Here’s almost 40 years of climate models, starting in 1971–when “Global Cooling” was feared, to the Hansen models in the 1980’s, the first in 1981 and the second in 1988, and the last ones by the IPCC, Assessment Reports (AR) from the 1990’s to about 2010.
Notice that the decadal rate of temperature increase remains almost the SAME for the entire 40 year period! And notice how the early models–mostly in the 1970’s when ‘cooling’ was in vogue, are very close to actuals. It’s only when super-duper “climate change models” were devised in the 90’s and later on that the sizable deviations occur.
So, here’s the ‘lie’: these authors claim that climate change models actually stack up quite well to actual temperatures, when, in fact, this is only true because they’ve used very simple models from the 70’s to average out the much larger errors that the super-duper “climate models” are showing. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!” And this is statistical averaging and a big lie!
But, theres MORE:
Here’s a quote from the Phys.Org press release:
Climate models are based on two main assumptions. One is the physics of the atmosphere and how it reacts to heat-trapping gases. The other is the amount of greenhouse gases put into the air.
A few times, scientists were wrong in their predictions about the growth of carbon pollution, saying there would be more of the gases than there actually were, Hausfather said. If they got the amount of heat-trapping gases wrong, they then got the temperatures wrong.
So Hausfather and colleagues, including NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, looked at how well the models did on just the pure science, taking out the emissions factor. On that count, 14 of the 17 computer models accurately predicted the future.
So, if LEAVE OUT the amount of “Greenhouse Gases,” then models become accurate. So, what’s the point of the models, then? What a mockery of science this represents!!
Without doing another post, here’s the latest:
VOLCANIC ROCK affects CLIMATE CHANGE: Read all about it at Phys.Org.
How about this for making a complete mockery of current “climate science.”
For ten years, I’ve been saying that volcanic activity is related to temperature increases. Our modern warming trend began in the early 1800’s, a time of many earthquakes in California. I believe there is a direct link between earthquake activity and volcanic activity.
Anyone who can look @ The GHG absorption/ emission spectrum and come away with “CO2 is a driver of global temperatures”, is definitely on an agenda of deception. Take away the humidity, as with a desert, and the earth heats up, not because of GHG’s, but from the lack of moisture in the air. At night, there is still CO2 but it still gets cold very quickly, because there isn’t any moisture to hold the heat.
PaV @ 1- The hypothesis for the end of snowball earth pertained to volcanos. What they spewed helped melt some of the ice sheets but the greenhouse gasses produced elevated the atmospheric temps. Which, along with tons of soot, melted the ice packs.
“leave out the emissions”is not a very good way to describe what this study really did. Instead, that measured the model’s accuracy at predicting temperature for the observed changes on forcings (mostly CO2). This is required as some models are inaccurate re: observed temps in part because the overestimated how much CO2 we’d emit.
mimus- look at the chart I linked to in comment 2. CO2 is not the problem. You have to be a desperate liar to say otherwise given that data
Sorry, but it’s not clear what you mean – what averaging are you talking about? I can’t see where the authors do any averaging over the models.
As Mimus has pointed out, you’ve interpreted this incorrectly. To make the projections into the future, the authors of the original studies had to make some assumptions about how C=2 concentrations would change (this isn’t itself modelled: it’s an input into the model). Some of the authors got these projections wrong, so their predictions about temperature were wrong because their assumptions about human activity were wrong, not their climate models. It makes sense, hten to correct this.
Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather have been known climate scammers for decades.
Do you think that they are going to present anything that says they were wrong all these years?
These people are criminals. They have no qualms about lying, then lying some more, and then continuing to lie after that.
Andrew
PaV @ 1 – The earthquakes in California didn’t release much lava, so I’ve no idea how you expect that to be relevant. The paper looks at an event where a lava plain 3 times the size of California was formed. Modern day volcanoes are nowhere near as spectacular.
If climate scientists know what they are doing, why 17 climate models and not just 1 or 2?
Andrew
Because climate scientists have learned much more about the climate and how it works. And computational power has also increased, so they are able to look at more complex phenomena, and at a finer scale.
Bob O’H,
What have they learned?
Andrew
You should ask a climate scientist that.
“You should ask a climate scientist that.”
Bob O’H
So you claim climate scientists “have learned much more about the climate” but can’t tell me what it was that they learned?
Then how do you know they really learned anything? Little birdie whispered in your ear?
Andrew
Myself and two friends between us will pick the winner of every NFL game this week and for the rest of the season , in each game I will pick the home team my friend will pick the visiting team and my other friend will pick a tie , I think that will cover it.This is all the IPCC and their cohorts do, they do enough models so one of them has to be right and then they can say see we predicted this.Its the same with the so called unprecedented weather events more rain , less rain, more snow, less snow, more storms less storms , they have models and papers to cover all these eventualities.In the last 150 years temperature has perhaps risen 1 deg c in that time we live longer , less and less people live in poverty and deaths caused by bad or catastrophic weather events has fallen by 95% so why the scare tactics , its all about money , power, control.
Bob O’H:
You see, Bob, the “majority” of the models got it right. So, the conclusion is that climate models do a good job. That’s the lie.
Why didn’t they put the year the model was run in each of the columns? Why didn’t they tell us how many are from 1971 to 1981 and those that came later? And why didn’t they include the latest Assessment Report from the IPCC? Why didn’t they include the last three?
To fool the casual reader.
They show only 14, 9 of which are from 1971 to 1988. Hansen’s 1988 has 3 temperatures, and the saving grace is the last of the three, which balances the first two. So, let’s throw that out, and we have 9 out of 13 of these models that are “accurate,” coming from 1971 to 1981, a time when “global cooling” was the prevailing view. This is “bait-and-switch.”
And, Bob, why don’t you comment on the very obvious result that the “observed” rate of temperature increase has not change in over 40 years! From a time when “global cooling” was in vogue, to a time when “global warming” is the cry (though they call it “climate change” because of embarassment), the rate stays the same.
What do you think? As a scientist, what is this telling you? If you’re unable to answer these questions, then I have nothing more I can say.
I thnk it’s prefectly obvious to anyone reading this OP that you thought the “lie” was leaving out the emissions effect. Now that you’ve been corrected you scrabble for the followin.
Why didnât they put the year the model was run in each of the columns?
I’m not sure why the Associated Press’ graphic doesn’t have that info. The figure in the paper and a senior author’s blog do
And why didnât they include the latest Assessment Report from the IPCC? Why didnât they include the last three?
Yes! Why didn’t those lyin climate scientists test the long-term accuracy of their models on 3 years of data! There has only been on AR since the 2007 one included in this sudy, so don’t know where the other two you think exist are.
They show only 14, 9 of which are from 1971 to 1988. Hansenâs 1988 has 3 temperatures, and the saving grace is the last of the three, which balances the first two. So, letâs throw that out, and we have 9 out of 13 of these models that are âaccurate,â come from 1971 to 1981, a time when âglobal coolingâ was the prevailing view. This is âbait-and-switch.â
“Global cooling” was never the prevailing view among climate scientists. Even if it was, the question is do the models work. The answer is yes.
And, Bob, why donât you comment on the very obvious result that the âobservedâ rate of temperature increase has not changed in over 40 years!
If you want ot look a the rate of temperature increase you should just look at the temperature record, trying to find a trend in a series of overlapping intervals of varying lengths us really the best way to do it. Even then, remember when numbskulls like Barry Arrington used to trot out the “no warming since 1995” meme? Turns out only has there been warming, it’s been trucking along at close to .2C per decade most of the time…
Mimus,
I seriously doubt you actually believe the nonsense you are trying to defend.
So, tell us what you are doing with all this valuable climate info.
Riding bikes now? Got an electric car? President of the Greta Fan Club? Eating crickets?
Please tell us.
Andrew
ET,
I looked at your graph. I remain convinced human emissions are responsible for the recent increase in temperature.
(Water vapour is an important greenhouse gas, of course. But changes in water vapour don’t drive changes in temperature over time. Rather, atmospheric water vapour responds to changes in temperaturre. Sometimes it even falls out the sky as liquid water…)
Hi Andrew,
I ride a bike to work every day, yes. I also limit my air travel, vote for political parties that support systematic change and try to reduce waste in my life.
“I remain convinced human emissions are responsible for the recent increase in temperature.”
Mimus,
Convinced by what? A squiggly line graph? Please tell me you aren’t that gullible.
Andrew
“I ride a bike to work every day, yes. I also limit my air travel, vote for political parties that support systematic change and try to reduce waste in my life.”
Mimus,
Do you realize that none what you listed here has any effect on the climate?
Andrew
The weight of evidence, most notably the inabiliy of natural inputs (the sun, volcanoes etc) to explain the magnitude of change. you should read some of it…
“The weight of evidence, most notably the inabiliy of natural inputs (the sun, volcanoes etc) to explain the magnitude of change. you should read some of it⌔
Mimus,
What evidence are you talking about? This is just claims.
Andrew
Research reveals past rapid Antarctic ice loss due to ocean warming
Seversky,
“Using biomarkers to reconstruct past ocean temperatures, and through ice sheet computer models”
Gospel?
Andrew
mimus:
You do so despite the data, then. CO2 is only relevant at one wavelength. And water vapor also absorbs in that wavelength. It’s like saying a cargo net could hold the heat in a room if used as walls. Soot on snow makes it melt even in below freezing temps if the Sun’s rays hits it. Every glacier pictured is dirty. Dirty glaciers melt even if the ambient temp < 32F.
That said, urban heat islands are real. They can easily skew the data to make it appear warmer. Last year I did a comparison of my local area from 40+ years ago and recent records. They were very close to being identical- temps, precipitation, snow, rain- a person time traveling wouldn't be able to tell the difference if transported to a secluded area between then and now. But that's New England.
My cousin lives on the intercoastal water way in Florida- west coast. Lived there for at least 50 years. The water isn't noticeably higher now than it was then. She's been keeping track, for obvious reasons.
There are real problems to deal with, such as trash. People like you are preventing us from solving the real problems.
The magnitude of change that is most likely within the margin of error? Too funny.
When did temperature recording start- around 1850, right? The little ice age ended around, what, 1850?
Seems like we real useful discussions…
Andrew, I can’t read for you. But check out the IPCC assessments for the science of attribution
ET,
What wavelengths CO2 radiate back to space?
mimus:
2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. Of those 3 only the 15 um is thermally relevant. It’s in the chart you never looked at. Most of the LW IR is unaffected by CO2.
As to ETâs claim that CO2 is insignificant when compared to water vapor:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
ET,
This argument is about 100 years out of date, having been disproved theoretically and empirically in the atmosphere. A summary at multiple levels here: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-basic.htm
Wow. Anyone can look at the scientific chart and see that CO2 is a very minor player. It isn’t my fault that my detractors are blind, willfully ignorant and incoherent.
That’s BS. Without GHGs the sun’s rays heats the surface faster and to a higher temp. That would mean the water would evaporate faster and produce more clouds. The fact is that the clean air acts have allowed this to happen. More of the sun’s rays are reaching the surface.
Look at the chart
The big blue chunk is what is radiated back to space unobstructed. The little spikes to its right show the space between CO2 and water vapor. Take away CO2 and all that happens is a little smattering of blue from 14.5-15.5 um. A bump about twice as high as those little spikes, maybe slightly higher. That’s it.
You have to be a fool to think that blocking such an insignificant smattering would cause anything. And there isn’t any science to support the claim that it has.
It’s like saying using a cargo net for walls and a roof will hold the heat in. CO2 is very limited. If we compare it to a blanket, the blanket would be like a cargo net- holes strung together. Over 90% of the earth’s radiated LW IR is unaffected by CO2. And considering that less than half of what CO2 emits will be aimed back towards the earth, that 90% is actually higher.
So what the alarmists are saying is that when about 4% of what is radiated by the earth is aimed back at it, the earth will warm. Got that>? Losing 96% is not going to cause the earth to cool cuz it gets 4% back.
How stupid and gullible are these people?
Cue Acartia Eddie and mimus to continue to ignore the facts and prattle on
PaV –
As has already been pointed out, they did.
They explain this in the paper:
In other words, they couldn’t test how well the models predict actual climate because they didn’t have data on the actual climate.
I have no idea what you’re trying to suggest – they still show that 9 models from the 70s were accurate. And it’s not true that “global cooling” was the prevailing view:
(the paper goes on to provide the evidence to substantiate this claim, e.g. they surveyed papers from 1965 to 1979, and “identified only 7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming.”)
Because that wasn’t a part of my argument.
ET
Obviously math and thermodynamics are not your strengths.
Wow, what a punk reaper is. I challenge reaper to present the math and science that refutes anything that I have posted. Or shut up, coward.
Obviously reaper’s only strength is being a belligerent coward, quote-mining fool and liar
ET
Here is an analogy I know you can relate to chubbs. By Joe math, if he continually consumed 4% more calories than he lost through metabolism and other processes, he would not gain weight. However, in the real world he would balloon up pretty quickly.
Wow, reaper is an ignorant punk. Your example proves that you are a clueless moron. My math says that if I got 4% of the calories lost, back, I would still be losing weight, moron. If the earth loses 96% and keeps only 4%, it will definitely not get warmer.
Lose 100 calories and get 4 calories back means a net loss of 96 calories. reaper failed first grade mathematics.
Spend a dollar and get 4 cents back means you are down 96 cents
The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
Reaper’s Plague is non-other than Timmy Horton/ adapa/ occams aftershave/ ghostrider. A total belligerent and pathological liar. Is UD really that desperate for comments? I don’t mind refuting its easily refutable posts. But why waste the bandwidth on a sociopath like Timmy?
First grade ‘arithmetic’, ET. I say that as a specialist in first-grade arithmetic.
LoL! I stand corrected- well sit corrected
Chubbs
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, or you are just willfully ignorant. You willfully and ignorantly ignored the calories consumed. Itâs first grade âarithmeticâ chubbs.
But if you sell something for a dollar, and it cost you 96 cents in materials and labor to produce, you are up 4 cents. Repeat this 25 million times and you are a millionaire. Just because something is relatively small doesnât mean that it canât have a significant impact, your intelligence excepted.
Reaper, clearly you are just a willfully ignorant troll and desperate moron. Not one of your examples reflect what is happening with CO2. Both of my examples describe it perfectly.
The example of losing 100 calories and getting 4 back reflects what happens with CO2. The example of paying a dollar and receiving 4 cents back also reflects what happens with CO2.
Reaper’s examples just prove what a desperate moron it is
Sharon
Except that you willfully ignore the original input and quantity of calories in your calculations. If the calories you scarf down in Big Macs exceeds the calories you use or lose then you will gain weight. If you keep it up, you will continue to gain weight. You know this all too well from your personal experience.
If the earth continues to trap heat without it being lost elsewhere, the earth will continue to heat up.
CO2 doesn’t trap heat, moron. Clearly your desperation and stupidity don’t have any bounds
moron:
Liar
Somebodysdad
Then you ignoring the input of calories was just plain old, everyday ignorance? That is so much better chubs.
Look, loser’s plague, make your case as oppose to spewing cowardly innuendos. I dare you to try.
This is true, but it has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. That you would bring that into this discussion just proves that you are a desperate troll, intent on being belligerent.
A more technical analysis of the data. Climate Models Have Not Improved In 50 Years
HT Latemarch:
(continues reading the article)
Frankie
If the calories you scarf down in Big Macs exceeds the calories you use or lose then you will gain weight. If you keep it up, you will continue to gain weight. You know this all too well from your personal experience. If the earth receives more energy than it uses or loses then it must go somewhere. In this case, an increased atmospheric temperature until an equilibrium is reached. If you increase one of the factors that prevent loss of energy (eg, increased CO2 levels) atmospheric temperatures will increase even further until a new equilibrium is attained.
An analogy, although not a perfect one, is your house (or, in your case, your motherâs house). If your furnace runs continuously at a fixed rate (no thermostat), and the outside temperature remains constant, at 0 degrees, the temperature inside your house will stabilize at a fixed temperature. Now, if you receive 3 inches of snow and the outside temperature remains the same and the furnace continues to run at the same rate, the temperature in the house will increase until a new equilibrium is reached.
Mimus:
I’m not “scrambling” for anything. I indicated the kind of averaging they did: i.e., lumping ‘accurate’ (the 1970’s models) with the ‘inaccurate’ (1990’s and beyond models), and then saying that, OVERALL, the models are fairly accurate.
It turns out that this rate goes all the way back into the 1800’s, a time when CO2 production was miniscule compared to today’s production.
Also, if the rate has been constant for 40 years, this comes at a time when CO2 production worldwide (think China and India) has skyrocketed. If CO2 causes ‘warming,’ then why hasn’t the rate increased?
You can’t, and refuse, to answer the question. If you answered honestly, then it would be completely apparent that the current hysteria is rooted in idealogy, and, no more.
loser’s weeper:
I don’t eat big macs. I am a vegetarian AND a gym rat
It doesn’t go into CO2.
CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration.
A FALSE analogy.
A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
Again, the scientific chart I provided shows how little CO2 impacts the GHG effect. And I understand why my detractors would ignore it.
PaV please see the article that Latemarch linked to in comment 52. It deals specifically with your OP.
Virgil
And lasers only emit a single wavelength. And they can be used to melt steel. There is only one significant solar produced mutagenic wavelength but Iâm sure that melanoma suffered would consider it significant.
loser’s weeper:
There aren’t any lasers made from one molecule of CO2. Obviously you are a very desperate loser.
It’s as if you are such demented person that you don’t care who knows it. Strange, but still not an argument.
A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
Again, the scientific chart I provided shows how little CO2 impacts the GHG effect. And I understand why my detractors would ignore it.
The problem with this latest post is that you have it all wrong.
The 1970s models are not better than the 1990s one, the rate increate in temperature has not been static since the 1800s, the acceleration in that rate is not now static. Simply making up facts to support you case sounds a bit like this “rooted in ideology” idea to me
Mimus
There, I fixed it for you. đ
loser’s weeper is in full meltdown and desperate now. Moderators why is that belligerent liar being allowed to post here?
Although reading through ETâs and RPâs discourse has been highly entertaining, in a childish immature sort of way, obviously neither have anything of value to say. Maybe they will do better after their mothers give them their bottles and put them them down for their afternoon nap.
Earth to mimus- unfortunately, you are not even wrong.
Acartia Eddie, clueless dolt:
If that refers to you, reaper, Bob and mimus, you are correct
Give it a try. It may help you. But even a nap won’t help with your ignborance
Joke
Chubs translation: âMommy, why are you letting the mean man treat me like I treat him. I am going to hold my breath until you ban him.â
ET
And nobody is suggesting that global warming is caused by a single molecule of CO2. Obviously you are a very desperate loser. But CO2 lasers, which only emit at two primary wavelengths, are commonly used for welding and cutting.
loser’s weeper:
But YOU are suggesting that atmospheric CO2 is like a laser that can melt steel. Talk about desperation. Atmospheric CO2 is NOTHING like a laser. For each molecule of atmospheric CO2 there are around 2500 non-CO2 molecules. You can’t get a laser beam from that concentration. You don’t get much of anything from that
And CO2 is also used as a coolant.
A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
Again, the scientific chart I provided shows how little CO2 impacts the GHG effect. And I understand why my detractors would ignore it.
Answer the question. Either way you will have proved my point.
loserâs weeper is in full meltdown and desperate now. Moderators why is that belligerent liar being allowed to post here?
UD doesn’t need belligerent liars like you wasting people’s time and resources. You have thrown out many false examples and infantile innuendos that it is obvious that your intention is just to be belligerent. So why let you do that here when there is your swamp?
ET
I see you are suffering from a reading comprehension problem again. Talk about desperation. My reference to lasers was in reference to you lame claim that a molecule that only absorbs at one wavelength canât have a significant impact. Well, lasers only emit one or two wavelengths but they can be very effective.
Now you are really getting desperate. Snow is also used as a coolant but as I have already demonstrated it can be quite effective acting as an insulation.
I agree. Are you voluntarily leaving?
loser’s weeper:
That is a twisted view of my claim. You are desperate.
Snow isn’t an alleged GHG- it isn’t a gas. What is wrong with you?
A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
We all know why you avoid that question.
UD doesnât need belligerent liars like you wasting peopleâs time and resources. You have thrown out many false examples and infantile innuendos that it is obvious that your intention is just to be belligerent. So why let you do that here when there is your swamp?
Your quote-mine of that just serves to prove my point. Thank you
0.15C has to be close to the margin of error…
Me
Joe, in response
Joke, earlier in the thread
Is lying something you do with conscious effort, or does it just come naturally? Inquiring minds want to know.
PaV @ 55 –
The 3 inaccurate models are from 1970, 1971 and 1988. All, if my mathematics is beyond remedial level, before the 1990s.
CONTEXT, loser’s weeper. My claim pertained to a specific context which you ignored like the willfully ignorant and desperate troll that you are.
CO2 will still only absorb and emit in ONE thermally relevant wavelength. Regardless of its concentration. Pertains to the atmospheric CO2 and you twisted it to lasers- manmade machines. It’s as if you have no shame, timmy.
Earth to Bob O’H- Please read the article Latemarch linked to in comment 52
Sharon
Chubs, context IS important. How does the fact that CO2 only absorbs and emits at one wavelength change the fact that doubling the concentration doubles the amount absorbed and emitted? You have ignored this like the willfully ignorant and desperate troll that you are. Itâs as if you have no shame, Frankie.
loser’s weeper chokes and carries on anyway:
Does it? Please show your work. And it still doesn’t change the fact that most of the LW IR from earth is unaffected by CO2. And doubling pittance will just give you a little more pittance, if it was a simple as you think.
A better analogy would be a house with cargo netting for walls, ceiling and a roof. How much heat would it hold?
We all know why you avoid that question.
CO2 will poison the air before it causes any catastrophic warming.
“For the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (1990-1999). Thatâs less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.”– Dr Roy Spencer
Well within any natural variation.
CO2 is irrelevant is humid areas. And as we know it has little effect in dry areas.
Me
Virgilâs response
Chubs, now you are demanding that I re-prove the work conclusively demonstrated by spectroscopy researchers over the last hundred years. Joke Gallien, world’s dumbest YEC and all-time lowlife loser. đ
timmy Horton, bluffing fool:
Then you should be able to easily reference it. Meanwhile:
Epic Warmist Fail! â Modtran: Doubling CO2 Will Do Nothing To Increase Long-Wave Radiation From Sky
This one is interesting: Calculations suggest that Global warming caused by the doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.6K < 0.6Kelvin!!!11!!1!! Steamin'
ET
Yes, very interesting. From the same researcher that brought us:
New Water-Soluble Photoresists using Polymeric Azides for Color Picture Tube Fabrication
And
A new water-soluble photoresist used a polymeric azide compound as a photosensitizer
And
Microlithography Fundamentals in Semiconductor Devices and Fabrication Technology (Plastics Engineering)
Well, I guess his credentials are better than those of a small appliance repairman who got fired for posting threatening comments from a company computer, the worldâs dumbest YEC and all-time lowlife loser. đ
As predicted. Timmy’s bluff gets called, and like the infant he is, throws a hissy fit. Torette’s gets the better of this berserk maniac and pathological liar. The math caused timmy to wet hisself. LoL!
Timmy Horton/ Occam’s Aftershave/ adapa/ ghostdork/ thorton/ belligerent loser, thank you for proving that you are an insipid troll
You know when timmy loses. He attacks the messenger instead of the math and science. Unfortunately for timmy, that is a daily occurrence.
We were told the Maldives would be underwater by now. Instead they are investing BILLIONS in new real estate development and are building FIVE new airports.
https://maldives.net.mv/31166/maldives-to-open-five-new-airports-in-2019/
Oh boy, I came in to see what the discussion here was like on this topic, and itâs bananas, sure there are climate change alarmists, and they are very real and problem, that doesnât mean that all climate change science is debunked and we do need to take care of our world, But on the flipside we should not take every drop of research coming from that side of the spectrum as 100% truth either
As thereâs been many predictions of our end in 2014 and 2020 and 2030 where we all will be underwater, Thatâs my two cents and Iâm out
But holy cow is this a rough op
Good luck yâall đ
ET @ 76 – read it. It doesn’t address my point.
In no particular order: Here’s a video that details how the temperature numbers are systematically and routinely gamed:
Here’s an article by meteorologist Roger Pielke, that appeared in “Forbes,” discussing what I would describe as the doomsday cult rhetoric of the climate alarmists and the IPCC’s culpability in fostering it:
Meanwhile at Anthony Watt’s blog, David Middleton cross examines the claim that the climate models have been accurate:
Enjoy! (lol…)
BartM @ 86
They are indeed. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story
Earth to Bob @ 88- It proves that the models are a joke. But I understand why you would want to ignore that
seversky- nothing of what you posted contains any science to support it. You may as well post astrology charts
Me
ETâs response
Need I say more?
Arons1978@87, very reasoned comment. I think it is reasonable to expect that climate scientists have gotten some things wrong. As is the case with every field of science. But on what side of the line have they erred? Will it be worse or better than their models predict? But simply saying that CO2 only absorbs at one wavelength and is therefore not significant is just simply not science. But keep in mind, this is being claimed by the same guy who made the claim that Frequency = Wavelength, and four years later still refuses to admit an error.
LoL! timmy Horton is too stupid to understand the math and science so it attacks me. How much of a lowlife punk are you, timmy?
True, the science says CO2 is insignificant as a GHG
Actually that is a quote-mine and I supported my claim
How Reaper “argues”
and
That is the extent of its scientific prowess.
How does reaper feel about UD?
and one of reaper’s more intelligent responses:
THAT is the vile loser that is timmy horton
Dear UD, perhaps you could get contributors who have the slightest clue what they’re talking about.
Lukebarnes:
Does anyone else see the irony in that? đ
Chubs
Irony? No. Astute observation? Absolutely.
Or do you want to claim that I argue âlike a little faggot infantâ again? And explain the CONTEXT under which calling someone a â little faggot infantâ is justified?
Umm, unless YOU are Occam’s Aftershave, ie thorton/ adapa/ ghostrider, I never said that to you. That said, given YOUR posts that I quoted 96 and 97 , what I said about YOU was an astute observation.
The context of your posts that I was responding to. I challenge anyone to read your spewage over @ the swamp and come away thinking differently.
The irony in Luke’s post was that he obviously doesn’t have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Otherwise he would have posted more than just some innuendo. And as far as I can tell it was aimed at YOU and yours.
Chubs, Iâm still waiting to hear how the CONTEXT by which calling someone a â little faggot infantâ is justified. Or, as EG has pointed out, the times you have repeatedly called people âass munching faggotsâ. And, more importantly, how UD can continue to allow you to comment here knowing that this is how you normally behave. Are you the type of person they want to associate themselves with? I think not.
The context of your posts that I was responding to. I challenge anyone to read your spewage over @ the swamp and come away thinking differently.
LoL! timmy the hypocrite
.
#98
I hear ya. All the “critics” on this site lately refuse to engage in earnest fulfilled predictions, famous experimental results, or the well-documented history of biology.
Chubs, I just noticed that occamâs Aftershave is currently posting over at the âswampâ. You know that site. The place that has a dedicated thread for you. A thread that is now into its 852nd page because of your active participation. I strongly recommend that your UD friends check it out. To see how Well you represent ID over there.
http://www.antievolution.org/c.....7;st=25530
Yes, please check it out the thread on UD- they have 5 of them and Reaper is a huge contributor as Occam’s afterbirth
UD at the swamp
And how did Reaper know what website that I meant by the swamp? It’s as if reaper is Occam’s aftershave/ thorton/ adapa/ ghostrider- the most vile and scientifically illiterate, insipid troll on the internet
Just sayin
.
Why don’t both of you do the planet a service and STFU.
Please. Pretty Please.
Yes, please check it out. I will provide a few examples of ETâs behavior:
And that is only a sampling from the last 3 of the 852 pages of similar vulgarity. If UD is proud of this guy and continues to protect him, then I and all other atheists are fine with it. In fact, we strongly support your position. đ
UB
Although you and I almost always disagree with each other, this is an instance where I have to agree with you. Both ET and RP are acting like spoiled little brats. The sooner the moderators step in, the better.
Reaper, like Eddie, is just upset because I have supported my claims and exposed them as substance-free insipid trolls. Let’s not forget they are both immoral quote-miners. They have to attack me to try to get me banned because they definitely cannot produce any science nor evidentiary support for the trope they post. And they can’t have me exposing them for that.
UB @ 108 – I agree with you (and Ed George).
All I can say is that Reaper’s first comment in this thread was an attack on me and an attempt at an insult. That is all Reaper does. From there it deteriorated with Reaper never supporting its claims and poo-poo’ing the support for my claims. Reaper attacks the messenger because it cannot deal with the math and science. Its false analogies prove it does not belong in a civil discussion.
I suppose this is all a lie too
Climate change: Greenland ice melt ‘is accelerating’
“I suppose this is all a lie too
Climate change: Greenland ice melt âis acceleratingâ”
Seversky,
Yes. It is. Greenland really isn’t red around the edges, you dolt.
Andrew
Soot, seversky. It isn’t the ambient temperature that is causing the ice to melt.
âFor the decade 2010-2019, the satellite temperatures averaged only 0.15 C higher than in the previous decade (1990-1999). Thatâs less than a third of a degree F, which no one would even notice over 10 years.â– Dr Roy Spencer
So what was it- 0.10C below freezing>?
“Imbie’s Greenland analysis is published in the journal Nature. Its release has been timed to coincide with the annual COP climate convention taking place this year in Madrid, and with the American Geophysical Union meeting here in San Francisco, where leading Earth scientists have gathered.”
Hype for the Big Conferences. We’ve seen this before. Countless times. Same ol’ Chicken Littleism.
Andrew
So if Seversky can try to use his brain for a moment…
It’s clearly stated in the article that this is part of a marketing campaign. And what do marketing campaigns do? Try to sell product with excited verbiage and vivid images.
But get this, Sev, it’s easy to make stuff up about your product and put it in a marketing campaign. In fact, the most important thing is to sell, not be 100% factual.
Get it?
Andrew
When UB and EG agree, it is noteworthy. The two of you should follows UB’s suggestion. Only warning.
Barry
I respect the warning and will stop my little experiment of feeding back to ET the same language and abuse that he uses against those he disagrees with. His reaction to being treated as he treats others has made my point and has been very educational, as well as being hilarious. đ