Off Topic Climate Change

I find it amazing that he’s now an actual student of science, and yet is completely incapable of applying any form of objectivity to his view of this subject, he ‘researches’ his ‘scientific’ view from the angle of complete confirmation bias.

 

The Guardian still has this fake news up from 2016. The bear is a blond grizzly, not new, not surprising. The Guardian just can't stop lying about this topic, they cant help themselves

Pizzly or grolar bear: grizzly-polar hybrid is a new result of climate change
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...olar-bear-grizzly-polar-hybrid-climate-change

 

You dont find it amazing, you are scientifically illiterate, and like the other fool, you must ignore everything I post, to cling on to your ill informed beliefs.
You refuse to try source your claims, and your little like circle jerk buddy loony has refused to post one piece of actual evidence AGW is valid because he knows it doesn't exist.

Tobes, you are of average intelligence at best mate. This topic is so far beyond you, you should just shut up, you are an embarrassment. You need to talk about me because you are an illiterate fool When people talk about the topic in an abstract sense, its because they dont know anything about the topic, and you demonstrate that quite well

You talking about objectivity, is quite amusing considering you will disagree with cited valid sources without providing your own, to back your claims
You get smashed with facts, run away, and come back acting as if it never happened.

@Looney Leftie You like Tobes, post links you never read. You talk of cherry picking You have to ignore 99% of the facts to make your claims You know nothing about climate science, like Tobes, you are a google search scholar, and both of you are befitting the typical facebook warriors.
The one paper you posted, re CO2 and temperature correlation, you never read it, I did and smashed your claim with YOUR citation. After that you gave up that tact.. because you dont even know how to read a research paper, once it gets into the details, statistics and methods, you are completely lost. You pretend to understand it, and that is ****ing embarrassing



Tobes, you have no right to an opinion on AGW, because you know 0 about the topic. I just pity you. You don't have the intellectual capacity to discuss it, and so you have to get into a circle jerk with Loony and talk about me instead, lest you again get your arse handed to you

I like evidence, and there is none for AGW being dangerous or controlling the weather, none, nada nil zilch
there is TONS of evidence that all we see today, has happened before, and has more often than not, been worse than today, Tobes deary ignores all of that then talks about objectivity, the illiterate lazy uneducated fool.

I guess when you are a childless talentless moron who spends most of his waking hours on a football forum.. you dont realise how stupid you are, because you've never got out there.

Small mind indeed

 

^^3 people who don't know anything about AGW science, atmospheric science, physics, chemistry computer modeling, paleontology, or any other field in the multi discipline area of climate science, all liking each other's inane abstract nonsense and none of them can post any evidence whatsoeer that human emissions drive warming and weather

I would go as far as to say even basic back of the envelope calculations are beyond all 3 of you.


Re "objectivity", seeing as @Tobes mentioned it.
I post time series from published papers, historical records, tide gauge data, historical CO2 data, research papers, historical records.
Tobes "You're an oil shill"
#objectivity

 

Arctic sea ice predictions that loony likes to pretend didn't exist, all simple junk science extrapolations based on the 2007 sea ice low. All wrong, all based on "climate models" too
One has to pretend all the failed predictions never happened to keep clinging one's anti scientific beliefs

 

50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

Yep, the UN told us there will be 50 million refugees by 2010.

It's 2018 and not one man made climate refugee so far

 

Rising seas: 'Florida is about to be wiped off the map'
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ng-seas-florida-climate-change-elizabeth-rush

More Guardian nonsense
As below, their claims are based on fiction, reality says otherwise. As always, doom claims with no evidence, are made foolish by observations.


Yeah I'm the one that's not objective, unlike the Guardian readers that disagree with me.

I shall continue to post the bollocks claims and show they are not true, just for laughs

 

beach at Fort Lauderdale 1960


2014

please log in to view this image

 

More fake climate change news
Climate change has created a mutant pufferfish, a poisonous Japanese delicacy that can cost up to $120 per pound and sometimes kill a person in as little as a few hours
https://www.businessinsider.com/r-c...dly-japanese-delicacy-2018-12/?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
is there anything human emissions of CO2 can't do? Demonstrable fake news. These fish live in tropics, shallow waters, with temperature variations in 1 year being many times the change in sea temperatures over 100 years


How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/16/climate-change-triggers-earthquakes-tsunamis-volcanoes

So much fake Guardian climate news

And here Guardian goes completely anti science because it has been proven beyond all doubts that more CO2 IS good for plants, its proven in global greening of the last 30 years and by greenhouse growers, and agricultural yields

Global environmental change involves many factors that occur
New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants

Written by the Guardian's favourite climate fraud Dana Nuccitelli, of Skeptical Science..
Dana and SKS are well known for misrepresenting studies because tehy know believers will never read the study @Looney Leftie is exhibit A on that point

The study says no such thing as the Guardian claims
"Global environmental change involves many factors that occur
simultaneously, yet they are usually studied in isolation. Here we report a long-term global change experiment that subjected California grassland to multiple individual and simultaneous changes in temperature, precipitation, carbon dioxide, and ni-
trogen. Our analysis revealed nonlinear and interactive effects of temperature and precipitation on grassland net primary production (NPP), which defined a ridge-shaped NPP response surface to these two variables. Added nitrogen raised the peak
of the NPP response surface, and added CO2 shifted the peak tolower temperatures. Our approach was validated by tests showing an absence of progressive effects over the years. In other ecosystems, our approach may be similarly powerful for
probing the effects of multifactor global change."

Then there is this laughable line in the piece
"While this experiment was specific to California grasslands, other studies have similarly undermined the ‘more CO2 is great’ myth. For example, a 2012 paper found that higher temperatures are detrimental to French corn yields."
^^ Claims more CO2 is good, is a myth, and then talks about temperature.. not CO2, being detrimental.. Never ever believe anything an activist says about anything


Guardian readers are ******s, as demonstrated quite well on this thread


The study was on a patch of California grassland, not "plants" and it tested changes in many factors yet the lying Guardian says "more CO2 is good for plants" is a myth, even though it's proven scientifically that the guardian are lying sacks of ****

 

Climate change has created a mutant pufferfish, a poisonous Japanese delicacy that can cost up to $120 per pound and sometimes kill a person in as little as a few hours
https://www.businessinsider.com/r-c...dly-japanese-delicacy-2018-12/?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

Average change around Japan in the ocean over 130 years, about 1c, fake news claims this is causing mutant puffer fish.

Average change over a year in oceans around Japan 12c

So fake climate logic, 1c change over 130 years = mutants
12c change over 1 year, every year = no mutants

 

Was the tide in or out?

It's ****ing hilarious seeing you post two pictures of the same beach with no knowledge of the conditions at the time and thinking it proves something.

Have another of the beach at fort Lauderdale with no further information to support a claim.

please log in to view this image

 

This is as fun to read as the flat earth thread. Just off to grab my popcorn and read more lunatic posts

 

Can i have your definition of fun please?

 

Science

****ing gullible tit.

 

I'll just ignore you all circle jerking each other's scientific illiteracy and abstract gibberish. Ye just dont know even remotely enough to be taken seriously anymore. I might as well try explain it to one of my catfish


https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/11/05/human-activities-are-dissolving-seafloor
Human activities are dissolving the seafloor


At no time in geological history when atmospheric CO2 was 10 times higher, is there any evidence that Co2 caused the sea floor to dissolve.

Furthermore, the vast quantifies of sulfur from vents on the ocean floor, under ocean eruptions ect, would have an impact many orders of magnitude greater than any possible effect from human emissions.

Most importantly, the researchers have not even shown a link between human emissions and what they claim is happening on the sea floor, the assumption is, it's human CO2, no evidence nothing, just blame CO2, get more funding

 

You and @Tobes are embarrassingly stupid. really.

One image of the beach from 56 years ago, the second from 2014. It gives an idea of the change on that beach in that almost 60 year period (Context : guardian claims of disappearing Florida)

I know Tobes is a ******, but you? I am surprised. It's no different than taking a picture of your kid today and then taking another 2 years from now, to see how things have changed/ It's called a "comparison" My my, how pathetically stupid of you

and what do you do? you post one image, no reference period, no way to see change, and no point made about the image.


Embarrassing.
Oh and you say "cherry pick", I see you as usual pick what you think you can get an angle on and leave out anything that smashes your nonsense like Florida's tide gauge data, you seem to have overlooked that Not tired of being made look like a fool? I guess not, because the other two illiterates like your posts, you think you are "winning". Really sad, pitiful

please log in to view this image

You should at least by now be seeing how dumb Tobes actually is, but then again, after this post from you, I think you might be suffering Alzheimers

Please keep talking about "science" Tobes. It's very funny

The stupid are the last to know how stupid they are

 

Get your wallet out lads, am sure those on here who believe this ****e, will only be happy to send money to Beijing
This is the ONLY reason the likes of China and India go along with this ****e (while still spewing out far more emissions and pollution than any other nation, might I add, with no end in sight)

https://www.theguardian.com/science...d-countries-pay-their-debts-on-climate-change
China demands developed countries 'pay their debts' on climate change


So much for the big oil conspiracy and all the money in oil shilling (this is said by people like Tobes, who's entire existence is dependent on oil)
Cost of the Paris accord (€18.4 trillion to €34.14 trillion) for the 2c target.

 

China is looking for billions in climate reparations? There has been **** all change in China's temperatures since 1890 never mind since 1960..

Most of the change has been in minimum temperatures, ie the coldest temperatures, ie climate HAS IMPROVED, and they want billions in reparations?
.006 degrees a decade change in 120 years in maximum temperatures... is not something AGW should do. Funny how CO2 spewing China, is not being picked on by CO2... China's land changes, vast increases in urban sprawl and industry, explains almost all of the minimum temperature changes



same with the UK minimum temperatures, Met office adjusts by 1.5c to account for urban heating, yet London can be 3-4c warmer than surrounding countryside due to the effects of absorption of heat during day and release at night

 

You've really screwed up mate and you know it.

An 8 inch rise in 70 years is not going to be visible on a beach with a tidal range significantly larger.

I suggest you look at the Virginia keys measuring station if you have a genuine interest in how sea levels have progressed on the coast of Miami.

Sod it, I'll post the figures do you can bite

Using 1950 as a baseline and measurements in inches.
1960 +0.91
1970 +1.15
1980 +2.00
1990 +2.65
2000 +3.46
2010 +5.24
2016 +6.24

Sadly for you the spoonfed chart you are relying on can barely show that recent measurements are above trend.

 

I thought that Florida continually imported sand for its beaches. Wasn't there a story a while ago over how this was funded, amongst proposed budget cuts?
The beach at Fort Lauderdale has sand imported from the Bahamas?