Satellite data show Earth's glaciers in massive decline

How odd that STILL nothing has changed about the climate -------------

Because it's still all lies.
 

Your HolyIceAge never arrives, and the fast warming continues inexorably, but that doesn't diminish your religious zeal. As is the case with every doomsday cult, whenever your frozen doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more.
Your problem is that things seem to be just staying the same. No Ice Age, no Cooked Earth.

I notice that the Global Warming fanatics always choose something to point at that nobody normal can see, like icebergs, or glaciers, or polar bears, to pretend that the World Is Coming to An End unless we raise taxes and put in a whole lot of gross inconveniences --- they never say anything about changes everyone could easily SEE ---- because there aren't any.

What a pile of nothing.
 
A team of 'scientists' were sent to the Arctic to verify these findings.















They all froze to death.
 
I am doing cold hard calculations


Where?

Making unsupported claims is not "doing cold hard calculations".

Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community here. We require evidence, and you only supply emotion.


Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it fucking IS.

1621182945053.png


dRF=5.35ln(420/280) = 2.1692 W/m^2

2.169238328 W/m^2 x 0.75 C deg / W/m^2 = 1.6269 C deg

So why didn't the temperature rise by 1.6269 C deg when CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 420 ppm?

Why did temperature only rise by 0.8 C deg?



1621183348321.png
 
Just to be clear here, Crick ... that is the graph that you believe that shows that man is responsible for causing earth's temperature to rise, right? And that is the formula you believe accurately calculates the radiative forcing of CO2, right?

I'm not misstating anything am I?
 
And according to IPCC's belief that there should be a positive feedback the temperature should have actually risen by more than 1.6269 C deg, right?

So since the actual temperature was less than that predicted from radiative forcing alone, what does that tell you about feedback?

Could it be that there was possibly a negative feedback instead of a positive feedback?

Now is the time for Crick mamooth and Grumblenuts to provide an explanation, if they have one.
 
Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.

You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it fucking IS.

I don't recall your explanation of how "Mike's Nature Trick" made the data more accurate.
If you get a chance, please do so.
It'd be much appreciated.
 

Your HolyIceAge never arrives, and the fast warming continues inexorably, but that doesn't diminish your religious zeal. As is the case with every doomsday cult, whenever your frozen doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more.
Your problem is that things seem to be just staying the same. No Ice Age, no Cooked Earth.

I notice that the Global Warming fanatics always choose something to point at that nobody normal can see, like icebergs, or glaciers, or polar bears, to pretend that the World Is Coming to An End unless we raise taxes and put in a whole lot of gross inconveniences --- they never say anything about changes everyone could easily SEE ---- because there aren't any.

What a pile of nothing.
This graph includes temperature data from where YOU live as well as where ALL the "NORMAL" people live. This is NOT "just staying the same"

1621195863454.png
 

Your HolyIceAge never arrives, and the fast warming continues inexorably, but that doesn't diminish your religious zeal. As is the case with every doomsday cult, whenever your frozen doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more.
Your problem is that things seem to be just staying the same. No Ice Age, no Cooked Earth.

I notice that the Global Warming fanatics always choose something to point at that nobody normal can see, like icebergs, or glaciers, or polar bears, to pretend that the World Is Coming to An End unless we raise taxes and put in a whole lot of gross inconveniences --- they never say anything about changes everyone could easily SEE ---- because there aren't any.

What a pile of nothing.
This graph includes temperature data from where YOU live as well as where ALL the "NORMAL" people live. This is NOT "just staying the same"

View attachment 490248
Try using microdegrees instead of tenths --- I bet you could get a great hockeystick graph going straight up. It wouldn't mean anything, just like this one, but you global warming types don't care, as long as you can propagandize.

Yeah, they are always talking about HUGE WARMING of areas of the Earth no one can get to, no one can see --- in addition to glaciers, icebergs, polar bears, they have cornered the market on Antarctica ice shelves falling off. Big as Rhode Island! Big as Manhattan!! Nothing ever comes of it, and ice has been falling off both polar areas since the world was young, but maybe you can worry someone, if they aren't too smart.
 
1621195863454-png.490248

1.6269 C deg
Okay, time to watch the dingbat eat crow again.. :popcorn:
Why would I need to eat crow. You got it a little closer but you are still 0.4 C below the predicted associated temperature and that's without the so called positive feedback. So where is the missing 0.4 C.

That's a 25% error WITHOUT positive feedbacks. How much of an additional temperature increase was there supposed to be because of positive feedbacks? Cause we would need to add that error into it to, right?
 
1621195863454-png.490248

1.6269 C deg
Okay, time to watch the dingbat eat crow again.. :popcorn:

Hint, hint:
A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.
Of course... if you were wondering what they call the zero temperature reference, it kind of destroys your argument cause the actual gain is less than 1C. You cherry pickers crack me up.


1621199766136.png
 
Less than a 1C rise in associated temperature for an atmospheric CO2 change from 280 ppm to 420 ppm.

Where is the missing heat?????
 
Oop, climate scientist poser still off the rails.. try actual Climate Change for a change, son!
Stay tuned for likely more episodes of "As The Dingbat Squirms" or "Watch Shameless Deniers Deny The Bleeding Obvious"

Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg
 
Oop, climate scientist poser still off the rails.. try actual Climate Change for a change, son!
Stay tuned for likely more episodes of "As The Dingbat Squirms" or "Watch Shameless Deniers Deny The Bleeding Obvious"

Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg
So you want to use an 1880 reference and pick the lowest temperature from the decade of 1880? You are still 0.4C short, dummy. And that's without any of the predicted positive feedbacks.

So where is the missing heat?
 
1621205865104.png


Less than a 1C rise in associated temperature for an atmospheric CO2 change from 280 ppm to 420 ppm.

Where is the missing heat, Grumblenuts ????
 
1621182945053.png



dRF=5.35ln(420/280) = 2.1692 W/m^2

2.169238328 W/m^2 x 0.75 C deg / W/m^2 = 1.6269 C deg

So why didn't the temperature rise by 1.6269 C deg when CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 420 ppm?

Why Grumblenuts , why?
 
Why would I need to eat crow. You got it a little closer but you are still 0.4 C below the predicted associated temperature and that's without the so called positive feedback. So where is the missing 0.4 C.
No idea why you imagine your one stupid calculation could demonstrate a damned thing, but at least you're on record now admitting that the bulk of the anomalous warming indicated in the charts is likely due to human activity (AGW). No returning to blanket denials for you, son.
 
The big oil big lie g o p is the only political party in the world the denies global warming. You have to be a total moron to be able to ignore all the evidence. Or listen to Fox etc....
 
So you want to use an 1880 reference and pick the lowest temperature from the decade of 1880?
The linked source is Wikipedia which provides its sources in turn. You, otoh, are not a source. But even a glance at one of your shared charts shows that 1880 is neither the beginning of the Industrial Revolution nor the lowest temperature they could have chosen. Read the linked article if you really wish to know why they chose to start that one chart in 1880, jackass.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top