What AGW is doing to the planet

[Crick]

2013 Pacific Typhoon Season

2014 Pacific Typhoon Season

 

[gipper]

AGW is a hoax designed to expand the power and wealth of the state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's awful! So why don't warmers support nuclear power?

 

[S.J.]

More fudged data?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.

 

[Crick]

AGW is a hoax designed to expand the power and wealth of the state.

So, where did all that data come from?

 

[Crick]

That's awful! So why don't warmers support nuclear power?

We do. Why don't you support wind and solar?

 

[Crick]

More fudged data?

No. More unsubstantiated assertions?

 

[Crick]

Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.

The first graph is prior to Karl et al 2015. The second graph is from Karl et al.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's awful! So why don't warmers support nuclear power?

We do. Why don't you support wind and solar?

Unreliable, expensive energy, what's not to love? LOL!

No, most warmers do not support nuclear.

 

[Crick]

Certainly with 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, people have reason to be less than confident with the safety record of nuclear power. However, as bad as those were, the number of deaths, injuries and serious health effects produced by the mining and combustion of coal dwarfs the numbers taken down by nuclear power.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.

The first graph is prior to Karl et al 2015. The second graph is from Karl et al.

SO your using crap data... Got it.. Falsified in both instances one by homogenization and infilling then doubled down on by Karl and his cast of clowns again..

I find it stunning that you claim extinctions are due to man, but ignore your own killing off of the bald eagle and other birds that your agenda is doing..

Your bull shit is pure HYPOCRITE .... Nothing more than partisan bull shit for your agenda.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.

And the unadjusted data set shows.........

No warming for over 18 years 7 months... AND

Cooling for the last 12 years...

The difference in upward adjustments for the last ten years is a stunning addition of 1.87 deg C....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Certainly with 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, people have reason to be less than confident with the safety record of nuclear power. However, as bad as those were, the number of deaths, injuries and serious health effects produced by the mining and combustion of coal dwarfs the numbers taken down by nuclear power.

As long as we don't build them like the Russians (no containment structure) or right next to the shore, we could add plenty of power with zero CO2 output. I guess AGW isn't such a threat that greens will openly support nuclear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

 

[jc456]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

 

[Crick]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Please identify the specific logical fallacies you believe you see there.

 

[jc456]

Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..

Crick is really light on his facts

At least he understands radiation.

But not CO2 absorption.

CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.

So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?