2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says (Nullfying 10,000 "it's cold this morning" posts here)

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

We’ll just post the actual data that makes your point

.

There are no data that make its point because it makes everything up.

.

 

[elektra]

Because we (the planet, not just USA) still are using about the same amount Fossil fuels, and even if it slowly went down, CO2 is Cumulative and remains for 5-200 years in the atmosphere.

How come you don't know Either Fact?
Why am I talking to another 12 IQ clown like you who doesn't know the basics?
`

I asked abu afuk about solar and wind power being extremely expensive. abu afuk refuses or is too stupid to answer

CO2 is going up because we created a new heavy industry that is a new source of CO2. This new source of CO2 is the largest source of CO2 in the world.

Solar and Wind power manufacturing is this new source of CO2. Green Energy destroys the earth and makes the corporations, wall street, the federal reserve, and the politicians richer, by billions.

 

[abu afak]

A scientifically-trained peson would not even think that such data nulifies other data. What proves opposites, PROVES NOTHING

IN FACT, the following climate-related measures have stayed level or improved for the past 30–170 years:

• foliage productivity
• extinctions
• floods & droughts
• forest mass & tree cover
• coral reef island area
• mainland coastal area
• hurricane frequency & intensity
• tornadoes
• agricultural production
• weather fatalities
• weather economic damages

"Other Data" such as foliage/forest mass is Helped by the SAME increase in CO2 that Causes warming. It does NOT Prove one thing and Prove the opposite.
That's why it/they are called GREENHOUSE GASES which also indisputably cause temperature rise.
Your website admits sea level is rising and temp as well WITH the increase in GHGs
They also Chery Pick 'scientists/studies/sources and use ie, "UN predictions" and old studies. See one in below sequence one from 1971 when much later data is available.

But even then Here is a Big Consecutive Hunk of THEIR Data FOR actual Temp and CO2.
The rest such as you post, are other categories in which Some Correlate some do Not is just used to ambiguate. They do not "Prove" one thing and Prove the opposite. (Uneducated assertion)
Science/Scientific Theories do not deal in absolute "proof."
Only Math has absolute proof. They are validated by consistent observation and evidence over time.
ie, Evolution and Atomic theory are FACTS if not "proven."
Same with AGW:

- - - - - - - --
Justfacts:
[........]
* Natural processes emit about 770 billion metric tons of CO2 per year,[50] [51] [52] while human activities emit about 40 billion,[53] [54] or 5% of natural emissions.[55] Natural processes absorb the equivalent of all natural emissions plus about 52% of man-made emissions, leaving an Additional 19 Billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere each year.[56] [57] [58]

* Since the outset of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s,[59] the portion of the earth’s atmosphere that is comprised of carbon dioxide has increased from 0.028% to 0.041%, or by about 49%:

[60]

† In permafrost regions, perennial snow accumulations trap air bubbles that leave records of past airborne CO2 concentrations.[61] [62] [63] Because regional CO2 concentrations vary by less than 10 parts per million over the Earth, these local records are globally representative.[64] [65]

* Per a 1971 article in the journal Science coauthored by climatologist Stephen Schneider, who later created the journal Climatic Change and was a founding member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:[66]

[A]lthough the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[A]s more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off.

[T]he runaway greenhouse effect does not occur because the 15-μm CO2 band, which is the main source of absorption, “saturates,” and the addition of more CO2 does not substantially increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere.[67]

Global Temperature Changes​

Satellite Data​

* Instruments located on satellites can measure certain properties of oxygen that vary with temperature. Data from these instruments is used to calculate the average temperatures of different layers of the Earth’s atmosphere.[68] [69]

* The lowermost layer of the atmosphere, which is called the “lower troposphere,” ranges from ground level to about five miles (8 km) high.[70] [71] According to satellite data correlated and adjusted by the National Space Science and Technology Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville, the average temperature of the lower troposphere increased by 0.8ºF (0.5ºC) between the 1980s and the most-recent decade from 2013 to 2022:


[72] [73] [74]

* For reference, a temperature analysis of a borehole drilled on a glacier in Greenland found that the location was about 22ºF (12ºC) colder during the last ice age than it is now.[75]

* Sources of uncertainty in satellite-derived temperatures involve variations in satellite orbits, variations in measuring instruments, and variations in the calculations used to translate raw data into temperatures.[76] [77]

* A 2011 paper in the International Journal of Remote Sensing estimates that the accuracy of satellite-derived temperatures for the lower troposphere is “approaching” ±0.05ºF (0.03ºC) per decade, or ±0.18ºF (0.1ºC) over 30+ years.[78]

---

Surface Temperatures​

* According to temperature measurements taken near the Earth’s surface that are correlated and adjusted by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Earth’s average temperature warmed by 1.6ºF (0.9ºC) between the 1880s and the most-recent decade from 2013 to 2022:


[79]

* According to temperature measurements taken near the Earth’s surface that are correlated and adjusted by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the U.K., the Earth’s average temperature warmed by 2.0ºF (1.1ºC) between the 1850s and the most-recent decade from 2013 to 2022:


[80] [81] [82]

[......]
[......]


That's ALL a Contiguous hunk from Justfacts showing the CONSISTENT CO2 and Temp Rise, and acknowledging (perhaps wittingly/perhaps unwittingly) that it's from the Increased/unabsorbed/"Additional 19 Billion metric tons of CO2 we produce yearly."

`

 

[elektra]

"Other Data" such as foliage/forest mass is Helped by the SAME increase in CO2 that Causes warming. It does NOT Prove one thing and Prove the opposite.
That's why it/they are called GREENHOUSE GASES which also indisputably cause temperature rise.


But even then Here is a Big Consecutive Hunk of THEIR Data FOR actual Temp and CO2.
The rest such as you post, are other categories in which Some Correlate some do Not is just used to ambiguate. They do not "Prove" one thing and Prove the opposite. (Uneducated assertion)

abu afuk, your writing is pretty incoherent. abu afuk is blithering idiot

ambiguate? "The rest such as you post"???

abu afuk's sentences sound like a they being made by a moron that does not speak english, hence they are using a translator to translate poor grammar, making the sentence even more, unreadable.

 

[abu afak]

abu afuk, your writing is pretty incoherent. abu afuk is blithering idiot

ambiguate? "The rest such as you post"???

abu afuk's sentences sound like a they being made by a moron that does not speak english, hence they are using a translator to translate poor grammar, making the sentence even more, unreadable.

So again, No rebuttal from the Zero knowledge Elektra.
Just empty attack re the quite easily understood point (for everyone else) I made in my last.
`

 

[ding]

abu afuk, your writing is pretty incoherent. abu afuk is blithering idiot

ambiguate? "The rest such as you post"???

abu afuk's sentences sound like a they being made by a moron that does not speak english, hence they are using a translator to translate poor grammar, making the sentence even more, unreadable.

Exactly!!!

 

[elektra]

So again, No rebuttal from the Zero knowledge Elektra.
Just empty attack re the quite easily understood point (for everyone else) I made in my last.
`

hahahaha
your post is incoherent, it is written by an idiot, unreadable, not some dumb little grammar error, pure crap

 

[abu afak]

hahahaha
your post is incoherent, it is written by an idiot, unreadable, not some dumb little grammar error, pure crap

This was my post to you on the last page.
"Unreadable" or clear as a Bell?.. and you Could Not answer:

hey, how come solar and wind power are so expensive, and the level of CO2 has gone up since we began building giant solar farms and wind farms

Because we (the planet, not just USA) still are using about the same amount Fossil fuels, and even if it slowly went down, CO2 is Cumulative and remains for 5-200 years in the atmosphere.

How come you don't know Either Fact?
Why am I talking to another 12 IQ clown like you who doesn't know the basics?​

`

 

[elektra]

This was my post to you on the last page.
"Unreadable" or clear as a Bell?.. and you Could Not answer:

​

​

Because we (the planet, not just USA) still are using about the same amount Fossil fuels, and even if it slowly went down, CO2 is Cumulative and remains for 5-200 years in the atmosphere.​

​

How come you don't know Either Fact?​

Why am I talking to another 12 IQ clown like you who doesn't know the basics?​

`

I asked why solar and wind are so expensive, you say it is because CO2 is cumulative?

We see it is abu afuk that is the low IQ clown.

 

[abu afak]

I asked why solar and wind are so expensive, you say it is because CO2 is cumulative?

We see it is abu afuk that is the low IQ clown.

AND you also asked in the Same sentence: ""How Come...and the level of CO2 has gone up since we began building giant solar farms and wind farms" [?]

To which my post was a clear answer.
So you stand very readably answered/Porked.
As usual.
`

 

[elektra]

AND you also asked in the Same sentence: ""How Come...and the level of CO2 has gone up since we began building giant solar farms and wind farms" [?]

To which my post was a clear answer.
So you stand very readably answered/Porked.
As usual.
`

Yes, CO2 is going up, because of the construction of Solar and Wind. And according to Abu AFuk the CO2 accumulates for over a 100 years.

How then, is Solar and Wind an answer to CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere?

 

[abu afak]

Yes, CO2 is going up, because of the construction of Solar and Wind. And according to Abu AFuk the CO2 accumulates for over a 100 years.

How then, is Solar and Wind an answer to CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere?

CO2 and Temp were going up big WAY BEFORE Solar and Wind Construction.
You are So Full of shlt.
You don't want to speak the truth, you want to keep your political stance. (and you, as one of only 4 or 5 intelligent deniers) Knows you are wrong.
So it's really a Psych issue.
Just one of a huge number of people who can delude themselves to keep rooting for their Team/politics. (board-wide)
You don't want to be one of them 'Chicken little alarmists libs.'
`
`

 

[ding]

CO2 and Temp were going up big WAY BEFORE Solar and Wind Construction.
You are So Full of shlt.
You don't want to speak the truth, you want to keep your political stance. (and you, as one of only 4 or 5 intelligent deniers) Knows you are wrong.
So it's really a Psych issue.
Just one of a huge number of people who can delude themselves to keep rooting for their Team/politics. (board-wide)
You don't want to be one of them 'Chicken little alarmists libs.'
`
`

Temperatures are going up because the planet is in an interglacial period and has not yet reached the peak temperature which triggers glacial periods.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[elektra]

CO2 and Temp were going up big WAY BEFORE Solar and Wind Construction.
You are So Full of shlt.
You don't want to speak the truth, you want to keep your political stance. (and you, as one of only 4 or 5 intelligent deniers) Knows you are wrong.
So it's really a Psych issue.
Just one of a huge number of people who can delude themselves to keep rooting for their Team/politics. (board-wide)
You don't want to be one of them 'Chicken little alarmists libs.'

are you denying that the largest things being built in the world are not contributing to CO2

Sorry, but the largest heavy industry project in history is also the largest polluter.

Producing inefficient wind solar and geothermal, in counter productive

 

[abu afak]

are you denying that the largest things being built in the world are not contributing to CO2

Sorry, but the largest heavy industry project in history is also the largest polluter.

Producing inefficient wind solar and geothermal, in counter productive

No, you DISHONEST POS.
I said:
""CO2 and Temp were going up big WAY BEFORE Solar and Wind Construction.""
(Which had barely started in earnest before 2010) (the best cost scenarios cost not being lower until 2020)

You Can't answer honestly/without a twist OR you have to concede.
``

 

[abu afak]

Temperatures are going up because the planet is in an interglacial period and has not yet reached the peak temperature which triggers glacial periods.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

Several Lies and Misdirection tries.
1. The 'Vostok' Ice Core is NOT Air or land temp which are already hit Inter-glacial highs just this year.
(ice melt lags, protected by it's own bulk)

2. That high had previously been reached 6000 years ago and had come down steadily since.
It's only in the last 150-200 years we are we have started spectacular spike to new interglacial Highs... Reversing the Natural downtrend in Spectacularly Fast Unnatural rate.
(OUR CO2 increasing 100-200x faster than nature's)


Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

`

 

[ding]

Several Lies and Misdiredctions.
1. The 'Vostok' Ice Core is NOT Air, land or sea temp which are already hit Inter-glacial highs just this year.

2. That high had previously been reached 6000 years ago and had come down steadily since.
It's only in the last 150-200 years we are we have started spectacular spike to new interglacial Highs... Reversing the Natural downtrend in Spectacularly Fast Unnatural rate.
(OUR CO2 increasing 100-200x faster than nature's)


Marcott and the Death of Dishonest Drone Ding's "normal interglacial"

View attachment 860982

`

No lie. We are in an interglacial period and like previous interglacial periods once the temperature reaches the salinity and density thresholds heat transport from the Atlantic ocean to the arctic ocean will be disrupted. Additional factors are solar variability which affects wind patterns which affects ocean currents.

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

 

[elektra]

No, you DISHONEST POS.
I said:
""CO2 and Temp were going up big WAY BEFORE Solar and Wind Construction.""
(Which had barely started in earnest before 2010) (the best cost scenarios cost not being lower until 2020)

You Can't answer honestly/without a twist OR you have to concede.
``

I am talking about now, now the number one driver of CO2 is inefficient, expensive wind and solar.

Complete stupidity on Abu afuk's part to support green energy

 

[Crick]

.There are no data that make its point because it makes everything up.

.

Show us some evidence supporting that charge. Don't forget to cover your use of the word "everything".

 

[ding]

Show us some evidence supporting that charge. Don't forget to cover your use of the word "everything".

"...GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century. Some of the predictions from GCMs are accompanied by standard errors, as in statistical analysis. But since the GCMs are deterministic models one cannot interpret these standard errors in the same way as in statistics. GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately,models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability. The problem is that some of the variables representing sources of climate variability other than greenhouse gases are not properly controlled for during the calibrations. The resulting calibration of the climate sensitivity may therefore be biased. Further critical evaluations are given by several authors, such as Essex (2022)..."

"...As mentioned in the previous section climate can also change owing to internal processes within the climate system even without any variations in external forcings (chaos). In the GCMs the source of chaos is the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations. If the initial conditions are not known exactly for a dynamic model based on the Navier-Stokes relations the forecast trajectory will diverge from the actual one, and it is not necessarily the case that small perturbations have small effects. In fact, slightly different initial conditions can yield wildly different outputs..."

"...In order to assess the uncertainty due to internal variability, researchers use so-called ICE (Initial Condition Ensembles) simulations. This means that outputs of GCMs are simulated starting from slightly different initial conditions. As the climate system is chaotic, slightly different initial conditions lead to different trajectories..."

"...Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability ofthe GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the timeseries of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from theGCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2..."

"...Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2..."

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-milj...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf