So you don't understand the information I presented to you, I'm not surprised. You think just the cold is responsible for the poor quality roads in Finland.
Curse those heavy taxis that overcharge to cover tax
Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
So you don't understand the information I presented to you, I'm not surprised. You think just the cold is responsible for the poor quality roads in Finland.
Curse those heavy taxis that overcharge to cover tax
No the point was, you idiot, that the cold does damage to the roads, despite the "warming" the place still gets pretty ****ing cold, minus 40/.
You see, your bloody ****e 166 year argument just got stomped on so you change tack again.
166 years? keep up, global warming is about 1980 to 2015 and only on GISS, not the other three very good data sets
Just trying to be oil on troubled waters, feller. No. It's not an area I know much about, and I'll readily admit that (unlike yourself, at first, over the moon-landings). What I did think was unarguable, even from an oil-company-editorially-controlled paper like the Torygraph, was that 1) mean average temperature IS rising, and 2) CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature. I thought the climate was hotter during the Cretacious and Jurrassic though? And there was basically just one continent then - surely that would have effected weather patterns? Wasn't there 20% more oxygen during the Silurian period, hence giant insects? Isn't this all a bit comparing apples and pears?
Think I'll get this one framed.To put 2 degrees over 166 years into context, the difference between night temperature and day temperature can be 40 or more degrees c. That's in 24 hours, 40 degrees, and ye are talking 2 ****ing 2 degrees in 166 years
You get it cold enough here, it's just that unlike Finland the quality of roads is up to the freeze thaw cycle through winter.
It's a well known joke in Finland.....
He also conveniently ignores the fact that 2014 was the hottest year on record and 2015 is going to smash that record.
10 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998 and 3 of the hottest 3 have all been since 2010.
Of course it's nothing to to do with the hockey stick increase in CO2 produced by industrialisation correlating with the global temperature increase.....noooooooooo
[HASHTAG]#climatards[/HASHTAG]
I find it absolutely astonishing that someone could completely dismiss the effect of man on the climate in such a ****ing idiotic one eyed manner.
Hahahahaha you ****ing balloonTo put 2 degrees over 166 years into context, the difference between night temperature and day temperature can be 40 or more degrees c. That's in 24 hours, 40 degrees, and ye are talking 2 ****ing 2 degrees in 166 years
He's not the sharpest knife in the block that's for certain.
His desire to find an alternative reality in seemingly every piece of news or science related topic, speaks volumes about his mindset and drug induced psychosis
I'll only respond to actual supported arguments for your beliefs lads, (not directed at Saint or Donga).
You all congregate here, make a stupid unsupported argument (Finland's Met estimated record) and directly link that to CAGW theory, a theory you don't even understand.
It's my fault for arguing with people that have not read the pro side's arguments nor the con side's arguments.
What I find tragic is that all of you read nothing, go off onto the internet, exclude anything you find that would not back your argument and look for the first thing you can use. I have spent so much time debunking the crap you posted on here it beggars belief
Pacific atolls sinking, debunked.
Arctic melting, debunked.
Warming, 3 or 4 data sets say no, you lot go with one out of 4 as confirmation, because "they said it".
Predicted the "man made cold claims" nearly 2 months in advance.
Shown the Argo data before it is "remodeled" 0.03c per decade ocean warming, Raw data.
Lindzen and Choi IPCC work 2009 completely disproved CAGW so the IPCC left it out of their report, that is an example of dissent you never got to hear about.
Warm december DESTROYED
Daffodils Mullered
Extreme weather, child like arguments offered, almost mediaeval beliefs on those
Radiosonde RSS UAH Rural. But because "they" said it, it must not be true, none of you will even tough the stuff you dont understand. UAH is an IPCC data set.
Science and this subject should not be partisan, yet you lot make it so and your little group think sessions are an embarrassment.
It's like arguing with children. Ignore wads of evidence and look for a single web link that actually adds nothing.
I guess "saving the planet" fits a progressive outlook, but the reaction to evidence to the contrary is shocking.
Tobes and PJ called me an Oil Shill, as in claim I work for an oil company.. that's how ludicrous this has become. I stopped using facebook because it was full of fools claiming anyone with a good argument is "working for the enemy", McCarthyism almost
Best of all though has been watching Tobes struggling to understand this subject, his Finnish Met article proves it. Tobes you don't know what average temp means, Northern Finland is not warming, southern Finland is, and it brings up the average. Most warming this century has been higher sun activity as the last few cycles were intense, the multidecadal Atlantic oscillations have been transferring heat to the north pole for decades twice or more in that 166 years. Warmth from Eurasia, also plays a part, If you even remotely understood what you are talking about, you'd know these things happen. Finland warmed 1.5 degrees before man made global warming came along, so what caused that warming? The Sun you dope
Through the mid 1900s the oscillations were not transferring heat which is why the Arctic grew like ****, then it changes and the heat is transferred again, from the 70s to 2000s, now it;s switched again, which is why there is record growth in the Arctic inland right now and has been gains in the last 4 years in ice, Greenland the most responsive place on earth, is gaining 300 billion tons of ice per year, if the planet is warming, Greenland melts first
Find a link, post it, dont read it, and claim that it proves a scientific theory it has nothing to do with.
I mean you dont even know how why or how much CO2 absorbs radiation. Yet claim an article proves a theory you dont understand.
With so much ****e posted and group think and backscratching, you know, that consensus thing, whee you all agree and therefor think you are right.. not interested.
if someone has a good argument to put forward tag me, otherwise keep the religious beliefs to yourselves.
As usual most of this will not be read, as has 90% of the data posted cos well, who can argue with data. So change tack, to Finland's 166 year highly estimated pre 1960 temp
Really embarrassing, when I see those laughy faces and likes, I think [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG]
You all congregate here, make a stupid unsupported argument (Finland's Met estimated record) and directly link that to CAGW theory, a theory you don't even understand.
It's my fault for arguing with people that have not read the pro side's arguments nor the con side's arguments.
What I find tragic is that all of you read nothing, go off onto the internet, exclude anything you find that would not back your argument and look for the first thing you can use. I have spent so much time debunking the crap you posted on here it beggars belief
Pacific atolls sinking, debunked.
Arctic melting, debunked.
Warming, 3 or 4 data sets say no, you lot go with one out of 4 as confirmation, because "they said it".
Predicted the "man made cold claims" nearly 2 months in advance.
Shown the Argo data before it is "remodeled" 0.03c per decade ocean warming, Raw data.
Lindzen and Choi IPCC work 2009 completely disproved CAGW so the IPCC left it out of their report, that is an example of dissent you never got to hear about.
Warm december DESTROYED
Daffodils Mullered
Extreme weather, child like arguments offered, almost mediaeval beliefs on those
Radiosonde RSS UAH Rural. But because "they" said it, it must not be true, none of you will even tough the stuff you dont understand. UAH is an IPCC data set.
Science and this subject should not be partisan, yet you lot make it so and your little group think sessions are an embarrassment.
It's like arguing with children. Ignore wads of evidence and look for a single web link that actually adds nothing.
I guess "saving the planet" fits a progressive outlook, but the reaction to evidence to the contrary is shocking.
Tobes and PJ called me an Oil Shill, as in claim I work for an oil company.. that's how ludicrous this has become. I stopped using facebook because it was full of fools claiming anyone with a good argument is "working for the enemy", McCarthyism almost
Best of all though has been watching Tobes struggling to understand this subject, his Finnish Met article proves it. Tobes you don't know what average temp means, Northern Finland is not warming, southern Finland is, and it brings up the average. Most warming this century has been higher sun activity as the last few cycles were intense, the multidecadal Atlantic oscillations have been transferring heat to the north pole for decades twice or more in that 166 years. Warmth from Eurasia, also plays a part, If you even remotely understood what you are talking about, you'd know these things happen. Finland warmed 1.5 degrees before man made global warming came along, so what caused that warming? The Sun you dope
Through the mid 1900s the oscillations were not transferring heat which is why the Arctic grew like ****, then it changes and the heat is transferred again, from the 70s to 2000s, now it;s switched again, which is why there is record growth in the Arctic inland right now and has been gains in the last 4 years in ice, Greenland the most responsive place on earth, is gaining 300 billion tons of ice per year, if the planet is warming, Greenland melts first
Find a link, post it, dont read it, and claim that it proves a scientific theory it has nothing to do with.
I mean you dont even know how why or how much CO2 absorbs radiation. Yet claim an article proves a theory you dont understand.
With so much ****e posted and group think and backscratching, you know, that consensus thing, whee you all agree and therefor think you are right.. not interested.
if someone has a good argument to put forward tag me, otherwise keep the religious beliefs to yourselves.
As usual most of this will not be read, as has 90% of the data posted cos well, who can argue with data. So change tack, to Finland's 166 year highly estimated pre 1960 temp
Really embarrassing, when I see those laughy faces and likes, I think [HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG]
Last edited:
Or I could just post this. [HASHTAG]#******s[/HASHTAG]
500.000 years
[HASHTAG]#glaciersNdaffodils[/HASHTAG]
How on earth you think we have anything to do with this record is beyond me. Notice we are less warm that Greenland's past. Greenland was green you ******s. LOOK AT THE RATE OF WARMING ITS NOT EVEN THE FASTEST ON RECORD< it was faster thousands of years ago about 350.000 years ago, O18 isotopes are accurate
Now explain how CO2 caused those Ice ages to end? Anyone? We are inter glacial and not even at the peak, meaning the planet by these cycles, should possibly get warmer, or maybe not, look at 500.000 years ago. We are "interglacial, still coming out, ergo the planet warms. Dismay, just dismay at the stupidity
Last 10.000 years, you religious fools are hilarious.
My god, is the sun having something to do with this.?
[HASHTAG]#noMedievalwarmingperiodeh[/HASHTAG]
No, I get a 166 year record for Finland, with no data, nothing, just beliefs, and those beliefs are transferred to CAGW without any scientific link whatsoever. It's hard to fathom such stupidity, politics and media overrule empirical records
You must log in or register to see images
500.000 years
[HASHTAG]#glaciersNdaffodils[/HASHTAG]
How on earth you think we have anything to do with this record is beyond me. Notice we are less warm that Greenland's past. Greenland was green you ******s. LOOK AT THE RATE OF WARMING ITS NOT EVEN THE FASTEST ON RECORD< it was faster thousands of years ago about 350.000 years ago, O18 isotopes are accurate
Now explain how CO2 caused those Ice ages to end? Anyone? We are inter glacial and not even at the peak, meaning the planet by these cycles, should possibly get warmer, or maybe not, look at 500.000 years ago. We are "interglacial, still coming out, ergo the planet warms. Dismay, just dismay at the stupidity
Last 10.000 years, you religious fools are hilarious.
You must log in or register to see images
My god, is the sun having something to do with this.?
[HASHTAG]#noMedievalwarmingperiodeh[/HASHTAG]
No, I get a 166 year record for Finland, with no data, nothing, just beliefs, and those beliefs are transferred to CAGW without any scientific link whatsoever. It's hard to fathom such stupidity, politics and media overrule empirical records
Last edited:
I really should stop trying to explain climate science to idiots who don't want to believe anything I say, regardless of what I say, that was pointed out to me recently, and on this thread, it's not what I say it's because I am saying it. Ye come here for cheap likes from each other and to feel better about yourselves? Embarrassing
Avoid this of course
temp and CO2, only since 1980, for the whole record, the sun and temp match, you religious clowns
Only a pseudoscientific theory would say hydrocarbons are causing the warming.
Before denial sets in, the arctic has been used by the IPCC and NASA as the health indicator of the planet.. until it started gaining ice, now it is only relevant in July and August when the summer is at it's peak, not so much in winter when record gains are happening, those gains are in like with low sun activity, but please post some nonsensical charts showing correlations of things not in the same system of data and science. Oh wait.. you've done that already
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/74272.php?from=269309
More recent results from solar and temp correlation. Note the 1998 and 1930s warms in the sun's activity? Coincidence of course, just talk about some unrelated ****e instead yes?
This backs up RSS Radiosonde and UAH datasets, and NOAA Rural\Unchanged stations, it shows the cooling that "does not exist" according to lunatics, that 1998 spike is represented in solar record above and temp record below. [HASHTAG]#denial[/HASHTAG]
This data set is an IPCC used one btw but they never mention it. RSS the other record matches it perfectly, nothing matches GISS. Yes warming, and no trend since 98. To say 2000 to 2010 is the hottest decade (on record of 100 years) is true, but if 98 was hottest year, and the record plateaued, then obviously that decade will be hottest, even if the temp is not increasing, this seems lost on people like tobes and Astro. 1998 is only hotter than the 1930s because NASA decided to rewrite history.Arctic records show the 30s were hotter. Measurement not models
If you climb to the 10th step on a stairs (highest step on record) and the next ten steps are flat and level with that 10th step, they will also be the highest steps on record.
Expecting this to be either ignored or some non related argument to be put forward. Warming of the troposphere, unbeknownst to Astro, is where you measure global warming by the very theory put forward, seeing as it is proven incorrect, they use surface temps.
Now, take a lamp and point it at a table close enough to warm it, and try measure the temp of the room by measuring the table surface.. you will fail. That's the folly of surface temps.Many temps are from urban areas that warm like airport runways where the Met's record came from this year (Astro), while places like the snow covered Andes mountains are estimated, even though data is available.
Little side note for the met illiterate, Finland the US and UK are all between cold and warm fronts. Climate fluctuations are not only likely, but are guaranteed as the sun goes through 11 and 22 year cycles as well as ocean oscillations. Heat is moved around the planet by the climate system otherwise the tropics would be completely dead and the north and south would be uninhabitable due to ice gains.
Ah sure we had a warm December, and I stubbed my toe and saw a magpie, CAGW must be real
[HASHTAG]#climatechange[/HASHTAG] not [HASHTAG]#religuouswitchcraftmanmadeclimatechange[/HASHTAG]
You must log in or register to see images
temp and CO2, only since 1980, for the whole record, the sun and temp match, you religious clowns
Only a pseudoscientific theory would say hydrocarbons are causing the warming.
You must log in or register to see images
Before denial sets in, the arctic has been used by the IPCC and NASA as the health indicator of the planet.. until it started gaining ice, now it is only relevant in July and August when the summer is at it's peak, not so much in winter when record gains are happening, those gains are in like with low sun activity, but please post some nonsensical charts showing correlations of things not in the same system of data and science. Oh wait.. you've done that already
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/74272.php?from=269309
You must log in or register to see images
More recent results from solar and temp correlation. Note the 1998 and 1930s warms in the sun's activity? Coincidence of course, just talk about some unrelated ****e instead yes?
This backs up RSS Radiosonde and UAH datasets, and NOAA Rural\Unchanged stations, it shows the cooling that "does not exist" according to lunatics, that 1998 spike is represented in solar record above and temp record below. [HASHTAG]#denial[/HASHTAG]
You must log in or register to see images
This data set is an IPCC used one btw but they never mention it. RSS the other record matches it perfectly, nothing matches GISS. Yes warming, and no trend since 98. To say 2000 to 2010 is the hottest decade (on record of 100 years) is true, but if 98 was hottest year, and the record plateaued, then obviously that decade will be hottest, even if the temp is not increasing, this seems lost on people like tobes and Astro. 1998 is only hotter than the 1930s because NASA decided to rewrite history.Arctic records show the 30s were hotter. Measurement not models
If you climb to the 10th step on a stairs (highest step on record) and the next ten steps are flat and level with that 10th step, they will also be the highest steps on record.
Expecting this to be either ignored or some non related argument to be put forward. Warming of the troposphere, unbeknownst to Astro, is where you measure global warming by the very theory put forward, seeing as it is proven incorrect, they use surface temps.
Now, take a lamp and point it at a table close enough to warm it, and try measure the temp of the room by measuring the table surface.. you will fail. That's the folly of surface temps.Many temps are from urban areas that warm like airport runways where the Met's record came from this year (Astro), while places like the snow covered Andes mountains are estimated, even though data is available.
Little side note for the met illiterate, Finland the US and UK are all between cold and warm fronts. Climate fluctuations are not only likely, but are guaranteed as the sun goes through 11 and 22 year cycles as well as ocean oscillations. Heat is moved around the planet by the climate system otherwise the tropics would be completely dead and the north and south would be uninhabitable due to ice gains.
Ah sure we had a warm December, and I stubbed my toe and saw a magpie, CAGW must be real
[HASHTAG]#climatechange[/HASHTAG] not [HASHTAG]#religuouswitchcraftmanmadeclimatechange[/HASHTAG]
Last edited:
To put 2 degrees over 166 years into context, the difference between night temperature and day temperature can be 40 or more degrees c. That's in 24 hours, 40 degrees, and ye are talking 2 ****ing 2 degrees in 166 years
And yet you are the one that pretends to "talk science"
You must have had a few bad days for you to feel that need to rebuild your ego. Remember you are strong and can overcome these issues, after all you came back to this thread despite the moon issue.
Brilliant isn't it.And yet you are the one that pretends to "talk science"
You must have had a few bad days for you to feel that need to rebuild your ego. Remember you are strong and can overcome these issues, after all you came back to this thread despite the moon issue.
"You don't understand", "You're all ******s", "You don't understand the science", "I'm an expert you're all amateurs" etc etc etc repeat ad infinitum.
....and then he dismissed the relevance of a 2 degree warming in his homeland by saying it gets cold at night
I'm not saying Sis is in their pocket (he seems genuinely passionate about this thing) but I think petro-chemical companies and their political influence have caused more wars and global destabilisation in the last century than religion did during the Reformation. I ****ing hate them with a passion. I can't see why Sis, who sees the sinister hand of 'them' in everything, doesn't see that presidents, the CIA, the NSA and MI6 have been at the behest of oil magnates for generations.
As usual, lay the facts bear, and back it up and watch the following meltdown and denial ensue
- Status