Did Obama Tell You Folks It Snowed While He Was In Alaska? No!

[skookerasbil]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

 

[threegoofs]

What assholes in here.....we are heading at light speed to post-democracy and to a global collectivism.........and these lunatic global warming alarmists cant wait to embrace it.

You sure you don't need a medication refill?

Sorry if you can't envision a solution for AGW that isnt ' collectivist'.

But maybe that's more of a reflection of the fact your ideology can't solve problems.

You fucking dummy...........I don't have an ideology......that's the whole point!!!


]

I think you meant to say that you have no 'ideas'.

Those require higher thinking skills.

 

[threegoofs]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

 

[skookerasbil]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

View attachment 49602

meh


I only care who's winning..................


More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!! | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Nobody cares about the science!!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

How does the fact that it snows in Alaska relate to the fact that the climate is getting warmer, and rapidly getting warmer at high latitudes?

you do understand that from April to September the northern hemisphere gets much sun. Isn't it amazing that the warm temperatures are during that period of time. Hmmmmmm, the sun, that yellow ball in the sky. BTW, that's been happening before man got on the planet. It's also why there are no longer miles of ice in the US. It melted. funny how the sun causes that?

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

 

[jc456]

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

Figure 5. Time series of total column vapor anomaly, averaged over the world's oceans, from 60S to 60N.

Fig. 3. Northern Polar (55N to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. For this latitude band, the observations remain withing the model envelope.

Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.

World of Change: Global Temperatures : Feature Articles

Yep, quite a differance. Although the RSS does back up the fact that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world. Also, that the stratosphere is rapidly cooling.

I love it.. Your own Model's show that REALITY IS OUTSIDE OF THE MODEL PROJECTIONS.. And yet with them showing that you are a liar, you still use them... Priceless!

No, the first three graphs are from RSS. The last one is from RSS, Met Hadley, NOAA, and the Japanese Meteorlogical Agency. A very serious discrepancy between RSS and the last three. Now the UAH graph looks more like the latter one. Still, not in total agreement. So we will see how this plays out.

didn't someone on here say 18 years? Look at that first graph (global oceans) and draw your line right to left to 1998. Hmmm, seems like a pause to me. But hey, you keep trying to fool somebody, ain't me though.

 

[jc456]

Old Rocks could list hundreds of published climates who accept AGW with two clicks. You'd have a difficult time finding two who support your point of view. Why that doesn't tell you something is wrong with the conclusions you've chosen to hold is why we don't give you much heed..

still waiting on the list crick. Haven't seen it. Only 79 scientists to date.

 

[jc456]

Another dimwit who knows more than the scientists that have studied the subject for decades.

The only "scientist" you know is Naomi Klein

Damn. As a silly old man going back to college to finish up a degree, at the young age of 71, while working full time, as of the 21st of this month, I will once again be rubbing shoulders, and taking instructions from real scientists. I have yet to run into one that states that AGW is wrong.

So, what is your scientific training, Bear? Did you finish high school? Any 200 courses in science? Really, what are your bona fides to be speaking as if you actually know something on this subject?

dude, I guess you have no family that at 71 you'd want to go to school. professional student, tells me you haven't learnt anything. Funny stuff. You keep posting this funny and I'll keep laughing, guaronteed

 

[jc456]

Old Rocks could list hundreds of published climates who accept AGW with two clicks. You'd have a difficult time finding two who support your point of view. Why that doesn't tell you something is wrong with the conclusions you've chosen to hold is why we don't give you much heed..

Actually, he could find two that support his view, Singer, now senile, and Lindzen. Both testified before Congress as to the harmlessness of tobacco. Pretty much both prostituted their credentials for corporate money from both the tobacco and fossil fuel corporations.

strawman, tobacco doesn't have anything to do with CO2 that I know.

 

[jc456]

Hundreds of years. We hope. The Arctic Ice and Jacobshaven Glacier both have given us quite a surprise at the speed they can melt. Let us hope that the Antarctic does not have a similiar surprise in store.

and yet there is still ice in the arctic, so surprise, it ain't gone. Keep thinking it though. again, funny stuff,

 

[jc456]

President Obama has asked Stephanie to do the worst possible thing. He has asked her, and the other 'Conservatives', to think, and research. And accept the truth, rather than the rants of obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords.

which most did and said.....yawnnnnnnnnn..global what?

 

[jc456]

President Obama has asked Stephanie to do the worst possible thing. He has asked her, and the other 'Conservatives', to think, and research. And accept the truth, rather than the rants of obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords.

Nobody needs to do research or study on the "science". It is shoved down the throats of Americans on a daily basis. What people need to research is the manifestation of automatically bowing to the "experts" on science and how it is used to shape a future world order........its is quite a systematic mindfuck folks...........and most don't know about it.............

But you listen to this man and all the dots connect..............global warming is part of the movement to control the sheeple! ( don't forget, global warming alarmists are amongst the most naïve people on the planet.....basically have the political IQ's of a small soap dish )




We are heading to massive government bureaucracies for decades now....................fucking dUh

I have a feeling your 'research' consists of watching you tube videos.

and yours? Al gore movies?

 

[jc456]

What assholes in here.....we are heading at light speed to post-democracy and to a global collectivism.........and these lunatic global warming alarmists cant wait to embrace it.

You sure you don't need a medication refill?

Sorry if you can't envision a solution for AGW that isnt ' collectivist'.

But maybe that's more of a reflection of the fact your ideology can't solve problems.

well, do you have a solution? Please, cause I haven't seen anything except requests for money.

 

[jc456]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

View attachment 49602

LOL..Judith Curry ten times the scientist of any rep you can post up. I love immaturity and jealousy.

 

[threegoofs]

How does the fact that it snows in Alaska relate to the fact that the climate is getting warmer, and rapidly getting warmer at high latitudes?

you do understand that from April to September the northern hemisphere gets much sun. Isn't it amazing that the warm temperatures are during that period of time. Hmmmmmm, the sun, that yellow ball in the sky. BTW, that's been happening before man got on the planet. It's also why there are no longer miles of ice in the US. It melted. funny how the sun causes that?

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

 

[jc456]

How does the fact that it snows in Alaska relate to the fact that the climate is getting warmer, and rapidly getting warmer at high latitudes?

you do understand that from April to September the northern hemisphere gets much sun. Isn't it amazing that the warm temperatures are during that period of time. Hmmmmmm, the sun, that yellow ball in the sky. BTW, that's been happening before man got on the planet. It's also why there are no longer miles of ice in the US. It melted. funny how the sun causes that?

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

 

[threegoofs]

How does the fact that it snows in Alaska relate to the fact that the climate is getting warmer, and rapidly getting warmer at high latitudes?

you do understand that from April to September the northern hemisphere gets much sun. Isn't it amazing that the warm temperatures are during that period of time. Hmmmmmm, the sun, that yellow ball in the sky. BTW, that's been happening before man got on the planet. It's also why there are no longer miles of ice in the US. It melted. funny how the sun causes that?

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

 

[jc456]

you do understand that from April to September the northern hemisphere gets much sun. Isn't it amazing that the warm temperatures are during that period of time. Hmmmmmm, the sun, that yellow ball in the sky. BTW, that's been happening before man got on the planet. It's also why there are no longer miles of ice in the US. It melted. funny how the sun causes that?

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

 

[threegoofs]

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

ahem.... so again. Look it up www.ipcc.ch

Im not here to do your homework for you.

 

[jc456]

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

ahem.... so again. Look it up www.ipcc.ch

Im not here to do your homework for you.

what you can't answer? Just so you know it's 1C for each doubling. That's it. Not what the IPCC report reports. Sorry, it just doesn't. Now you post up where you have evidence to prove the IPCC report and we're good.