https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/18/this-is-where-90-percent-of-glo

[jc456]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

 

[francoHFW]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

Ask a gd climatologist, idiot dupe, 99%+ of whom are behind GW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

DENIER!!!! Just drink the fucking Kool AID!!!

What is it with you fucking DENEIRS!!!!! always asking questions they can't answer??!?!?!?

Here, let me post a chart with no temperature axis

 

[jc456]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

Ask a gd climatologist, idiot dupe, 99%+ of whom are behind GW.

Ask a gd climatologist, idiot dupe, 99%+ of whom are behind GW

ooooohkay Frances, holy crap, me thinks you don't know what it is you're referencing. 99%. how can that be when the usual language is 97%? Shit where did you get the extra 2%? Funny stuff, I see you like to double down on lies.

How many scientists are out there? Do you have a count? Cause see to make that claim you must have the records. Do ya?

And I'm asking you gd cause you made the claim.

 

[jc456]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

DENIER!!!! Just drink the fucking Kool AID!!!

What is it with you fucking DENEIRS!!!!! always asking questions they can't answer??!?!?!?

Here, let me post a chart with no temperature axis

I wasn't ever that thirsty.
I can think for myself,
I can look thingies up on an internet.

 

[francoHFW]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

Ask a gd climatologist, idiot dupe, 99%+ of whom are behind GW.

Ask a gd climatologist, idiot dupe, 99%+ of whom are behind GW

ooooohkay Frances, holy crap, me thinks you don't know what it is you're referencing. 99%. how can that be when the usual language is 97%? Shit where did you get the extra 2%? Funny stuff, I see you like to double down on lies.

How many scientists are out there? Do you have a count? Cause see to make that claim you must have the records. Do ya?

And I'm asking you gd cause you made the claim.

97% is scientists in general, or more general, which includes a LOT of Big Oil, Coal etc etc etc bought off scum...

 

[francoHFW]

Frank you ignorant twit, why do people use water to put out fires? Why is their water in your car's radiator? Why do people jump in swimming pools on a hot summer day? I'm quite certain you don't know the answer, so please look it up. Type those questions into Google and READ the answers. And then think about how that might apply to the topic under discussion.

How does our modern 90% heat absorbing oceans differ from oceans past?

they weren't as hungry?

DENIER!!!! Just drink the fucking Kool AID!!!

What is it with you fucking DENEIRS!!!!! always asking questions they can't answer??!?!?!?

Here, let me post a chart with no temperature axis

The GOP is the only party in the modern world that denies GW, dupe. Change the channel. Try the BBC, Reuters, AP...Ay caramba.

 

[IanC]

this is an interesting IPCC graph. it has a history of evolution.

"
Figure 1
Much of what’s presented in the IPCC’s Figure 1.4 is misdirection. The models presented from the IPCC’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd Assessment Reports are considered obsolete, so the only imaginable reason the IPCC included them was to complicate the graph, redirecting the eye from the fact that the CMIP3/AR4 models performed poorly.
Regardless, what it boils down to is the climate scientists who prepared the draft of the IPCC AR5 presented the model-data comparison with the models and data aligned at 1990 (left-hand cell), and that version showed the global surface temperature data below the model ranges in recent years. Then, after the politicians met in Stockholm, that graph is replaced by the one in the right-hand cell. There they used the base years of 1961-1990 for the models and data, and they presented AR4 model outputs instead of a range. With all of those changes, the revised graph shows the data within the range of the models…but way down at the bottom edge with all of the models that showed the least amount of warming. Regardless of how the model-data is presented, the models looked bad…they just look worse in the original version.
"
my, my. sounds kinda like the Sou/Spencer argument over how to normalize the climate model output. but that was CMIP3/AR4. how has CMIP5/AR5 fared?

"
Based on von Storch et al. (2013) we would not expect the CMIP5 models to perform any better on a global basis. And they haven’t. See Figures 2 and 3. The graphs show the simulations of global surface temperatures. Included are the model mean for the 25 individual climate models stored in the CMIP5 archive, for the period of 1950 to 2035 (thin curves), and the mean of all of the models (thick red curve). Also illustrated is the average of GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global land plus sea surface temperatures from 1950 to 2012 (blue curve). In Figure 2, the models and data are presented as annual anomalies with the base years of 1961-1990, and in Figure 3, the models and data were zeroed at 1990.
"

hmmmm.....tough call whether they want to use normalized at 1990 or 61-90 baseline. both are pretty shitty.

 

[Crick]

And you believe that performance - particularly where your observed temperatures all precede the Karl et al 2015 work - is unacceptable Ian? Do you really look at that graph and say "these suck!"? Really?

Have you got some - perhaps some that make different assumptions about the climate's CO2 sensitivity, AGW and the greenhouse effect - that do better? Where are the 'successful' models - in denier judgement - that would show us where the world's climatologists have gotten it wrong Ian?

 

[IanC]

And you believe that performance - particularly where your observed temperatures all precede the Karl et al 2015 work - is unacceptable Ian? Do you really look at that graph and say "these suck!"? Really?

Have you got some - perhaps some that make different assumptions about the climate's CO2 sensitivity, AGW and the greenhouse effect - that do better? Where are the 'successful' models - in denier judgement - that would show us where the world's climatologists have gotten it wrong Ian?

you think Karl15 would change the observation data in a way that would be possible to see at that resolution?

remember, the graph uses an average of the 3 main land station datasets. and starts at 1950.

 

[Crick]

I was addressing your bottom two plots from the eminent scientist and massage therapist, Bob Tisdale. Karl's data from 2000 onwards would eliminate the only non-trivial deviation between model and observation on that entire plot.

 

[IanC]

I was addressing your bottom two plots from the eminent scientist and massage therapist, Bob Tisdale. Karl's data from 2000 onwards would eliminate the only non-trivial deviation between model and observation on that entire plot.

eyeballing the post 2000 part of that graph appears to show at most a 0.10 variation between the two versions. divide that in 3 because there are 3 datasets to average leaves about 0.03 or 0.04 at the very end.

the model lines appear to be about 1mm, the thicker dataset line about 1.5mm, the spacing for 0.5C is about 15mm, so the thick blue line is 0.05C equivalent . you are saying that a change of less that a line's thickness is going to fix the climate models? hahahahaha

 

[KissMy]

Lowest Ever: The Baltic Dry Index Plunges To 394 As Global Trade Grinds To A Standstill | Seeking Alpha

Basically? Virtually zero merchant ships crossing the Atlantic from the US to Europe!!



duh........wont ever see that on MSNBC!!!!

You are retarded! That index is the price of shipping, not the amount of cargo. Low oil price & excess shipping capacity drove down the price of shipping.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lowest Ever: The Baltic Dry Index Plunges To 394 As Global Trade Grinds To A Standstill | Seeking Alpha

Basically? Virtually zero merchant ships crossing the Atlantic from the US to Europe!!



duh........wont ever see that on MSNBC!!!!

You are retarded! That index is the price of shipping, not the amount of cargo. Low oil price & excess shipping capacity drove down the price of shipping.

That's right........clearly Im the asshole here!!!

Unlike stock and bond markets, the BDI "is totally devoid of speculative content," says Howard Simons, an economist and columnist at TheStreet.com. "People don't book freighters unless they have cargo to move."[12


Baltic Dry Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia