Is that what you call facts? No wonder you are so brainwashed, ignorant and wrong.
But you're a good loyal Republican.
NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a âMini-Maunderâ Cooling Event
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Is that what you call facts? No wonder you are so brainwashed, ignorant and wrong.
But you're a good loyal Republican.
what is funny is that we have shown you in the last few weeks:
how you could still be an agw loony nutter in chief is amazing.
Your former nutter buddies are no longer coming to your defense... wonder why?
because they have seen the following:
a. its only 97 percent of scientists who appear on pro agw journals.
b. we have shown recent data that there has been no statistically measurable warming for 16 years...
c. the chief UN nutter in charger of warming... recently said no warming for 16 years. (this invalidates the models)
d. the chief nutter scientist phil jones put out the data which shows no statistical warming.
e. Phil jones the chief propagandist admitted the models did not take account the effect of the sun and oeans in their models.
f. we have shown you throughout earth history... CO2 accumulation and dissipation have trailed temperature.
g. and now we show you this...
the IPCC stated... they pretty much have no idea what causes warming...
read this from the ipcc website..
which is climatologist speak for... we have no idea what relationshiop CO2 has to warming so these "projections" are essentially created out of thin air by vapor ware.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and.../ch8s8-6-4.html
Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper-tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary-layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.
A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.
how you could still be an agw loony nutter in chief is amazing.
Your former nutter buddies are no longer coming to your defense... wonder why?
because they have seen the following:
a. its only 97 percent of scientists who appear on pro agw journals.
b. we have shown recent data that there has been no statistically measurable warming for 16 years...
c. the chief UN nutter in charger of warming... recently said no warming for 16 years. (this invalidates the models)
d. the chief nutter scientist phil jones put out the data which shows no statistical warming.
e. Phil jones the chief propagandist admitted the models did not take account the effect of the sun and oeans in their models.
f. we have shown you throughout earth history... CO2 accumulation and dissipation have trailed temperature.
g. and now we show you this...
the IPCC stated... they pretty much have no idea what causes warming...
read this from the ipcc website..
which is climatologist speak for... we have no idea what relationshiop CO2 has to warming so these "projections" are essentially created out of thin air by vapor ware.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and.../ch8s8-6-4.html
Based on the understanding of both the physical processes that control key climate feedbacks (see Section 8.6.3), and also the origin of inter-model differences in the simulation of feedbacks (see Section 8.6.2), the following climate characteristics appear to be particularly important: (i) for the water vapour and lapse rate feedbacks, the response of upper-tropospheric RH and lapse rate to interannual or decadal changes in climate; (ii) for cloud feedbacks, the response of boundary-layer clouds and anvil clouds to a change in surface or atmospheric conditions and the change in cloud radiative properties associated with a change in extratropical synoptic weather systems; (iii) for snow albedo feedbacks, the relationship between surface air temperature and snow melt over northern land areas during spring and (iv) for sea ice feedbacks, the simulation of sea ice thickness.
A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.
see the link for the chart showing how wrong the ipcc projections were... even though they created 4 different models since 1990. nimation...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/
The animation shows arrows representing the central estimates of how much the IPCC officially predicted the Earth surface temperature âanomalyâ would increase from 1990 to 2012. The estimates are from the First Assessment Report (FAR-1990), the Second (SAR-1996), the Third (TAR-2001), and the Fourth (AR4-2007). Each arrow is aimed at the center of its corresponding colored âwhiskerâ at the right edge of the base figure.
The circle at the tail of each arrow indicates the Global temperature in the year the given assessment report was issued. The first head on each arrow represents the central IPCC prediction for 2012. They all mispredict warming from 1990 to 2012 by a factor of two to three. The dashed line and second arrow head represents the central IPCC predictions for 2015.
Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) varies from year to year. However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming.
...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/
The animation shows arrows representing the central estimates of how much the IPCC officially predicted the Earth surface temperature âanomalyâ would increase from 1990 to 2012. The estimates are from the First Assessment Report (FAR-1990), the Second (SAR-1996), the Third (TAR-2001), and the Fourth (AR4-2007). Each arrow is aimed at the center of its corresponding colored âwhiskerâ at the right edge of the base figure.
The circle at the tail of each arrow indicates the Global temperature in the year the given assessment report was issued. The first head on each arrow represents the central IPCC prediction for 2012. They all mispredict warming from 1990 to 2012 by a factor of two to three. The dashed line and second arrow head represents the central IPCC predictions for 2015.
Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) varies from year to year. However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming.
...
As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/
the above is something the IPCC, the UN agw nutters, Phil Jones, and all the agw nutters here on ET now understand...
Every one of your nutter buddies understands... but you.. fc.
Your are posting charts and studies which are based on failed models.
You are like the guards at the foot of the wall holding up pieces of egg and saying we can still put him back together again with the help of the kings horses.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/
the above is something the IPCC, the UN agw nutters, Phil Jones, and all the agw nutters here on ET now understand...
Every one of your nutter buddies understands... but you.. fc.
Your are posting charts and studies which are based on failed models.
You are like the guards at the foot of the wall holding up pieces of egg and saying we can still put him back together again with the help of the kings horses.
You have been told - over and over again that the 97% figue is pure nonsense. Yet you keep posting it over and over again.
This is not a question of being loyal to any particular political party... it has to do with accepting proper facts and data rather than the propaganda that you keep recycling.
To me the most offensive part of the global warming scam is how these 'scientists' have perverted science while chasing research grant dollars.
You are right jem. We have to put this in terms that futurecurrents can understand!
<img src=http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk264/davidflick2/Global%20Warming/climatehumpty2.jpg>
FC, all the King's horses and all the King's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again!
Do you understand now?
<img src=http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk264/davidflick2/Global%20Warming/climatehumpty2.jpg>
FC, all the King's horses and all the King's men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again!
Do you understand now?
That's because the 97% figure was correct. is correct, and multiple studies and polls which proves it.
The problem is that you brainwashed AGW denier morons refuse to look at the facts.
Do you not see all the proofs I posted? It's getting ridiculous.
There is NO question, no matter how one looks at it, that the VAST MAJORITY, whether it's 95 or 98% of the world's best climatologists are in agreement about AGW. To say it is not true is just plain fucking ridiculous.
There has been no change in warming trend. There is no change of opinion on this among the climatologists. If anything there is even more consensus and confidence over the last few years. I would post proof of this for the umpteenth time but apparently facts and proof and science don't matter to you denier morons.
You guys are a fucking joke. How you find your shoes in the morning is a mystery. One literally has to try to be so stupid.
And why can't you guys EVER go to reliable sources like NOAA? Watts is a hack and fraud and a lowly unqualified meteorologist who is making a living doing the denial thing for the FF industry.
Ha ha. So seeing how you actually do believe the solid overwhelming science about AGW, do you agree that a carbon tax may be the best way to address the problem?