Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[ding]

This very well may be the worst titled / incorrect title and least supported OP in the history of OP's.

 

[abu afak]

Yet, every time CO2 goes up, more green trees and such grow, but never ever get added into the computer models. Why is that?

It turns out the answer is Yes – in a big way. A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO 2), spurring plant growth.

Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide​

View attachment 812131
www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-di

We have the actual Percent in the air.
We don't need a model for that.
We know how much is being produced every year and it's obviously way more thn can be absorbed.
So many here are too dumb to debate.
`

 

[EMH]

We have the actual Percent in the air.
We don't need a model for that.
We know how much is being produced every year and it's obviously way more thn can be absorbed.
So many here are too dumb to debate.
`

We have HIGHLY CORRELATED SATELLITE AND BALLOON DATA showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite RISING Co2....

 

[miketx]

We're up to 117.9% of scientists worldwide contributing 75 GIGATONNES of carbon dioxide annually ... the sad part is the atmosphere is only increasing 17 gigatonnes per year ... ROLF ... the math is easy ...

Oh ... it's the oceans that are absorbing all this extra CO2 ...

Jesus Christ! How can you have more than 100 percent of anything? Goddamn liars everywhere!

 

[ReinyDays]

Jesus Christ! How can you have more than 100 percent of anything? Goddamn liars everywhere!

Color-coded for easier understanding ...

 

[miketx]

Color-coded for easier understanding ...

GFY.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

We have the actual Percent in the air.
We don't need a model for that.
We know how much is being produced every year and it's obviously way more thn can be absorbed.
So many here are too dumb to debate.
`

So you are calling NOAA a bunch of liars?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let me pass you two some REALLY basic algebra. Ready? If A=B, then B=A.

Yes if CO2 lags temperatures over 450,000 years, then in all likelihood it lags over 450.150 years

 

[ReinyDays]

GFY.

Ha ha ... yeah ... red is for lies, orange is for stupidity and yeller is for weasel ...

You got whoosed and now you're angry ... too cute ...

 

[Crick]

We have HIGHLY CORRELATED SATELLITE AND BALLOON DATA showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite RISING Co2....

For you to have concluded that the satellite and balloon data you have are the only correct data and that all other data is fabricated, you had to have first concluded that all the climate scientists were in agreement to fabricate data. Nothing else in the climate data tells you so. Where is your evidence for THAT?

 

[ding]

We know how much is being produced every year and it's obviously way more thn can be absorbed.

It's all being "absorbed," dummy.

 

[EMH]

concluded that the satellite and balloon data you have are the only correct data and that all other data is fabricated

Well, we only have TWO MEASURES of ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS, satellites and balloons, so your "other data" if it differs from the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite RISING Co2, then you'd better come up with our "third" measure, which to date does not yet exist... sorry...


DATA on ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS is from SATELLITES AND BALLOONS

FUDGE is from the Co2 FRAUD

 

[EMH]

Yes if CO2 lags temperatures over 450,000 years, then in all likelihood it lags over 450.150 years

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

It's a free roll for the CCP. A loss costs them nothing and they just hire more Cricks to say the exact same debunked things

 

[EMH]

It's a free roll for the CCP. A loss costs them nothing and they just hire more Cricks to say the exact same debunked things

And they re-write history.

They now claim Antarctica hasn't moved for 100 million years. That trench at the bottom of the center of the Atlantic, it rounds South Africa. The Andes and the Transantarctic mountain range"s" are actually THE SAME RANGE caused by THE SAME TECTONIC MOVEMENT.

 

[Crick]

For you to have concluded that the satellite and balloon data you have are the only correct data and that all other data is fabricated, you had to have first concluded that all the climate scientists were in agreement to fabricate data. Nothing else in the climate data tells you so. Where is your evidence for THAT?

Well, we only have TWO MEASURES of ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS, satellites and balloons

If you mean measuring upper altitude temperatures you'd be correct, but we measure tropospheric (0 - ~8km) temperatures with thousands of thermometers in weather stations.

so your "other data" if it differs from the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite RISING Co2, then you'd better come up with our "third" measure, which to date does not yet exist... sorry...

I just did. You've been ranting about your "highly correlated satellite and balloon data" for quite some time now and we have all assumed that you are talking about an early version of Spencer & Christy's UAH Upper Tropospheric data, but I can't recall you having ever actually identified it, put up links or posted the data itself. I could be wrong because I don't give your babbling rants much heed. The table and notes below are from Wikipedia's article on the UAH temperature data:

Corrections made​

The table below summarizes the adjustments that have been applied to the UAH TLT dataset.[12] [13] The 'trend correction' refers to the change in global mean decadal temperature trend in degrees Celsius/decade as a result of the correction.

UAH version	Main adjustment	Trend correction	Year
A	Simple bias correction		1992
B	Linear diurnal drift correction	-0.03	1994
C	Removal of residual annual cycle related to hot target variation	0.03	1997
D	Orbital decay	0.10	1998
D	Removal of dependence of time variations of hot target temperature	-0.07	1998
5.0	Non-linear diurnal correction	0.008	2003
5.1	Tightened criteria for data acceptance	-0.004	2004
5.2	Correction of diurnal drift adjustment	0.035	2005
5.3	Annual cycle correction	0	2009
5.4	New annual cycle	0	2010
6.0 beta	Extensive revision	-0.026 [14]	2015

NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2.[15]

Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.[16]

Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, had been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011, at which time the RSS and UAH TLT were now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remained, however, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends. However, in June 2017 RSS released version 4 which significantly increased the trend from 0.136 to 0.184 K/decade substantially increasing the difference again.

A beta version of 6.0 of the dataset was released on April 28, 2015 via blog post.[14] This dataset has higher spatial resolution and uses new methods for gridpoint averaging.

---

---

I believe you are claiming that Spencer and Christy were coerced to make this changes; that they are not corrections but manipulations. This claim is another major facet of your position for which you have never provided a scintilla of evidence.

DATA on ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS is from SATELLITES AND BALLOONS

Data from multiple satellites with multiple satellite sensors and thousands of balloon launches correlate quite nicely with thermometer readings taken at the surface. The specific data you cling to was abandoned by its owners many years ago.

FUDGE is from the Co2 FRAUD

The query was for the evidence your position requires showing that all the world's climate scientists have been in some sort of agreement to fabricate climate data. Your response does not address that point at all. Show us why we should actually believe this oft-repeated claim of yours. And pictures of fudge squares and more capital letter rants will not suffice. Science calls for evidence and you need to show us some.

 

[EMH]

with thousands of thermometers in weather stations.

which are.... ON THE SURFACE - DUH.... NOT ELEVATED. Those pick up Urban Heat Sink Effect, the ONLY warming your side has in the raw data.

Data from multiple satellites with multiple satellite sensors and thousands of balloon launches correlate quite nicely with thermometer readings taken at the surface

only after your side FUDGED BOTH SERIES with laughable bullshit.


Explain the FUDGE.

How did "orbit wobble" justify taking a flat line and making it a slope up?

How did "shade issues" that were CONSTANT THE WHOLE TIME justify fudging a flat line into an upward slope?



Your side FUDGES DATA. The ACTUAL DATA shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite rising Co2...

 

[Crick]

which are.... ON THE SURFACE - DUH.... NOT ELEVATED. Those pick up Urban Heat Sink Effect, the ONLY warming your side has in the raw data.

only after your side FUDGED BOTH SERIES with laughable bullshit.

Explain the FUDGE.

How did "orbit wobble" justify taking a flat line and making it a slope up?

How did "shade issues" that were CONSTANT THE WHOLE TIME justify fudging a flat line into an upward slope?

Your side FUDGES DATA. The ACTUAL DATA shows NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite rising Co2...

I'm sorry, I tried, but it is impossible to hold a conversation with you. Your rants explain nothing and are evidence of nothing.

 

[EMH]

I'm sorry, I tried, but it is impossible to hold a conversation with you. Your rants explain nothing and are evidence of nothing.

Documented right here...

The FUDGING of the satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite rising Co2....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Crick]

Documented right here...

The FUDGING of the satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite rising Co2....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

This link shows us three new studies all of which show us that your claims are WRONG. WtF is wrong with you?