Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg


Extreme%20Weather%20Disruption%202002-2012%20UK.png


state-freq-map.jpg


Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.









No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.
LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.









In 1862 the ENTIRE California Central Valley was a lake (Sacramento was 23 feet below water) thanks to a atmospheric river. Where do you think that would stack up against the puny floods of today?
 
Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg


Extreme%20Weather%20Disruption%202002-2012%20UK.png


state-freq-map.jpg


Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.









No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.
LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.

LOL. Inflation?


Wow, you are even dumber than I thought.
OK, dear little ignorant corksmoker, point out which graph involves inflation.
 
Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg


Extreme%20Weather%20Disruption%202002-2012%20UK.png


state-freq-map.jpg


Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.









No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.
LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.









In 1862 the ENTIRE California Central Valley was a lake (Sacramento was 23 feet below water) thanks to a atmospheric river. Where do you think that would stack up against the puny floods of today?
One event. In one place.
 
Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg


Extreme%20Weather%20Disruption%202002-2012%20UK.png


state-freq-map.jpg


Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.









No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.
LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.









In 1862 the ENTIRE California Central Valley was a lake (Sacramento was 23 feet below water) thanks to a atmospheric river. Where do you think that would stack up against the puny floods of today?
One event. In one place.











One event, in one place, (actually not really, it was western US wide affecting Washington to Arizona and all the way into Colorado, but that would be a fact and we all know you don't do facts) that DWARFS anything we have seen in the last 100 years.
 
Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg


Extreme%20Weather%20Disruption%202002-2012%20UK.png


state-freq-map.jpg


Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.









No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.
LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.

LOL. Inflation?


Wow, you are even dumber than I thought.
OK, dear little ignorant corksmoker, point out which graph involves inflation.

"Billion dollar" you fucking retard. LOL!
 
Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg


Extreme%20Weather%20Disruption%202002-2012%20UK.png


state-freq-map.jpg


Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.









No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.
LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.









In 1862 the ENTIRE California Central Valley was a lake (Sacramento was 23 feet below water) thanks to a atmospheric river. Where do you think that would stack up against the puny floods of today?
One event. In one place.

It's only warming when its one event in one place that fits the AGWCult narrative.
 
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.
 
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.








No, it doesn't. it shows an increased cost while completely ignoring the inflation that has occurred. There are MANY storms that have occurred in the past that absolutely crush any of the storms we have experienced. The 1862 storm I reference is but one of them. olfrauds post is a fraud, and propaganda piece and nothing more.

When it comes to lying the AGW cult and their political operatives, like you and olfraud, are the poster children for that particular tactic.
 
So, apparently neither you nor Todd can read a graph. What is the vertical axis of this graph gentlemen?

Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg
 
So, apparently neither you nor Todd can read a graph. What is the vertical axis of this graph gentlemen?

Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg









Remove climatological events to begin. Then, you can argue whether there is a 30 year trend. We have no idea what they used as a criteria to generate their numbers. What we do know is they wish to charge people for insurance that they will never need. That is the wet dream of insurance companies everywhere.
 
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.
The boards leading liar accusing me? That's rich.

All we know for certain is that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in...what are you calling it today, is it climate warming? Global change?

The posted chart is not evidence that CO2 does anything. If you were able to post even one experiment showing how a rounding error worth of CO2 raises temperature I'm sure you would have posted it in the years we've been requesting your evidence.

You can't even show you've eliminated ANY variable much less ALL variable save for a hiccup of an atmospheric trace elements.
 
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.

To be clear: you're a clown. I'm confident in my understanding of the science, CO2 does not drive climate on planet Earth and never did for 800,000 years, if ever.

You can post all the settled science consensus charts and models you want, its not evidence. You and your fellow clowns were effectively ordered to wear your big red noses and try to convince people like me, who think for themselves, that I should abandon skepticism and common sense so I too could wear the big red nose and oversized shoes

You're a clown
 
So, apparently neither you nor Todd can read a graph. What is the vertical axis of this graph gentlemen?

Natural-Catastrophes-Worldwide2.jpg

If your dollars aren't adjusted for inflation, who cares what the vertical axis represents?
Further proof that liberals are economically illiterate.
 
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.

To be clear: you're a clown. I'm confident in my understanding of the science, CO2 does not drive climate on planet Earth and never did for 800,000 years, if ever.

You can post all the settled science consensus charts and models you want, its not evidence. You and your fellow clowns were effectively ordered to wear your big red noses and try to convince people like me, who think for themselves, that I should abandon skepticism and common sense so I too could wear the big red nose and oversized shoes

You're a clown
exactly
 
let's say for one minute that indeed the data in the graphs is collected data. What tools were used to collect the data in 1980 and what tools in 200x. I would bet my entire salary that the tool in 200x was much more likely to count more lightning strikes, upper level disturbances and intensity. So basically all the graphs prove is that the technology in the 200x years is much much more advanced, hell they now have 3D models they use to show the size of a storm. So the information tells us nothing about actual storms, as it does the advances made in meteorology. Thanks! And that funding to upgrade all of those tools must be quite high.
 
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.

To be clear: you're a clown.

Then I'm a clown whose won a lot of arguments around here

I'm confident in my understanding of the science

Hahaahahahaaaa... I'm sorry Frank, but that is really sad. Because you really, really, really shouldn't be.

CO2 does not drive climate on planet Earth and never did for 800,000 years, if ever.

Sad, Frank.

You can post all the settled science consensus charts and models you want, its not evidence.

Consensus charts aren't direct evidence, but they are evidence that other evidence exists - the evidence that sold all those scientists. Model results actually are evidence but your side would have us believe otherwise because the models all show them to be wrong and the inability to create a working model without AGW show them to be stupid. If you want evidence, all you need do is examine the published climate studies of the last 20 years. Or you could read the IPCC's assessment reports which do an excellent job of summarizing the conclusions of those studies.

You and your fellow clowns were effectively ordered to wear your big red noses and try to convince people like me

Ordered by whom? Looks like that paranoia has spread.

who think for themselves

I'm afraid you have no evidence whatsoever that you think for yourself Frank; at least on this topic.

that I should abandon skepticism

Oh no. Skepticism is a wonderful thing. That's why deniers - under the command of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign - have strenuously encouraged that fantasy. What you and your denier buddies are doing is NOT skepticism Frank.

and common sense

No, as well. Common sense is a good thing but you and yours haven't exhibited that either

so I too could wear the big red nose and oversized shoes

You're a clown

The evidence says that AGW is the most likely explanation for the observations. The evidence says that global warming is a serious threat to human culture for many generations to come. The evidence says that opposition is being enabled by large cash and PR support from the fossil fuel industry. You aren't being skeptical and you aren't displaying common sense. I truly wish you were.
 
Last edited:
Your comment, Frank, has no relation to the material presented. Old Rocks data show a distinct increase in weather and climate related catastrophes. There's no two ways around it. Unless you want to lie.

The boards leading liar accusing me? That's rich.

But I didn't accuse you of lying. I said that was the only way to reject what Old Rocks' data show.

All we know for certain is that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in...what are you calling it today, is it climate warming? Global change?

Hundreds of billions of dollars where? Have you given any real thought to the actual cost of dealing with, say, a one meter rise in sea level?

The posted chart is not evidence that CO2 does anything.

No one said that it was. It's is evidence that storms are growing in intensity. But do you have another explanation?

If you were able to post even one experiment showing how a rounding error worth of CO2 raises temperature I'm sure you would have posted it in the years we've been requesting your evidence.

Shall I repost Evans 2006 and his direct measurement of greenhouse gas backradiation. How about the absorption spectra of carbon dioxide? Do you think those lies? You cannot point me to a single study since Angstrom and Koch that even suggests CO2 has no effect. Not one. That is not being skeptical and that is not using common sense.

You can't even show you've eliminated ANY variable much less ALL variable save for a hiccup of an atmospheric trace elements.

That's nonsense Frank. Climate scientists have examined dozens of possible causes for global warming. Except for the greenhouse effect acting on human emissions, they all failed as the primary causative factor. No other potential causes were of sufficient magnitude. No other potential causes had the right trend histories.
 

Forum List

Back
Top