Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Nov 21, 2019.
And some blind bat sees 70% cooling. Now that is what you call complete self delusion. LOL
In the real world, here's what's red in the Arctic
Cape Uelne (N) 18F
Kotel Is (E) -22F
Nord (S) -17F
Sachs Harbor (W) -4F
Arctic Weather Map
You are the one who is mentally blind since you post a ONE day ANOMALY chart, which presents a misleading claim since actual temperature data are not being shown.
Here is the LINK to the Arctic region showing that Canada and Greenland are almost all below freezing at this time, meaning you are producing a deliberate lie!
Why can't you see that LINK Crusader Frank posted?
He is showing REAL temperature data in real time.
That's still not coherent English.
The answer to what I think you're asking, though, is about 1.1C (TCS) so far, and eventually about 1.5C (ECS).
Why did you think that would be difficult for anyone to answer? We know temps have risen about 1.0C, and that greenhouse gases are responsible for 110% of that. That is, without the greenhouse gases, there would have been slight cooling.
Now, answer the simple question. For the fourth time, does the greenhouse effect exist? Yes or no?
No dummy, that is not at all what the graphic says. Haha, you know less than nothing about any of this.
Is that what a unicorn costs? Cool!
So the point you've made, unwittingly, is that you're too stupid to understand what anomalies are and why they are used.
The grownups are talking. That means you should go back to the kiddie table and stay quiet.
No, we don't. We point to the overall patterns. We specifically point out that no single event is evidence of anything.
It's only your side that depends entirely on the big lie about how individual events prove something.
The two sides are totally different. We're honest. You're shameless cult hacks.
It's your contention that a 120ppm increase in CO2 raises temperature by 1C? Can you replicate that in a lab? What, you can't?!
Separate names with a comma.