Off Topic Climate Change
- Thread starter Looney Leftie
- Start date
- Status
Yeah mate, those squiggly lines are great. Especially when people pretend that they know what they mean.
It’s fine mate cos Phheedee is explaining them for us thick ****s, so I fully understand everything now.
You must log in or register to see images
Explainer on climate forcing
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
You must log in or register to see images
Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian
You must log in or register to see images
US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | The Guardian
You must log in or register to see images
‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ | Environment | The Guardian
You must log in or register to see images
N_daily_extent.png (420×500)
You must log in or register to see images
Junk science
No wonder no one is talking about the arctic these days, for the past two years, and polar bears too lol.
Last edited:
That is not even remotely evidence of anything. I understand CO2 forcing "climate forcing", is bollocks. We know CO2 and it's effect in a hollow tube. What we dont understand is how the planet responds, and the observational evidence from multiple fields say "BULLSHIT"
They have to keep making new claims of doom every 20 years as the old ones fail, now they learned, and push the dire predictions out to 2100, when everyone today will be dead
Crystal ball predictions are NOT science by any measure.
There is no such scientific theory as "climate change" because if there was then there would be a predictive model, no such model exists to predict climates globally
"Why scientists think" and only "scientists who think" excluding many scientists who worked FOR the IPCC on reports who "dont think"
I challenge you to find any actual evidence, and I can tell you now that you cant because it doesn't exist.
Warming that is proven to NOT be unusual = not evidence
Weather that HAS been worse in the past = not evidence
The oceans re NOT turing acid and never will because that is IMPOSSIBLE when the oceans hold most of the CO2, the atmosphere the least
Even the new climate report of mostly assumptions and scary scenarios based on RCP 8.5 and 15f degrees of WARMING that NO ONE predicts, shows that the heat extremes in the US have DECLINED since the early 20th century
increasing minimum temperatures are completely consistent with natural slow warming, if AGW was correct, maximums would be increasing and in the US, they have declined since the 1930s
UK's hottest century is still the 1700s
Why isn't global warming picking the US for the last 90 years? or Britain since the 1700s? Answers on a postcard to 15 Bullshit avenue, fake science terrace, hookeyville U10 8HJ UK
You must log in or register to see images
Table 6.2 from U.S. GCRP CSSR 2017
Their Figure 6.4 is below:
As we can see, all warming in hte US has been in MINIMUM temperatures, something AGW is not meant to be doing, we are meant to see more extremes and much less cool days.
You must log in or register to see images
So we can see why they now call it climate change, when CO2 just cannot explain the RWP MWP and even cant explain the early 20th century.
All of the claims that heatwaves are worse, are nothing but junk science and eco mut lies
Last edited:
Posts anomaly map with nice colours and doesn't even know what it means or how it is generated.
Thinks a warming world is evidence of AGW
Science illiterate you areYou honestly think that a warming world, that has been warming since 1750 is evidence of AGW? Are you that moronic?
lets look further back, why cant CO2 explain all this temperature change? CO2 is meant to be the driving force of climate change, then how did this happen? hmmm
You must log in or register to see images
Lets ovelay Co2 over the last bit
You must log in or register to see images
Oops, no wonder mann tried to fraud the MWP and LIA out of existence as the warming then that is as warm as today, had nothing to do with CO2
Let me know when you've understood how an NDIR sensor works.That is not even remotely evidence of anything. I understand CO2 forcing "climate forcing", is bollocks. We know CO2 and it's effect in a hollow tube. What we dont understand is how the planet responds, and the observational evidence from multiple fields say "BULLSHIT"
They have to keep making new claims of doom every 20 years as the old ones fail, now they learned, and push the dire predictions out to 2100, when everyone today will be dead
Crystal ball predictions are NOT science by any measure.
There is no such scientific theory as "climate change" because if there was then there would be a predictive model, no such model exists to predict climates globally
"Why scientists think" and only "scientists who think" excluding many scientists who worked FOR the IPCC on reports who "dont think"
I challenge you to find any actual evidence, and I can tell you now that you cant because it doesn't exist.
Warming that is proven to NOT be unusual = not evidence
Weather that HAS been worse in the past = not evidence
The oceans re NOT turing acid and never will because that is IMPOSSIBLE when the oceans hold most of the CO2, the atmosphere the least
Even the new climate report of mostly assumptions and scary scenarios based on RCP 8.5 and 15f degrees of WARMING that NO ONE predicts, shows that the heat extremes in the US have DECLINED since the early 20th century
increasing minimum temperatures are completely consistent with natural slow warming, if AGW was correct, maximums would be increasing and in the US, they have declined since the 1930s
UK's hottest century is still the 1700s
Why isn't global warming picking the US for the last 90 years? or Britain since the 1700s? Answers on a postcard to 15 Bullshit avenue, fake science terrace, hookeyville U10 8HJ UK
You must log in or register to see images
Table 6.2 from U.S. GCRP CSSR 2017
Their Figure 6.4 is below:
As we can see, all warming in hte US has been in MINIMUM temperatures, something AGW is not meant to be doing, we are meant to see more extremes and much less cool days.
You must log in or register to see images
So we can see why they now call it climate change, when CO2 just cannot explain the RWP MWP and even cant explain the early 20th century.
All of the claims that heatwaves are worse, are nothing but junk science and eco mut lies
It's bloody amusing watching you go quiet at extent Maxima and minima by the way. Where were you at the end of September?
I reckon you'll go quiet in February as well.
let me know when you can post 1 jot of actual evidence for AGW, just one, and lets discuss it. You dont understand ****.
You get smashed repeatedly. Your met office temp post was the best I read in years for a laugh
Posts anomaly map with nice colours and doesn't even know what it means or how it is generated.
Thinks a warming world is evidence of AGW
You honestly think that a warming world, that has been warming since 1750 is evidence of AGW? Are you that moronic?
lets look further back, why cant CO2 explain all this temperature change? CO2 is meant to be the driving force of climate change, then how did this happen? hmmm
You must log in or register to see images
Lets ovelay Co2 over the last bit
You must log in or register to see images
Oops, no wonder mann tried to fraud the MWP and LIA out of existence
Compares one location to global CO2 and expects to be taken seriously.
You are a fraud
MWP studies confirming
You must log in or register to see images
[HASHTAG]#onelocation[/HASHTAG]
You are trying to deflect from the fact you cannot provide any evidence at all for an outlandish claim that 1 in 10000 molecules we add to the atmosphere is causing doom
Such a claim needs solid evidence, so.. where is it?
It's always the same no matter who you ask and I;ve asked quite a few "climate scientists" for evidence, not one ever has come up with anything that cannot be shown to be the same as what has happened already without CO2.
You can't actually provide one bit of explicit evidence that cannot be explained by natural change, and you know it
You can't actually provide one bit of explicit evidence that cannot be explained by natural change, and you know it
You fool.
If you had the vaguest idea of what I was talking about then you wouldn't be calling it deflection.
@Looney Leftie I've been at this a long time. The amount of times people like you try to deflect with unintelligent references to mechanisms like the IR effect CO2 has is countless at this point.
CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR.
No one disputes that.
What you have to show is how this actually does the things you claim it does.
You don't understand teh difference between a physical mechanism and the impact of that physical mechanism on a complicated chaotic coupled non linear system, and you nor all the kings climate scientists can actually provide any real evidence.
CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR.
No one disputes that.
What you have to show is how this actually does the things you claim it does.
You don't understand teh difference between a physical mechanism and the impact of that physical mechanism on a complicated chaotic coupled non linear system, and you nor all the kings climate scientists can actually provide any real evidence.
- Status