The Planet is Heating Up Faster than Models Predict -- James Hansen

[Crick]

Ever hear of the term CANES in FLA???

LOL!!!!

I have been a resident of Florida since 1971 and I have NEVER heard a single person here EVER use the term "canes" to refer to hurricanes. Tell your psychologist about that.

 

[Flash]

 

[Crick]

View attachment 866355

<h2>No, global warming is not 50% of what CMIP6 models predict.</h2>

The title is a reference to a post by Dr Roy Spencer titled "An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict"...

moyhu.blogspot.com

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories.

blog.hotwhopper.com

Skeptical Science Search Results

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!!!


Funny how those torched in actual debate, who cannot refute any of what's been posted, resort to this type of name calling....

Still think wood takes 30k years to decompose in nature, Short Cock??

Still think the glacier was here for 30 million years? DURR

 

[ding]

<h2>No, global warming is not 50% of what CMIP6 models predict.</h2>

The title is a reference to a post by Dr Roy Spencer titled "An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict"...

moyhu.blogspot.com

Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories.

blog.hotwhopper.com

Skeptical Science Search Results

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

Are character assault arguments the only arguments you can make when it comes to data and information from Roy Spencer?

 

[Muhammed]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the OP fails to mention...

Not due to CO2...dOy.

Three Graphs That Show There Is No "Climate Crisis" | ZeroHedge

View attachment 864579

Oh look, a link you never read and don't understand.

 

[jc456]

Oh look, a link you never read and don't understand.

from the link

This graph is controversial, simply because estimates of CO2 concentration and temperature before thermometers were widely available – i.e., through 99.99% of the Earth’s history – must be estimated indirectly, by proxies such as ice cores, tree rings and isotope measurements.

If this graph of global temperature and CO2 concentration over the past 600 million years is approximately valid, it shows two things:

1. According to one expert, and as the far right point on the graph shows, “the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere today is the lowest in Earth history except for a period just following the end-Permian extinction event and very early in the Phanerozoic (that is, around 550 million years ago). [emphasis added]”
2. There is no correlation between the CO2 level and global temperature: when CO2 is high, temperature may be low, and vice versa.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh look, a video you didn't watch.

 

[ding]

Oh look, a video you didn't watch.

When are you going to tell us that you rely upon the experts to tell you when it's time to take a piss?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

 

[Muhammed]

Oh look, a video you didn't watch.

How did you come to that stupid conclusion?

I've watched it, therefore you are not talking about me. Who are you talking about?

You are obviously talking about yourself.

 

[jc456]

Oh look, a video you didn't watch.

what time in the video are you talking about?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How did you come to that stupid conclusion?

Because you didn't give any reason why anyone should click on it. Because you can't summarize anything from it.

See? Simple.

 

[Muhammed]

Because you didn't give any reason why anyone should click on it. Because you can't summarize anything from it.

See? Simple.

Your reasoning fails.

Just because I posted a video, that does not mean that I did not watch it, moron.

THINK!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your reasoning fails.

Just because I posted a video, that does not mean that I did not watch it, moron.

THINK!

I know. The fact that you obviously didn't watch it, don't understand it, and will not be summarizing any of it shows you didn't watch it.

And ever whiny response from you with none of the above strengthens my point.

 

[Muhammed]

I know. The fact that you obviously didn't watch it, don't understand it, and will not be summarizing any of it shows you didn't watch it.

And ever whiny response from you with none of the above strengthens my point.

Wow!

You really are so fucking stupid that you cannot comprehend why your reasoning is illogical.

Fuck off, DAN.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wow!

You really are so fucking stupid that you cannot comprehend why your reasoning is illogical.

There's another post. No understanding of the video. No reason given why anyone should bother to watch it.

I will just stand back and let you prove my point.

 

[Muhammed]

There's another post. No understanding of the video. No reason given why anyone should bother to watch it.

I will just stand back and let you prove my point.

That video really pisses you off.

Why does it piss you off, DAN?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That video really pisses you off.

Why does it piss you off, DAN?

Oh look, another post without content from the video.

As predicted.