A 45 million year record of Arctic sea temperatures and ice melt

[Crick]

Sure. Don't let the Sky fall on you.

Oooohh... you're a deep one.

 

[San Souci]

Oooohh... you're a deep one.

Listed closely ,Chicken Little. The "Climate" has been changing for 5 Billion years.

 

[Flash]

And what do you say to the massive amounts of evidence that the globe IS warming?

There is no massive amount of evidence. Just fraudulent and cherry picked proxy crap from idiots that admitted that they lie and from organizations like NOAA, NASA and the UN Commission that have been caught red handed lying.

It is a scam. We all know that. Even the people doing the scam admitted it. The only people in denial are stupid uneducated gullible idiots like you that aren't smart enough to question bogus "science".

 

[Crick]

There is no massive amount of evidence. Just fraudulent and cherry picked proxy crap from idiots that admitted that they lie and from organizations like NOAA, NASA and the UN Commission that have been caught red handed lying.

It is a scam. We all know that. Even the people doing the scam admitted it. The only people in denial are stupid uneducated gullible idiots like you that aren't smart enough to question bogus "science".

How about links to where NOAA, NASA, Goddard, Hadley and Berkely Earth 1) admit that they have lied about the temperatures, 2) admit that it has been a scam and that 3) admit that the world has not been warming. You've told us about it repeatedly. Let's see some links.

 

[ding]

How about links to where NOAA, NASA, Goddard, Hadley and Berkely Earth 1) admit that they have lied about the temperatures, 2) admit that it has been a scam and that 3) admit that the world has not been warming. You've told us about it repeatedly. Let's see some links.

They include the urban heat island effect in their measurements, use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset and routinely tune their models to remove "drift" or natural variations. Their only evidence are computer models that are intentionally biased towards CO2. All of their errors will be exposed when it turns colder and they try to figure out why their models were wrong.

 

[Crick]

They include the urban heat island effect in their measurements, use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset and routinely tune their models to remove "drift" or natural variations. Their only evidence are computer models that are intentionally biased towards CO2. All of their errors will be exposed when it turns colder and they try to figure out why their models were wrong.

Just as with Flash, we need some links.

 

[ding]

Just as with Flash, we need some links.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Just as with Flash, we need some links.

"...The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.

Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.

This is circular reasoning..."

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[Crick]

"...The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.

Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.

This is circular reasoning..."

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

I was so justified to put you on ignore.

 

[ding]

I was so justified to put you on ignore.

You can't handle the truth and you can't defeat the truth. So you are screwed whether you put me on ignore or not.

 

[Crick]

How about links to where NOAA, NASA, Goddard, Hadley and Berkely Earth 1) admit that they have lied about the temperatures, 2) admit that it has been a scam and that 3) admit that the world has not been warming. You've told us about it repeatedly. Let's see some links.

Oddly, despite his claims, I never saw any links from Flash showing these three points to which he claimed all the major climate organizations had admitted. Perhaps someone out there can help him out.

 

[Dagosa]

Listed closely ,Chicken Little. The "Climate" has been changing for 5 Billion years.

So, you admit the earth is older then 7,000 years. How do you know the climate has been changing ? When did you learn that and who from ?

 

[Crick]

So, you admit the earth is older then 7,000 years. How do you know the climate has been changing ? When did you learn that and who from ?

Seventh grade Physical Science class?

 

[Dagosa]

Seventh grade Physical Science class?

And did they talk about RATE OF CHANGE ?
So, that was a couple years ago and everything you know is what was taught you in school….and you believe them now.

 

[Crick]

And did they talk about RATE OF CHANGE ?

No.

So, that was a couple years ago

Yeah... a couple...

and everything you know is what was taught you in school

Everything I really need to know I learned in Kindergarten... from my cat.

….and you believe them now.

Well, you couldn't trust the cat ; - )

 

[Dagosa]

No.

Yeah... a couple...

Everything I really need to know I learned in Kindergarten... from my cat.

Well, you couldn't trust the cat ; - )

Congrats...you’re a real critical thinker. About what, wtf knows.
So really, according to you, you have little to no formal education in climate. Welcome to the Tucker clan.

 

[miketx]

I've got a 45 million year old Ford explorer for sale.

 

[Dagosa]

I've got a 45 million year old Ford explorer for sale.

Don’t doubt it. It’s at least made from more then 45 million year old “parts”.

 

[miketx]

∆ idiocy noted. ∆

 

[Dagosa]

∆ idiocy noted. ∆

You’ll not need to duck if it’s that far over your head.