Global warming LOL
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
do you not read anything.
its not just 17 years...
the five year mean average temp is flat for the last decade.
there has been no warming.
your agw nutter models failed.
you have no science showing man made co2 is causing the earth to warm in a measurable manner
All the nutter "scientists" are bringing the sun and tides into their models.
Which is what pspr as been showing you since you started posting your nutter lies.
its not just 17 years...
the five year mean average temp is flat for the last decade.
there has been no warming.
your agw nutter models failed.
you have no science showing man made co2 is causing the earth to warm in a measurable manner
All the nutter "scientists" are bringing the sun and tides into their models.
Which is what pspr as been showing you since you started posting your nutter lies.
So you continue to ignore the question, why do you and your denier friends always use the 16 year time period?
I'll tell you why. Deception. Lying. Intellectual dishonesty. All of which you and they are guilty of. It's as simple as that.
As far as saying the earth has stopped warming, perhaps you could point where on these charts that has happened, or where the models have failed. If anything the climate models have underestimated the rate of the effects of the earth warming.
The climate models have not failed. They may not have predicted this short term pause but they were not expected to, and the extra heat has gone into the oceans, and high altitude aerosols may have reflected back some solar.
To say that the models have failed or that therefore CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is absurd, and only a low IQ dolt or lying partisan-crazed psycho like you would say such a thing.
I'll tell you why. Deception. Lying. Intellectual dishonesty. All of which you and they are guilty of. It's as simple as that.
As far as saying the earth has stopped warming, perhaps you could point where on these charts that has happened, or where the models have failed. If anything the climate models have underestimated the rate of the effects of the earth warming.
The climate models have not failed. They may not have predicted this short term pause but they were not expected to, and the extra heat has gone into the oceans, and high altitude aerosols may have reflected back some solar.
To say that the models have failed or that therefore CO2 is not a greenhouse gas is absurd, and only a low IQ dolt or lying partisan-crazed psycho like you would say such a thing.
How many ways do I have to say it before it gets through your drone skull, its not just 16 -17 years... that is when the pause began...
I told you.... "the five year mean average temp is flat for the last decade"
Do you understand what that means? It means there is no warming. Its not just a thin lucky slice like you imply.
It means there is no statistically discernable warming during that time.
I also then presented to you a agw scientist who told you that when he runs the models... they show no warming for this long a period of time... less that 2% of the time.
By the rules of statistical climate modeling that is outside the acceptable area.
AGW scientists set give confidence levels to the 2.5% level...
Outside of that is failure.
In fact they failed so quickly.
The MET office created a new model.
It was released last Christmas eve.
It now predicts no warming the next 3-5 years.
Why would they do that?
Its because the previous IPCC models all failed so quickly.
The ocean heat content is a new concept which has nothing to do with Global warming models.
Its a pretty stupid argument... if you think about it.
The oceans are warming... therefore they are releasing a ton of CO2. So is it your argument that the oceans warm themselves by releasing CO2?
I told you.... "the five year mean average temp is flat for the last decade"
Do you understand what that means? It means there is no warming. Its not just a thin lucky slice like you imply.
It means there is no statistically discernable warming during that time.
I also then presented to you a agw scientist who told you that when he runs the models... they show no warming for this long a period of time... less that 2% of the time.
By the rules of statistical climate modeling that is outside the acceptable area.
AGW scientists set give confidence levels to the 2.5% level...
Outside of that is failure.
In fact they failed so quickly.
The MET office created a new model.
It was released last Christmas eve.
It now predicts no warming the next 3-5 years.
Why would they do that?
Its because the previous IPCC models all failed so quickly.
The ocean heat content is a new concept which has nothing to do with Global warming models.
Its a pretty stupid argument... if you think about it.
The oceans are warming... therefore they are releasing a ton of CO2. So is it your argument that the oceans warm themselves by releasing CO2?
seriously you fricken ignorant troll... please explain how oceans are warming themselves with todays co2 and sending it back 200 years to start the cycle? Or if it turns out the response is more immediate please explain how the oceans are warming themselves and release co2 and yet man made co2 is causing the warming... not the ocean's co2?
You fricken idiot FC... its the Sun and the tides. which warm the oceans which release the CO2.
Not the other way around. If man made co2 has an affect it is hardly measurable compared with the Sun and the tides and the earths cycle.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ase-co2-faster-than-thought.html#.UiZX9zaAfxg
As the world's oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study.
The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming.
Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen. But now the most precise analysis to date has whittled that figure down.
Quick response
"We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less," says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.
The new results come from
You fricken idiot FC... its the Sun and the tides. which warm the oceans which release the CO2.
Not the other way around. If man made co2 has an affect it is hardly measurable compared with the Sun and the tides and the earths cycle.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ase-co2-faster-than-thought.html#.UiZX9zaAfxg
As the world's oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study.
The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming.
Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen. But now the most precise analysis to date has whittled that figure down.
Quick response
"We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less," says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.
The new results come from
finally you idiot I re read your strawman crap.
no one is saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas...
the issue is that the science is showing that greenhouse gases are more like a regulator or thermostat.
and within the earths systems...
CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse gases.
man made co2 is a very small part of that.
There just is no science saying man made co2 is causing significant warming. If we do start warming again... it will be sun, tides or aersols long before co2 (or man made co2).
no one is saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas...
the issue is that the science is showing that greenhouse gases are more like a regulator or thermostat.
and within the earths systems...
CO2 is a very small part of the greenhouse gases.
man made co2 is a very small part of that.
There just is no science saying man made co2 is causing significant warming. If we do start warming again... it will be sun, tides or aersols long before co2 (or man made co2).