The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Dave you contradict yourself so often its hilarious. Can you seriously not remember what you wrote an hour ago? This is the best example I've seen yet:
Think about it, if the temperature rises in the Arctic thats what causes the ice to melt.
Once again you jump to a totally different subject and dodge the question. I want to know how the IPCC climate models address the negative feedback system the Arctic Ocean causes. Please try to address the subject and post references.
If you say so. Any references? Isn't the whole concern is all the ice is going to melt in the Arctic, half the world will be flooded and the polar bears won't have anywhere to live?
Think about it, if the temperature rises in the Arctic thats what causes the ice to melt.
great, I googled, even though the answer was already screamingly obvious to any other than a 5 year old. IT is amazing how uninformed you are
WITH ATMOSPHERE
"In the year 1999, the average global temperature was approximately 14.4 degrees Celsius (57.9 degrees Fahrenheit)."
WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE
You are in space. Without air, once you are even a tiny bit above a heated surface, space drops near absolute zero - or about 2.7 Kelvin. "This is because of the 3 degree microwave background radiation." Jonathan Keohane - Astrophysicist
So, temperature difference is: 14.4 degrees Celsius minus approximately (negative) -270 degrees Celsius or about 285 degree Celsius difference.
Long long long way from your 33 degrees.
After all your snorting, the only clueless one, is yourself...
This is the 'Politics & Religion' Forum
Now, Which Is It?
It's one or the other, or maybe both. Nothing else.
Now, Which Is It?
It's one or the other, or maybe both. Nothing else.
Where did he specifically say that volcanic eruptions and such explain a "decrease in temps"?
He said nothing like that on page 90.
Quote from Matt8200:
Have you ever heard the saying "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while"? The same logic applies here.
Please apply your formula to this range of data and tell me how well it works out.
Answer the simple question of how the forcing formula was so accurate. It's a very simple question.
Stop dodging. We've all seen those models. They explain precisely nothing about present-day warming, given that there was no agriculture or industry in those models, but there is now.
Your bit about water vapor was a dodge and an obfuscation.
That graph is a dodge and an obfuscation.
The formula is precise, simple, and replicable. It's based on data that's precise, simple, and replicable in the sense that it's out there in the public domain and accessible by anyone, including you.
Answer the question.
It's true. I cannot explain every decrease in temperature for the last 400,000 years.
Actually, I didn't. Ice cores are perfectly valid.
Why? Because they don't just come from the antarctic, and the ones from Greenland, for example, have confirmed other ice cores and have allowed scientists to produce global averages.
Ice cores that only come from the antarctic, though, are regional data only.
I have no idea where you came up with this formula or what it is suppose to mean. You need to explain it better and tell how it was derived.
What models are you referring to and I have not dodged or obfuscated anything, that would be you and Dave. I have asked many questions which require answers to be able to prove the predictions climate change. These questions are still left unanswered.