How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Screen+Shot+2012-08-21+at+7.53.31+AM.png
"That's okay -- the Troo Beleevers will always believe what we tell them to."
 
Of course, you have all the science on your side, that's why they keep "adjusting" old data.
This comment makes you seem pretty stupid. "My" side? I relate what the scientists learn. And adjusting the data has had no real impact on the fundamentals of the theory or its predictions. I don't know if you are trying to sound smart or trying to fool other equally ignorant people. Doesn't matter. I am quite sure the IPCC understands why some data was adjusted, while you do not. But i do look forward to your academic research paper.

"My" side?


The warmer side. If that's not you, what are you whining about?

And adjusting the data has had no real impact on the fundamentals of the theory or its predictions.

Makes you wonder why they did it then.

I am quite sure the IPCC understands why some data was adjusted, while you do not.

I'm sure they know why it was adjusted. I know why it was adjusted too.

But i do look forward to your academic research paper.

You should hold your breath. That will speed the release date and reduce your CO2 output.
 
It's simple, even today.

Just take the old data and "adjust" it.
Who do you think we are, deniers?

Just because your side commits fraud more readily than most people breathe doesn't mean that honest people do the same. Try to understand that we are not like you. All of the fraud comes from your side. That's because all of the corrupting money flows to your side.

Who do you think we are, deniers?

Cheaters, fraudsters, liars.

All of the fraud comes from your side.

Of course, you have all the science on your side, that's why they keep "adjusting" old data.
That's why they "hid the decline", used Mike's Nature Trick and stopped scientists on the other side from being published.
The ocean ate my Goebbels warming!

Somehow, atmospheric CO2 heats the deep oceans.
 
I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!
You mean the same humanitarians that gave us the hydrogen bomb and nuclear arsenal's capable of destroying the earth?
 
I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!
Every single poster who identifies as conservative, right wing, republican, or tRump supporter.
I suspect many of these denier posters won‘t have the conjones to come out and join this discussion, though we know who most of these posters are.
Every scientist in the world admits the on going climate crisis. Not one scientist in the world has ever come out against it. That’s enough to tell you that we’re all fucked unless we make drastic changes like banning meat, air travel, the gas industry and so much more.

For some reason Trumptards don’t believe science and are becoming a threat to the existence of life in earth
Drill baby drill! I I don't mean in your ass which I'm sure gets plenty of drilling on a daily basis.
 
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Screen+Shot+2012-08-21+at+7.53.31+AM.png
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. I know! Let's say the deep ocean is holding the warming!!!
 
I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!
I think liberal's cause global warming because of the heat produced from the tin foil hat's on their heads or the heat produced everytime they see a picture of Donald J. Trump.
 
Tin foil hats just don't hold up. Most of us have moved to mirrored tiles long ago. And don't worry about Trump. He's 74, thinks golf is exercise and eats cheeseburgers. How much longer could he last?

PS, reflecting light from the surface of the Earth would increase the Earth's albedo and reduce warming
 
Tin foil hats just don't hold up. Most of us have moved to mirrored tiles long ago. And don't worry about Trump. He's 74, thinks golf is exercise and eats cheeseburgers. How much longer could he last?

PS, reflecting light from the surface of the Earth would increase the Earth's albedo and reduce warming
Warmer temps means more evaporation, which means more clouds, which -being white- reflect light away from the Earf.

Problem solved...Now go away, Chicken Little.
 
Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
1620132619719.png
 
Tin foil hats just don't hold up. Most of us have moved to mirrored tiles long ago. And don't worry about Trump. He's 74, thinks golf is exercise and eats cheeseburgers. How much longer could he last?

PS, reflecting light from the surface of the Earth would increase the Earth's albedo and reduce warming

1. Does temperature increase when CO2 is increased from 280 to 400PPM? If so, by how much?
2. How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean?
 
Tin foil hats just don't hold up. Most of us have moved to mirrored tiles long ago. And don't worry about Trump. He's 74, thinks golf is exercise and eats cheeseburgers. How much longer could he last?

PS, reflecting light from the surface of the Earth would increase the Earth's albedo and reduce warming

1. Does temperature increase when CO2 is increased from 280 to 400PPM? If so, by how much?
2. How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean?
Asked and answered, Frank, many times.

It's not that you're unable to remember, you just don't care what the answer to your questions might be. They are purely rhetorical which makes you something of an ass. That's why you've been on ignore longer than almost anyone here Frank.
 
Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
View attachment 486934


That chart is stupid in several ways.

First of all in 1860 and up until just a few decades ago most temperature measurements were made at universities usually in big European and American cities. Not representative of average global temperatures. South America, many parts of Asia and almost all of Africa were greatly under reported. In other words Moon Bat nobody has a clue what "global temperatures" were in 1860 so you are quoting is pretty much bogus. On top of that the Climate Scientists have been caught time and again fabricating modern data so everything in that stupid chart is misleading.

Second of all Moon Bat the earth has a normal post glacial warming trend and AGW is a minor contributor. That stupid correlation is not only based upon bogus data but it is statistically misleading.

Pull your head out of your Moon Bat ass. You are embarrassing yourself.

Here is a little video for you.

 
Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
View attachment 486934

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my cheeks ...

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

There's a very good reason why weather stations report relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... as cloud formation depends strictly on relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... another thing to keep in mind is that the equilibrium state of the atmosphere is to be fully saturated with water vapor, RH = 100% ... most of us never see this living on land, but out over the ocean any dry air mass near the surface with suck up water as fast as the air can ... increasing surface temperatures increases evaporation ...

Now, let me introduce you to something we call the Law of Conservation of Mass ... water can be neither created nor destroyed under normal environmental conditions ... so all the water evaporated into the atmosphere will eventual condense and form cloud droplets ... the more water evaporated, the more clouds will form ... Meteorology 201 ...

The IPCC and Alarmists completely ignore this basic fact of nature ... first because including the convective transfer of energy ruins any and all predictions of catastrophe ... as this convective transfer of energy occurs without a change in temperature ... the energy required to evaporate one gram of water would raise the temperature of one gram of dry air by 2,100ºC ... this seriously reduced the radiative transfer and the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures ... second, more clouds increases albedo, less solar energy reaching the surface and being absorbed ... less energy being re-emitted as IR to be interfered with by CO2 ...

IPCC has to ignore this, or their reason to exist would cease ... no more pay to write reports 7 times longer than the Holy Bible ...

I may not be smarter than a climatologist, but I sure as am smarter than you ... and all I did was take a class ... maybe something you should look into ...
 
Tin foil hats just don't hold up. Most of us have moved to mirrored tiles long ago. And don't worry about Trump. He's 74, thinks golf is exercise and eats cheeseburgers. How much longer could he last?

PS, reflecting light from the surface of the Earth would increase the Earth's albedo and reduce warming

1. Does temperature increase when CO2 is increased from 280 to 400PPM? If so, by how much?
2. How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean?
Asked and answered, Frank, many times.

It's not that you're unable to remember, you just don't care what the answer to your questions might be. They are purely rhetorical which makes you something of an ass. That's why you've been on ignore longer than almost anyone here Frank.
Can you provide the non-imaginary numerical answer to the first question? And site your source?
 
Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

Cause, I don't see your negative feedback at work in these data:
View attachment 486934

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Excuse me while I wipe the tears off my cheeks ...

Or warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which means LESS clouds...

There's a very good reason why weather stations report relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... as cloud formation depends strictly on relative humidity, and not absolute humidity ... another thing to keep in mind is that the equilibrium state of the atmosphere is to be fully saturated with water vapor, RH = 100% ... most of us never see this living on land, but out over the ocean any dry air mass near the surface with suck up water as fast as the air can ... increasing surface temperatures increases evaporation ...

Now, let me introduce you to something we call the Law of Conservation of Mass ... water can be neither created nor destroyed under normal environmental conditions ... so all the water evaporated into the atmosphere will eventual condense and form cloud droplets ... the more water evaporated, the more clouds will form ... Meteorology 201 ...

The IPCC and Alarmists completely ignore this basic fact of nature ... first because including the convective transfer of energy ruins any and all predictions of catastrophe ... as this convective transfer of energy occurs without a change in temperature ... the energy required to evaporate one gram of water would raise the temperature of one gram of dry air by 2,100ºC ... this seriously reduced the radiative transfer and the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures ... second, more clouds increases albedo, less solar energy reaching the surface and being absorbed ... less energy being re-emitted as IR to be interfered with by CO2 ...

IPCC has to ignore this, or their reason to exist would cease ... no more pay to write reports 7 times longer than the Holy Bible ...

I may not be smarter than a climatologist, but I sure as am smarter than you ... and all I did was take a class ... maybe something you should look into ...
How much energy would it take for atmospheric CO2 to heat the deep ocean?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top