Now that "climate change" has been revealed to be not only to be a scientific farce but a malevolent political movement - politicians across the spectrum are backing away from it world-wide.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Change
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
There is tons of temp data prior to 94 and it's not "made up junk" or "fiction".
And you want to tell us how wrong the experts are but you don't even know how the oceans are warming. Truly amazing. Right wing thinking at it's finest.
Air temp recordings are NOT obsolete. They just don't tell us the heat content of the earth. Why you have so much trouble with this simple concept is a mystery. Oh no it's not. You're a righty.
I've already pointed out to you several problems with the junk you've posted and written. You try to portray yourself as someone who's able to comprehend the steaming pile of feces you continually post, yet you didn't even understand what the zero line was UNTIL I told you what it was. And you are unable to comprehend that it's a meaningless, arbitrary line meant to obfuscate the data, much like using pentad data. They manipulate the data to make it appear to be catastrophic to AGW cultists such as yourself.
There's also plenty of anti-AGW crap posted, but you won't see me posting any of that junk because I'm able to sift through most of the blatant BS on both sides. In the past I have read AGW papers with an open mind and gave the theory credence. However, with all of the AGW model failures and increasingly outlandish statements from the AGW crowd, it's pretty obvious that there's not much to the theory. The nail in the coffin for me is the temperature adjustments made to the databases where the past is cooled and the present is warmed. OF COURSE you're going to have 'global warming' when you do that to the raw data. Remove the adjustments, and you'll find that the changes in the earth's temperature is miniscule.
As for the moonbat theory that the heat's being hidden deep in the oceans, that's a bunch of crap. When the people who state that's where the heat is at, and then immediately say that it's not underwater volcanic activity, tells me that they'll say anything to make gullible AGW cultists believe that AGW is a problem. When I saw that Ka-Kit Tung was one of the authors of a paper you posted, I immediately dismissed it. He's a moonbat mathematician who will contort any dataset to prove AGW. He has a long and distinguished history of truth bending.
Heat content of the earth This is the new, steaming pile of AGW alchemy that allows them to manipulate data for a few more years. It's junk science at its best. The only long term datasets are for air temperatures, and the only ones that matter in discussing AGW. Heat transference between the air and the earth has occurred since the beginning of time and air temperatures capture heating and cooling of the earth rapidly. There's no 'hiding' the heat content in deep ocean water; it doesn't work that way. Any excess heat stored in the oceans is rapidly transferred to the air. ... and I'm willing to put money that any of these ocean temperature readings will be 'adjusted' to 'prove' ocean heating, if they're not already being adjusted.
I've already pointed out to you several problems with the junk you've posted and written. You try to portray yourself as someone who's able to comprehend the steaming pile of feces you continually post, yet you didn't even understand what the zero line was UNTIL I told you what it was. And you are unable to comprehend that it's a meaningless, arbitrary line meant to obfuscate the data, much like using pentad data. They manipulate the data to make it appear to be catastrophic to AGW cultists such as yourself.
There's also plenty of anti-AGW crap posted, but you won't see me posting any of that junk because I'm able to sift through most of the blatant BS on both sides. In the past I have read AGW papers with an open mind and gave the theory credence. However, with all of the AGW model failures and increasingly outlandish statements from the AGW crowd, it's pretty obvious that there's not much to the theory. The nail in the coffin for me is the temperature adjustments made to the databases where the past is cooled and the present is warmed. OF COURSE you're going to have 'global warming' when you do that to the raw data. Remove the adjustments, and you'll find that the changes in the earth's temperature is miniscule.
As for the moonbat theory that the heat's being hidden deep in the oceans, that's a bunch of crap. When the people who state that's where the heat is at, and then immediately say that it's not underwater volcanic activity, tells me that they'll say anything to make gullible AGW cultists believe that AGW is a problem. When I saw that Ka-Kit Tung was one of the authors of a paper you posted, I immediately dismissed it. He's a moonbat mathematician who will contort any dataset to prove AGW. He has a long and distinguished history of truth bending.
Heat content of the earth This is the new, steaming pile of AGW alchemy that allows them to manipulate data for a few more years. It's junk science at its best. The only long term datasets are for air temperatures, and the only ones that matter in discussing AGW. Heat transference between the air and the earth has occurred since the beginning of time and air temperatures capture heating and cooling of the earth rapidly. There's no 'hiding' the heat content in deep ocean water; it doesn't work that way. Any excess heat stored in the oceans is rapidly transferred to the air. ... and I'm willing to put money that any of these ocean temperature readings will be 'adjusted' to 'prove' ocean heating, if they're not already being adjusted.
You are very very confused, ignorant and deluded. It's simple as that. Sorry to break it to you.
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas responsible for keeping the earth much warmer than it would be without it. According to you.
Because this GHG, that is proven to be largely responsible for the temperature of the earth, has been raised by 40% by us burning fossil fuels.
Why you, and your other idiot right wing denier friends cannot understand this simple logic is a mystery.
Oh wait, no it's not. You're right wing morons.
Last edited:
Another thing to blame on AGW: http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20150111230174
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas responsible for keeping the earth much warmer than it would be without it. According to you.
Because this GHG, that is proven to be largely responsible for the temperature of the earth, has been raised by 40% by us burning fossil fuels.
That's funny. Me and a bunch of scientists. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
40% increase? Holy insanity!!! What are you using as a baseline temperature? Using 14 degrees Celsius as pre-industrial temperature, and zero C as a baseline, you're saying that the earth's temperature has risen 5.6 degrees C!!!
To quote Wolfgang Pauli, you're not only not right, you're not even wrong!
40%! LOL! Absolute gibberish. Sober up.
That's funny. Me and a bunch of scientists. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
40% increase? Holy insanity!!! What are you using as a baseline temperature? Using 14 degrees Celsius as pre-industrial temperature, and zero C as a baseline, you're saying that the earth's temperature has risen 5.6 degrees C!!!
To quote Wolfgang Pauli, you're not only not right, you're not even wrong!
40%! LOL! Absolute gibberish. Sober up.
Surely you know 40% refers to the CO2 increase don't you? Oh that's right I'm asking a moron righty. Of course you don't
Pretty sure CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But maybe you have some new science showing that it is not.
I can see that during your time away you gained no new intelligence lucrum.
Surely you know 40% refers to the CO2 increase don't you? Oh that's right I'm asking a moron righty. Of course you don't
No, your gibberish was so poorly written that it implied that the earth's temperature - THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION - had risen 40%. I am well aware that CO2 levels have increased, as is everyone with a modicum of understanding on the topic. Are you now going to say that there are people stating that CO2 levels have not risen? Please, please present a link to anyone on this planet dumb enough to state such a thing.
Now, show a model that is more than five years old that is correctly able to predict earth's temperatures based on rising CO2 levels. The causal linkage is broken; something that you are not able to comprehend.
I can see that during your time away you gained no new intelligence lucrum.
More gibberish. Your English teachers sucked.