Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.

I'm not your mommy. You need to educate yourself of the basics of this topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.

I'm not your mommy. You need to educate yourself of the basics of this topic.

So you won't be backing up your claim then?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters. MIT and Ga Tech, respectively.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.

I'm not your mommy. You need to educate yourself of the basics of this topic.

So you won't be backing up your claim then?

what claim?That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades? No, that "debate" has been hashed out many times here. Sorry.

But, as a word of advice to someone who appears to know less than nothing about this topic: You should start at the NASA website, and go from there. Then you wouldn't find yourself asking so many basic questions hat would make a high schooler blush.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.

I'm not your mommy. You need to educate yourself of the basics of this topic.

So you won't be backing up your claim then?

what claim?That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades? No, that "debate" has been hashed out many times here. Sorry.

But, as a word of advice to someone who appears to know less than nothing about this topic: You should start at the NASA website, and go from there. Then you wouldn't find yourself asking so many basic questions hat would make a high schooler blush.

what claim?
That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades?

Yes.
If you can't even say what the consensus is, how can you back up your claim that no paper has differed from the "consensus"?

 

[flacaltenn]

Basic atmospheric physics dude.

So, let me get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

You got nothing better to do than troll me? I was chatting with the now banned human SPAM machine "know it all".. Trying to see if anything intelligent ever came out. I got the nonsense I expected. Problem over.

Now what''s YOUR problem with basic GHouse theory? Did you recognize the example in that Atmospheric Physic book for estimating GH "back radiation".. You have an issue with textbooks?

 

[flacaltenn]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

 

[flacaltenn]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year predictions. Without THAT consensus -- everything else is pretty questionable.

What question do you think has "95% consensus"?? Does it answer the question of temperature or SLRise by 2100??? There IS no 95% consensus on ANY important GW/CC question....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year prediction

False. The models have been surprisingly accurate.

What question do you think has "95% consensus"?

Wait.. you don't even know?

How can you guys prattle on endlessly about this and yet still not be in possession of the most basic of facts regarding it? How embarrassing...

You should start at the NASA site. There you will find the consensus simply stated. You can also go more in depth.

And stop PMing me. You are the one spreading misinformation.

 

[SSDD]

Not even 60% agree on the accuracy of the modeling to make 10, 50, 100 year prediction

False. The models have been surprisingly accurate.

What question do you think has "95% consensus"?

Wait.. you don't even know?

How can you guys prattle on endlessly about this and yet still not be in possession of the most basic of facts regarding it? How embarrassing...

You should start at the NASA site. There you will find the consensus simply stated. You can also go more in depth.

And stop PMing me. You are the one spreading misinformation.

Guess you don't know that we all know that you can't produce even a bit of actual data to support your claims and at this point...impotent one liners is about all you are capable of. If you have any actual data to dispute his statements...or anyone elses for that matter, by all means step up to the plate hotshot and show some of it.

Of course you won't because we all know that you can't. You are a skeptics best friend...a blathering, bloviating warmist who demonstrates with every post that you guys can't produce anything like real data to support your beliefs. Keep on making us skeptics look good.

Back in the early days of this debate, you guys used to argue back with actual data...slowly that tapered off as the data was debunked bit by bit.,, Now all you have is a heavily massaged and manipulated surface record that is so far from reality that it would be laughable if not for the fact that dupes like you (and they are legion) actually believe it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.