Only a 1% chance that Earth's energy imbalance could be caused by non-AGW processes

Those morons used satellite data. The same satellites that can't be calibrated to any more than +/- 4.0 F but they are claiming .5 F changes.

LOL!

I wonder how much Environmental wacko funding they got to come up with that bullshit?
 
No, dumb fuck, you thought nothing at all. You just echo the yapping of the deniers. Many people on both sides of my family have owned farms and ranches. Many of these farmers and ranchers are losing land that has been in their family for generations. But assholes like you don't give a shit unless you are directly affected.


Darling:





You thoughts?

See if you don't have to curse....
 
earth's orbit causes climate change
  1. How Earth’s Climate Changes Naturally ... - Quanta Magazine

    Jul 21, 2020 · Earth’s orbit wobbles as the sun, the moon and other planets change their relative positions. These cyclical wobbles, called Milankovitch cycles, cause the amount of sunlight to vary at middle latitudes by up to 25% and cause the climate to oscillate. These cycles have operated throughout time, yielding the alternating layers of sediment you see in cliffs and road cuts.
And what would be the period of the Milankovich Cycles?
1627915715243.png

It looks like their summed effects run on roughly 100,000 yeqr cycles. Has the change witnessed in the last 150 years displayed a 100,000 year period? No.
 
The report is absurd on it’s face, let alone the fact that it’s lacking. There is no way climate change is 99% caused by humans.

The report justifies its conclusions with data and analysis and has passed peer review. You? Not so much. Not at all actually. Is that how science works in your world?
 
How do you know if I "give a shit" or not sugar plum fairy?


Why the potty mouth?


Must be from public school.
Better than the complete lack of schooling your posts strenuously suggest. Do you have any point to make about the thread topic?
 
Sweetheart:

Where did I say I want us to put this off?

Where did say we shouldn't do this because it's expensive?

TIA honey.
It was clearly implicit in the form of your rhetorical inquiry. But perhaps I got it wrong. Perhaps you sincerely wanted to find out so you could write a check to the Department of the Interior. Or not. What IS your point here because, so far, you've done nothing but troll this thread, a practice that I believe violates the USMB rules for this forum.
 
... decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%–95% confidence interval) ...

5% confidence in the 0.03 W/m^2/decade value ... Is Old Rocks that stupid? ...
It doesn't say 5% confidence. If you don't understand statistics and probability, perhaps you should withhold comment.
 
It was clearly implicit in the form of your rhetorical inquiry. But perhaps I got it wrong. Perhaps you sincerely wanted to find out so you could write a check to the Department of the Interior. Or not. What IS your point here because, so far, you've done nothing but troll this thread, a practice that I believe violates the USMB rules for this forum.

How much did you write a check for?
 
It doesn't say 5% confidence. If you don't understand statistics and probability, perhaps you should withhold comment.

If you don't understand margin of error ... you should never have posted this thread ... 0.03 W/m^2/dec to 0.97 W/m^2/dec ... we have 9,000 years of continued fossil fuel burning, at our current rate, before we reach the RCP4.5 scenario, at that 2ºC temperature increase ... we don't have that much fossil fuels ...

How do you demonstrate this? ... what magic gives better accuracy than our instruments? ... oh right, you don't understand statistics and probability ...
 
The report justifies its conclusions with data and analysis and has passed peer review. You? Not so much. Not at all actually. Is that how science works in your world?
Come on now. When has REAL science ever stated anything is 99% certain? You know this is bs.
 
Don't worry about it. A bunch of Americans that have had their farms and ranches destroyed by fire or flood have no income to pay taxes on. And yokels like you just think that is humorous.

How much in extra taxes would have saved them from floods and fires?

Post your calculations.
 

Forum List

Back
Top