for the scale was too small now. 2 million square kilometers wasn't enough to show the extent. They had to raise the bar. Literally.

The amount of snow for NA in October increased that much.

[robinson]

In 2007, and even 2008, the October snow extent was considered a downward trend, the reduction in snow cover was exactly what models and theory predicted. As it warms snow cover is reduced.

It should look like this
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... ui_month=6

Which of course is what we expect when it is warmer. Less snow falls, (more rain instead), and snow cover melts, and is melted by the rain. A reduction in snow cover is 100% evidence, it is an absolute indicator of climate, and climate change.

What happened when snow cover started increasing instead?

For example, 1988-2020?

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_month=10

Now snow cover is also (maybe) a sign of global warming. No, that is not a joke. Trust me. In fact, remember my prediction early on?

Yes, we will see a post in no time, in this topic, explaining how global warming is causing more snow. If they skipped reading, it will be really funny. If they read this and still post such a thing, ah, that would be perfect.

I would take the time to create images from the Rutgers data, (you can't link to their images) but it would be quite simply, a waste of time.

Here a couple of old graphs showing the declining trend for snow cover, which of course was evidence of global warming.

[robinson]

And here is what it looks like now

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_season=4

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/c ... i_season=1

The alarmists has no problem when faced with reality bitch slapping them in the face. They just adjust the story. And go on as if nothing actually happened.

In fact, they might get mad at anyone with the balls to point out they are wrong.