Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[jc456]

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

right here. we know for a fact the CO2 in the atmosphere was greater than 1000 PPM in the past. so to make any statement outside of that fact, leads one to a lie.

 

[jc456]

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

I never once mentioned the IPCC. they are a reporting body and not a scientific research group.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

 

[jc456]

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

 

[otto105]

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

Extremely likely means 99% certainty.


Got it.

 

[otto105]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

 

[Pete7469]

The hordes of climate skeptics continues to grow. It's a beautiful thing.

I am amazed that NASA is now coming out and saying the models used to promote the hype are total BS.. And they are citing why they are BS... Refreshing to see the BS outed and sanity returned to real science.

They're no long under the sack of a commie meat puppet faggot. They want to be funded to keep doing whatever else might keep the employed, like maybe going to Mars.

 

[otto105]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Sunsettysonmething


Just because a rock fell off of a hill 3 million years ago doesn't explain why one fell off today.

I stand by what I posted and you have yet to provide any information that refutes the facts presented.

 

[otto105]

It is clear you haven't read the IPCC reports, because in them they DO make many modeled predictions/projections on many weather and climate stuff. They do model CH4 and CO2 in their scenarios!

Snowfall-- which is increasing contradicting the IPCC
Temperature-- which is warming at a rate well below the minimum per decade rate, in contradiction to the IPCC
Droughts-- which is NOT increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Hurricanes-- which is not increasing at all, in contradiction to the IPCC
Tornadoes-- which is DECREASING in contradiction to the IPCC

The IPCC projected an obvious "hot spot" in the Tropical Troposphere, it is NOT there at all, another modeled failure.

They make a lot of modeling constructs/scenarios that goes far into the future, which gets lapped up by science illiterates like YOU, who have no concept on what Falsification is, and why The Scientific Method should be the main guideline in science research.

Your arguments have been poor and shallow, often making them from the ass claims without merit. You should go back to the kiddie section where errors there are understandably tolerated.

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

I never once mentioned the IPCC. they are a reporting body and not a scientific research group.

The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.


Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.

The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks.

An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

 

[jc456]

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

I never once mentioned the IPCC. they are a reporting body and not a scientific research group.

The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.


Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.

The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks.

An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

they are not a scientific organization. That's what I said. they are nothing more than a reporting function. you posted my proof.

 

[jc456]

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

Extremely likely means 99% certainty.


Got it.

show me that definition from a dictionary.

 

[jc456]

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

Extremely likely means 99% certainty.


Got it.

 

[jc456]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

well dude, the meme was more deserts, not more water. fk I hate stupid people who intentionally act stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

 

[Sunsettommy]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Sunsettysonmething


Just because a rock fell off of a hill 3 million years ago doesn't explain why one fell off today.

I stand by what I posted and you have yet to provide any information that refutes the facts presented.

Translation:

I am a drooling science illiterate who can't make a reasoned reply, that is why I will duck the debate and make a fool of myself.

 

[Sunsettommy]

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

I never once mentioned the IPCC. they are a reporting body and not a scientific research group.

The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.


Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.

The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks.

An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

 

[otto105]

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

I never once mentioned the IPCC. they are a reporting body and not a scientific research group.

The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.


Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.

The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks.

An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

Wow, a meme? That really convinces me.....

 

[otto105]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Sunsettysonmething


Just because a rock fell off of a hill 3 million years ago doesn't explain why one fell off today.

I stand by what I posted and you have yet to provide any information that refutes the facts presented.

Translation:

I am a drooling science illiterate who can't make a reasoned reply, that is why I will duck the debate and make a fool of myself.

A reasoned debate?

You have 2 oil and gas geologists on one side and 98 actual climate scientists on the other.

And you want to debate?

 

[jc456]

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

You don’t have a case.

According to you the IPCC proves your climate denial when the report does the opposite.

Your denial of science is noted.

I never once mentioned the IPCC. they are a reporting body and not a scientific research group.

The IPCC provides regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.


Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.

The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members. Thousands of people from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks.

An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

you believe with less, we already know that.
Wow, a meme? That really convinces me.....

 

[jc456]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Sunsettysonmething


Just because a rock fell off of a hill 3 million years ago doesn't explain why one fell off today.

I stand by what I posted and you have yet to provide any information that refutes the facts presented.

Translation:

I am a drooling science illiterate who can't make a reasoned reply, that is why I will duck the debate and make a fool of myself.

A reasoned debate?

You have 2 oil and gas geologists on one side and 98 actual climate scientists on the other.

And you want to debate?

still pwned.