NOAA comes clean ...

[Crick]

No change in our climate.

This is a change in our climate

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350979227/figure/fig1/AS:1014407710654465@1618865053865/Global-annual-mean-temperature-difference-from-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for.png

No mountain of evidence.

At this site you can find 6 different, lengthy, detailed, fully referenced assessment reports on the mountains of evidence supporting AGW: www.ipcc.ch

Not one of the hundreds of threads on this message board prove what you claim.

First, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Second, specifically to what claim do you refer?

Certainly there have been changes in weather patterns.

Definition of CLIMATE:
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

Less huricanes (sic), when it is stated there will be more is evidence the climate has not changed.

Increased severity of weather is predicated on increasing temperatures, particularly the ocean's sea surface temperatures (SST). THAT is what was predicted to happen and, as you well know, it has.

Cricket, you have confused the changing weather patterns over a tiny space in time with climate.

Who was it that recently charged Marxists with the habit of changing the definition of terms? Not you. The minimum time span generally considered to be climate vice weather is three months. The weather conditions prevailing during the span from 1850 till the present is most assuredly climate. I know when you really have nothing to back up the point of view you've chosen to adopt, it can be tempting to take on any new tactic that comes to mind. But this wasn't one that was going to convince anyone who's successfully graduated from elementary school.

Nobody alive today will be able to measure or observe a climate change, that tyoe (sic) of observation will take a 1000 years

Why don't you show us the reference you are using for that figure.

 

[Leo123]

Then why don't you just step right up and prove me wrong. If the theory of AGW is false, it should be a simple matter to disprove it.

Why don’t you just answer the question I asked you many posts ago? AGW no longer exists. Climate creeps changed it to ‘climate change’ when their lies were exposed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most economists will tell you oil companies get subsidies: direct and indirect.

I know.
It's awful!
Who decided oil companies could write off business expenses?
Must have been a white guy.

 

[elektra]

This is a change in our climate
View attachment 698123

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350979227/figure/fig1/AS:1014407710654465@1618865053865/Global-annual-mean-temperature-difference-from-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for.png

I find those that must link to everything, know the least.

First off, your view is distorted. The graph you like to post is magnifed how many times? 100xs? 75xs?

I took your temperature graph and unmagnified it to put it in proper perspective.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I find those that must link to everything, know the least.

First off, your view is distorted. The graph you like to post is magnifed how many times? 100xs? 75xs?

I took your temperature graph and unmagnified it to put it in proper perspective.
View attachment 698158

We're clearly doomed!

 

[ding]

It won't be doom until it swallows us whole.

But...if your own Department of Defense says it's an issue...it probably is.

DOD Announces Plan to Tackle Climate Crisis

The Department of Defense Climate Adaptation Plan articulates a bold vision for climate adaptation and aligns adaptation and resilience efforts with the department's warfighting mission.

www.defense.gov

Actually if my government tells me something I usually assume it's really the opposite.

 

[ding]

What NOAA actually had to say:

• Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, but the rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice that: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.
• 2021 was the sixth-warmest year on record based on NOAA’s temperature data.
• Averaged across land and ocean, the 2021 surface temperature was 1.51 °F (0.84 °Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.87 ˚F (1.04 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
• The nine years from 2013 through 2021 rank among the 10 warmest years on record.

and

The year culminated as the sixth warmest year on record for the globe with a temperature that was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average. The years 2013–2021 all rank among the ten warmest years on record. The year 2021 was also the 45th consecutive year (since 1977) with global temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average. Of note, the year 2005, which was the first year to set a new global temperature record in the 21st century, currently ties with 2013 as the 10th warmest year on record and 2010 ranks as the ninth warmest on record.

and

According to the 2017 U.S. Climate Science Special Report, if yearly emissions continue to increase rapidly, as they have since 2000, models project that by the end of this century, global temperature will be at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and possibly as much as 10.2 degrees warmer. If annual emissions increase more slowly and begin to decline significantly by 2050, models project temperatures would still be at least 2.4 degrees warmer than the first half of the 20th century, and possibly up to 5.9 degrees warmer.

Climate Change: Global Temperature

Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.

www.climate.gov

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

 

[ding]

Interesting comment from someone who thinks he knows enough to condemn all GCMs as faulty.

They routinely tune out natural variations in their models and build positive feedbacks into their models that amplify the GHG effect of CO2 by 2 to 3 times. It's circular logic.

 

[Crick]

They routinely tune out natural variations in their models and build positive feedbacks into their models that amplify the GHG effect of CO2 by 2 to 3 times. It's circular logic.

What is your source for that contention?

 

[Crick]

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

So the fuck what? Are you REALLY that stupid?

 

[Crick]

Actually if my government tells me something I usually assume it's really the opposite.

Then it's amazing you've lived as long as you have. Though that doesn't actually appear to have been very long.

 

[Crick]

I find those that must link to everything, know the least.

First off, your view is distorted. The graph you like to post is magnifed how many times? 100xs? 75xs?

I took your temperature graph and unmagnified it to put it in proper perspective.
View attachment 698158

So, you want to argue that the warming observed since 1850 is immeasurable? Irrelevant? Insignificant? I see the same applies to the intellect that comes to such conclusions.

 

[Crick]

Why don’t you just answer the question I asked you many posts ago? AGW no longer exists. Climate creeps changed it to ‘climate change’ when their lies were exposed.

I haven't answered the question you asked many posts ago because it is completely rhetorical, completely irrelevant, indicates nothing except your ignorance on this topic and I don't dance to the tunes of fools.

Prove that the conclusions of the IPCC regarding anthropogenic global warming are false. They and >99% of the planet's scientists, on whose work the IPCC conclusions are based, think AGW still exists. But you're smarter than they are, right? Show us how smart you are. Prove them false.

 

[elektra]

So, you want to argue that the warming observed since 1850 is immeasurable? Irrelevant? Insignificant? I see the same applies to the intellect that comes to such conclusions.

The "warming", is irrelevant, if there is any.

And you are only kidding yourself, the best you can do is to go to google, use it as a deck of cards, to post some bullshit from an over paid, over funded, "scientist".

Further, none of the predictions of the end of the world has materialized.

Abd top of all that, a new polluting heavy industry that destroys the earth by the hundreds of square miles is you solution.

If people really believed it was the end of the world, the green clean fake renewable industry solution would not be worst than the problem.

Nice comment on your part, which was nothing more than trolling.

 

[elektra]

What is your source for that contention?

Sources? Cricket, the sources and stories have been posted on this board, in these threads for years.

You can not pretend you have not seen them

 

[ding]

What is your source for that contention?

The models the IPCC relies upon. They don't hide the fact that they do it. It's routinely done.

 

[ding]

So the fuck what? Are you REALLY that stupid?

The so what is that you can't just assume the recent warming trend is due to CO2. Because THAT would be the stupid thing to do.

 

[ding]

Then it's amazing you've lived as long as you have. Though that doesn't actually appear to have been very long.

I've had people say worse about me. It's not so bad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yep. Just a two degree increase in temperature. Nothing to worry about..right?...

A Degree of Concern: Why Global Temperatures Matter â Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

In Part 1 of our feature, we examined some of the many reasons why Earth’s natural and human systems are sensitive to a warming climate. In Part 2, we’ll highlight some of the specific ways the IPCC Special Report projects our planet may change with another half-degree or full degree Celsius of...

climate.nasa.gov

ZOMG!!! The annual 50 degree transition from winter to summer will end all life on Earf!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The models are fine ... just need better hardware to run the simulations ... we've reached exoscale and Moore's Law is still in effect ... but as I understand the system, it is the dynamic models they're using here ...

I think the radiative climate models are fine as well ... but we MUST keep in mind the several assumptions being made ... and that if any one assumption fails, then the whole of the modeling fails ... and I also think the IPCC's assumption of no increase in cloud cover is foolishly wrong ... but required or they'd have no reason to exist ...

Higher temperature --> higher humidity --> more clouds --> more rain ... as they say in the trade: || ..

The biggest assumption, completely unproven, is that an additional 120ppm of CO2 can make a measurable increase in temperature.