Global Warming? Where?

You've seen it before and you will see it again. Read the text following In panel (b) down in the caption. The TEMPERATURE values in the upper right of this graphic ARE based on an impulse response function.

View attachment 857440
1699835589945.png


IMG_8021.jpeg

In 10 days is Thanksgiving. NWS uses around 30 computer forecast models and right now they say Turkey day can be warm, or cold, and it may be dry. Or very wet. Wind will be calm. Or very windy.


So….. you want us to believe a manmade computer program written by people who’s only interest is to create a false scenario of doom and gloom.
 
They tend to ignore where it is cooling.... Only areas where it is warm are a problem...

They tend to ignore anything that doesn't fit their narrative ... there will be "heat waves" in winter and "cold spells" in summer ... that's just how statistics work ... reduce your sample pool to drive up percentages ... how liars use statistics ...
 
They tend to ignore anything that doesn't fit their narrative ... there will be "heat waves" in winter and "cold spells" in summer ... that's just how statistics work ... reduce your sample pool to drive up percentages ... how liars use statistics ...
CO2 will be responsible for the collapse of the AMOC and plunging northern hemisphere temperatures.
 
CO2 will be responsible for the collapse of the AMOC and plunging northern hemisphere temperatures.

No, silly, CO2 is collapsing the West Antarctic Ice Sheet ... it's methane that's disrupting the AMOC ... sheesh ... can't you keep these crackpot theories straight ...

What next, the whistle in Frodo's magic ring was a hare flat? ...
 
I believe climate scientists need to have humility and healthy skepticism, instead they are fanatics who insist on their righteousness and act like Climatic Jihadists.

Moreover we have the bizarre, inconsistent solution that always exempts the planets supposed biggest emitter of CO2, China
A very scientific approach to data, fer shure.
 
You know, I've been studying this a very long time. I keep asking the same basic question: show us the expected temperature increase by controlling for CO2. We're talking about 120PPM variance over 150 years, which is allegedly all manmade. Assume you're right (and you're not right that it's all manmade) show us the money shot!

I believe climate scientists need to have humility and healthy skepticism, instead they are fanatics who insist on their righteousness and act like Climatic Jihadists.

Moreover we have the bizarre, inconsistent solution that always exempts the planets supposed biggest emitter of CO2, China
They don’t care about China because they can’t milk China for money - the only driver of the Gorebal warming scam.
 
That's not universally believed ... some think the flat Earth's surface temperature doesn't change ... and that precipitation is safely ignored ... they have magic forces ... woo woo ...
Clearly anthropogenic CO2 has magical properties. All other GHG in the atmosphere in their entirety are only 44% efficient in trapping heat. But according to the climate nazis anthropogenic CO2 magically is 500% efficient at trapping heat.
 
Clearly anthropogenic CO2 has magical properties. All other GHG in the atmosphere in their entirety are only 44% efficient in trapping heat. But according to the climate nazis anthropogenic CO2 magically is 500% efficient at trapping heat.

Not Chinese CO2.
 
Clearly anthropogenic CO2 has magical properties. All other GHG in the atmosphere in their entirety are only 44% efficient in trapping heat. But according to the climate nazis anthropogenic CO2 magically is 500% efficient at trapping heat.

There you go again ... using math ... you know perfectly well that confuses liberals ...

21,000 joules of energy to evaporate the average 10 grams of water in every kilogram of air ... only 1,000 joules to raise the temperature 1ºC ... [quivers] ... I love it when I talk dirty ...


Homework at bottom of link due this Friday ...
 
Last edited:
I have demonstrated on multiple occasions that I know the scientific method and the value of honesty far, far better than do you.
than why can't you ever address a question honestly? Do you have a name of an actual climate scientist that has signed the IPCC report? One. Shouldn't be that hard to be honest and put that name up here!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top