NOAA comes clean ...

[ding]

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

What they don't advertise is that their models are tuned to produce 2 to 3 times more warming than the GHG effect of CO2 alone. It's dishonest how they package their narrative.

 

[jc456]

Oil companies get subsidies. The fact that you and a few other denialists don't like the definition of words doesn't change anything. Most economists will tell you oil companies get subsidies: direct and indirect.

Just stop this stupid word game.

except they really don't get a subsidy. There is that.

 

[jc456]

https://www.researchgate.net/public...m-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for.png

What is it that changed and where is it at?

 

[jc456]

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

there isn't evidence there. You are confused with models as you always are.

 

[jc456]

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

how convenient. BTW, there are always questions and nothing in science has consensuses.

 

[jc456]

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

so you really think a thunderstorm is climate change. hahhahahahahahahahahah

 

[jc456]

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.

tell us that there aren't record warm days still on the books going back to 1850?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What they don't advertise is that their models are tuned to produce 2 to 3 times more warming than the GHG effect of CO2 alone. It's dishonest how they package their narrative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

tell us that there aren't record warm days still on the books going back to 1850?

they had accurate readings of the deep ocean in 1880 too

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

 

[elektra]

...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.

How about showing us that your are smart. 99% of the planet's scientists? The IPCC based their work on 99% of the planets scientists?

Maybe you are this ignorant, and I do not mean that as an insult. I question if you are that ignorant to give you a chance to prove what you believe. I do not doubt you believe, as many people believe in religion. But, where do you get the idea that the IPCC bases their work on 99% of the scientists in the world?

You are wrong, and can never prove what you just stated. Go ahead, prove what you stated, give us your links, your studies (which as you know you cant).

Go ahead, give us something so we can show you exactly why you are wrong. It will be super easy on our end, proving you wrong, you on the other hand, can never ever come close to proving what you just posted is truthful.

 

[Crick]

How about showing us that your are smart. 99% of the planet's scientists? The IPCC based their work on 99% of the planets scientists?

Maybe you are this ignorant, and I do not mean that as an insult. I question if you are that ignorant to give you a chance to prove what you believe. I do not doubt you believe, as many people believe in religion. But, where do you get the idea that the IPCC bases their work on 99% of the scientists in the world?

You are wrong, and can never prove what you just stated. Go ahead, prove what you stated, give us your links, your studies (which as you know you cant).

Go ahead, give us something so we can show you exactly why you are wrong. It will be super easy on our end, proving you wrong, you on the other hand, can never ever come close to proving what you just posted is truthful.

Literary license. Obviously, the IPCC's work is assessing the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. And better than 99% of those scientists agree with the conclusions stated in the IPCC's assessment reports; indicating that climate scientists are very widely in full agreement as to the basics of AGW. Surveys of all branches of science also show very high agreement with IPCC conclusions but probably shy of the 99% mark. Tell me, what percentage of the world's scientists, either just climatologists or all of them, agree with your position on this matter?

 

[jc456]

Literary license. Obviously, the IPCC's work is assessing the conclusions of the world's climate scientists

They aren’t scientists

 

[elektra]

Literary license. Obviously, the IPCC's work is assessing the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. And better than 99% of those scientists agree with the conclusions stated in the IPCC's assessment reports; indicating that climate scientists are very widely in full agreement as to the basics of AGW. Surveys of all branches of science also show very high agreement with IPCC conclusions but probably shy of the 99% mark. Tell me, what percentage of the world's scientists, either just climatologists or all of them, agree with your position on this matter?

Again, prove the 99%

We have been down this road before. It is a lie that 99% of any group, let alone all scientist agree.

Go ahead crick, link to anything so we can see that it is the opinion of a group of researchers evaluating papers making a claim of what others think, and not scientists being asked.

 

[ReinyDays]

Literary license. Obviously, the IPCC's work is assessing the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. And better than 99% of those scientists agree with the conclusions stated in the IPCC's assessment reports; indicating that climate scientists are very widely in full agreement as to the basics of AGW. Surveys of all branches of science also show very high agreement with IPCC conclusions but probably shy of the 99% mark. Tell me, what percentage of the world's scientists, either just climatologists or all of them, agree with your position on this matter?e th edissenting views in th eIPCC report? ...

I'm afraid you're wrong ... the IPCC cherry-picks scientists, economists and bankers who agree with the IPCC's chosen conclusions ... pre-judged as it were ... the IPCC doesn't allow for disputes, and there's no section in their massive reports for these alternate opinions ...

In most all reputable scientific journals, there's a section at the beginning of each issue where we, the general public, can have our "letters to the editor" published ... not often, but on occasion these letters are in dispute of one of the journal's peer-review papers ... this process is critical to the scientific method ... all disputes must be answered ...

So where do I find the IPCC's answers to Dr. Chris Landsea's points? ... seems they don't exist ... IPCC is a POLITICAL BODY ... they don't have to answer ... so they won't ...

Have you read the entire IPCC 5th Assessment? ... you've had eight years ... where does the report say hurricane frequencies and intensities cannot be evaluated due to a lack of data? ...

 

[jc456]

I'm afraid you're wrong ... the IPCC cherry-picks scientists, economists and bankers who agree with the IPCC's chosen conclusions ... pre-judged as it were ... the IPCC doesn't allow for disputes, and there's no section in their massive reports for these alternate opinions ...

In most all reputable scientific journals, there's a section at the beginning of each issue where we, the general public, can have our "letters to the editor" published ... not often, but on occasion these letters are in dispute of one of the journal's peer-review papers ... this process is critical to the scientific method ... all disputes must be answered ...

So where do I find the IPCC's answers to Dr. Chris Landsea's points? ... seems they don't exist ... IPCC is a POLITICAL BODY ... they don't have to answer ... so they won't ...

Have you read the entire IPCC 5th Assessment? ... you've had eight years ... where does the report say hurricane frequencies and intensities cannot be evaluated due to a lack of data? ...

And do not consist of scientists.

 

[ReinyDays]

And do not consist of scientists.

Scientists have a small part ... most of the report is written by politicians for other politicians ... their published mandate is to provide guidance to policy-makers ... not scientists ...

 

[abu afak]

NOAA has been posting the annual global temperature by late February or early March ...
This is just a single year drop ... or just a Seven year break from climbing temperatures ... if this is inexplicable, then we must admit we don't know very much about the climate system ... because CO2 emissions haven't taken a break ...

That's odd because one of the highlights on the left side of YOUR LINK says

​

• The nine years from 2013 through 2021 rank among the 10 warmest years on record.

What "7 year break"? The fact we had a spike year in 2016 (app matched in 2020) to interrupt basic climb before and after it?

Who posts in "Bad Faith"?

You DIRTY Hypocrite MFer!

`