Manmade climate change predictions are a bust

[Crick]

You have no idea how I live my life. Thus even were your logic valid, your employment of it is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately for you, your logic is invalid. Whether or not anyone changes their lifestyle (and almost all of us have) has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the validity of the science.

If your conscience needs that sort of falsity to assuage guilt, do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The sale of Russian oil and gas to Europe was not the result of pressure from environmentalists or anyone concerned about AGW. That dependence is NOT the cause of our current inflation. Supply chain issues and rapid increases in the cost of production (largely due to the pandemic) are the primary causes.

Anthropogenic global warming is not fraudulent, it is widely accepted mainstream science. The problem is not that more of those on the left accept mainstream science and the threat of AGW, it is that the pro-business right have fallen hook, line and sinker for a huge disinformation camapaign initiated and funded by fossil fuel industries for which AGW is an existential threat.

Thanks, you have admitted that the roots of Climate Change Cultism comes from neo-marxism.
BTW, "widely accepted mainstream science" has been wrong many times.
Just look at what they put the world through with unnecessary lock downs and mask mandates and vax mandates.

 

[Captain Caveman]

You have no idea how I live my life. Thus even were your logic valid, your employment of it is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately for you, your logic is invalid. Whether or not anyone changes their lifestyle (and almost all of us have) has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the validity of the science.

If your conscience needs that sort of falsity to assuage guilt, do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.

And quit covert replies.

If anyone feels strongly enough about meat, go vegan and quit all animal products. Anyone feels strongly about fossil fuels, quit all fossil fuel products. Mankind evolved over thousands of years, and so did the usage and dependence on raw materials resulting in the technologies and societies that we have today. The alarmists blabbering on that others are dentists and expect a rapid change overnight to omit fossil fuels, is a level of idiotic beyond the extreme side of idiotic. And the failed predictions of MMCC highlight why the word "idiotic" is apt.

So if you want change, lead the way, practice what you preach and be great example to others (but you won't find any of those). You're just purely a victim of pseudo moralistic stances.

 

[Flash]

The problems that the stupid Moon Bats have with their silly ass AGW bullshit are:

1. The Principle Scientists have admitted they faked data.

2. We have caught them faking data

3. None of their silly predictions have ever come true.

 

[Crick]

Thanks, you have admitted that the roots of Climate Change Cultism comes from neo-marxism.

"Climate Change Cultism" is your invention. You can say whatever you want about it as it seems to be a complete fiction. The roots of the widespread acceptance of AGW are simply the science of the greenhouse effect and the observations regarding human GHG emissions.

BTW, "widely accepted mainstream science" has been wrong many times.

And, in EVERY instance, it was corrected by further widely accepted mainstream science. You have NO science on your side of this issue. Since the development of the scientific method, the point of view on any topic of the natural sciences most likely to be correct has been that widely accepted by natural scientists. Every day, in a thousand ways, you accept the findings of mainstream science as absolute facts and you have so far presented NO reason to reject the current mainstream understanding.

Just look at what they put the world through with unnecessary lock downs and mask mandates and vax mandates.

I presume you're trolling me here. I personally hold Donald J Trump responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand Americans who suffered and died following HIS lead on the pandemic. But that has no relevance to this debate and can be considered a counter-troll.

 

[Crick]

The problems that the stupid Moon Bats have with their silly ass AGW bullshit are:

1. The Principle Scientists have admitted they faked data.

False

2. We have caught them faking data

False

3. None of their silly predictions have ever come true.

False.

 

[Crick]

And quit covert replies.

If anyone feels strongly enough about meat, go vegan and quit all animal products. Anyone feels strongly about fossil fuels, quit all fossil fuel products. Mankind evolved over thousands of years, and so did the usage and dependence on raw materials resulting in the technologies and societies that we have today. The alarmists blabbering on that others are dentists and expect a rapid change overnight to omit fossil fuels, is a level of idiotic beyond the extreme side of idiotic. And the failed predictions of MMCC highlight why the word "idiotic" is apt.

So if you want change, lead the way, practice what you preach and be great example to others (but you won't find any of those). You're just purely a victim of pseudo moralistic stances.

Again, how I or anyone else choose to live their lives has NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SCIENCE. If you want to tell us that you accept the science but refuse to do what the science tells you will minimize harm to you and yours, do so.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Again, how I or anyone else choose to live their lives has NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SCIENCE. If you want to tell us that you accept the science but refuse to do what the science tells you will minimize harm to you and yours, do so.

The whole purpose of the Alarmists using science is to tell use how to lead our lives, for example, banning the sale of new ICE vehicles from 2030 whilst tom-fooling on with EV's.

So let me get this straight, the climate clan can tell others on how to lead their lives, but we can't tell them to practice what they preach? Do you not find that hypocritical?

 

[Flash]

False



False



False.

Climate change is real. The earth is constantly going though climate change (except during the Boring Billion Years). Plenty of real evidence of that.

Man made climate change is nothing more a filthy ass Left Wing scam. That is why the Moon Bats shitheads doing the scam have to create fraudulent and cherry picked data and why none of their silly ass predictions never come true.

 

[Crick]

Climate change is real. The earth is constantly going though climate change (except during the Boring Billion Years). Plenty of real evidence of that.

Man made climate change is nothing more a filthy ass Left Wing scam. That is why the Moon Bats shitheads doing the scam have to create fraudulent and cherry picked data and why none of their silly ass predictions never come true.

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 50 years is human GHG emissions. The core of ALL predictions based on those data is that if human GHG emissions continue to rise, so will global temperatures. That prediction, of course, has incontrovertibly come true.

 

[Flash]

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 50 years is human GHG emissions. The core of ALL predictions based on those data is that if human GHG emissions continue to rise, so will global temperatures. That prediction, of course, has incontrovertibly come true.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 624506

Let me repeat: The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 50 years is human GHG emissions. The core of ALL predictions based on those data is that if human GHG emissions continue to rise, so will global temperatures. That prediction, of course, has incontrovertibly come true.

If you have some scientific reason to doubt these statements, please explain what they might be.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 50 years is human GHG emissions. The core of ALL predictions based on those data is that if human GHG emissions continue to rise, so will global temperatures. That prediction, of course, has incontrovertibly come true.

Stop LYING about it I showed at post 32 that human GHG has a tiny effect on the heat budget which you completely ignored because you have no answer for it and totally based on the warmist/alarmists scientists own numbers.

===

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

======

red bolding mine

El-Nino phases are the main cause of the warming since the late 1970's which I have showed several times in the last couple months which YOU ignored because you can't answer it.

 

[Crick]

It has been COOLING for 6 years now definitely not warming at a dangerous rate.

Let's see your data. Here's mine:

Global temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2021 Continued Earth’s Warming Trend

The past eight years have been the warmest in the global record.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

You have been shown 100's of times that CO2 warm forcing is very small and has a diminishing Warm Forcing rate at higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA

This indicator measures the “radiative forcing” or heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

www.epa.gov

Here is how little CO2 adds after a doubling rate from 1750:

Watts Up With That?

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

=====

Your Gook virus needs to be ripped from your body for you recover back to sane levels.

I suggest you look up something known as a whoopee graph. And then you might wonder why Watts Up With That did not show what the resultant temperature differences to these changes might be.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let's see your data. Here's mine:
View attachment 624530

Global temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 624532

2021 Continued Earth’s Warming Trend

The past eight years have been the warmest in the global record.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

View attachment 624537

Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA

This indicator measures the “radiative forcing” or heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

www.epa.gov

I suggest you look up something known as a whoopee graph. And then you might wonder why Watts Up With That did not show what the resultant temperature differences to these changes might be.

Your stupidity never ceases to amuse me since I said SIX YEARS since the last El-Nino and posted the chart showing it you ignore it to post a chart starting from 1850 a warming trend I never disputed and told YOU so many times.

I think you are mentally ill since you constantly forget that I have many times stated in my postings that it has been warming since the mid 1800's since 1979 and heck even posted charts similar to yours showing the distinct warming trends in them even posted what Dr. Jones said about short warming trends since the 1800's.

You forgot this post I made about 25 times in the forum since 2018.

BBC

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones​

Saturday, 13 February 2010

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.

Excerpt:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

LINK

=====

I have agreed with his answer about warming trends since 2010.

You can't address the 6 year cooling trend and you know it which is why you ducked for your dumb 170 year chart that doesn't address my 6 year chart at all.

You clearly suffer from GOOK disease you should see a brain doctor to get rid of it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then you write this stupidity since the numbers have been discussed many times in the IPCC reports and by warmist/alarmist scientists:

"I suggest you look up something known as a whoopee graph. And then you might wonder why Watts Up With That did not show what the resultant temperature differences to these changes might be."

===

The chart I posted is correct which you didn't bother to address at all because you KNOW you can't counter it

He didn't bring up the well known Logarithmic effect of CO2 because that would make it even less warm forcing effect than what the chart above suggest.

===

C3 Headlines

NASA Climate Research: CO2 Global Warming Impact Cut By 67% Over Last 50 Years​

 

[Crick]

Then you write this stupidity since the numbers have been discussed many times in the IPCC reports and by warmist/alarmist scientists:

"I suggest you look up something known as a whoopee graph. And then you might wonder why Watts Up With That did not show what the resultant temperature differences to these changes might be."

===

The chart I posted is correct which you didn't bother to address at all because you KNOW you can't counter it

View attachment 624544
He didn't bring up the well known Logarithmic effect of CO2 because that would make it even less warm forcing effect than what the chart above suggest.

===

C3 Headlines

NASA Climate Research: CO2 Global Warming Impact Cut By 67% Over Last 50 Years​

BtW, the argument that CO2 is not a warming risk due to the logarithmic nature of its effect has a few flaws.

1) The increase of GHG's in the atmopshere have been, themselves, exponential and to such an extent that the resultant warming is accelerating.
2) The primary effect of adding GHGs to the atmopshere takes place at elevations where those levels are historically much lower than the atmospheric average. Thus the effect of added GHGs is much futher back on the logarithmic curve than the 420 ppm atmospheric average.
3) The increase of GHG's in the upper atmosphere raises the elevation at which that IR finally escapes to space. That results in that release taking place at colder and colder temperatures, thus reducing the amount of energy actually being released to space and retaining energy in the lower atmosphere, raising global temperatures.

 

[jc456]

The definition of "man made climate change" is blatantly obvious.

nope

 

[jc456]

You have no idea how I live my life. Thus even were your logic valid, your employment of it is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately for you, your logic is invalid. Whether or not anyone changes their lifestyle (and almost all of us have) has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the validity of the science.

If your conscience needs that sort of falsity to assuage guilt, do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.

well you do believe your location reflects reality around the globe. too fking funny. While in Chicago we have been below average for almost two straight weeks and snow on the ground this morning. But you'd respond with well it was 90 degrees here so it's warming. Deny you didn't ever do that.

 

[Crick]

Deny you aren't the stupidest poster in a thousand miles. Your response has ZERO correlation with the post of mine to which it was written in response. Zero. WtF is wrong with you?