Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We have the actual Percent in the air.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.
`
Jesus Christ! How can you have more than 100 percent of anything? Goddamn liars everywhere!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!
So you are calling NOAA a bunch of liars?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.
`
Yes if CO2 lags temperatures over 450,000 years, then in all likelihood it lags over 450.150 yearsLet me pass you two some REALLY basic algebra. Ready? If A=B, then B=A.
GFY.
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?We have HIGHLY CORRELATED SATELLITE AND BALLOON DATA showing NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite RISING Co2....
It's all being "absorbed," dummy.We know how much is being produced every year and it's obviously way more thn can be absorbed.
concluded that the satellite and balloon data you have are the only correct data and that all other data is fabricated
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.
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
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?
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.Well, we only have TWO MEASURES of ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS, satellites and balloons
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: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...
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 |
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.DATA on ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS is from SATELLITES AND BALLOONS
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.FUDGE is from the Co2 FRAUD
with thousands of thermometers in weather stations.
Data from multiple satellites with multiple satellite sensors and thousands of balloon launches correlate quite nicely with thermometer readings taken at the surface
I'm sorry, I tried, but it is impossible to hold a conversation with you. Your rants explain nothing and are evidence of nothing.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.
This link shows us three new studies all of which show us that your claims are WRONG. WtF is wrong with you?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