Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.
So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.
I guess that makes sense.
NOT.
Use your brain for just one moment...the vast majority of temperature adjustments to the period prior to 1960 have been down and the vast majority of adjustments after 1959 have been upward.....don't you think that temps after 1959 should be adjusted downward if they are to be adjusted at all due to the increased urban heat island effect due to spreading urban areas?
And the fact that thousands are using it doesn't make it right, or good science. Can you say error cascade?
SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.
Even the IPCC acknowledges that the warming has stopped...only the true zealots are still claiming that temps have been rising.
The [IPCC] reports have documented a steadily increasing certainty among climate scientists that global warming is a human-made problem. Yet some public scepticism has persisted, especially in the United States."
Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002. The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports.
Global warming skeptics have seized on the news of a potential pause. The skeptical blog Jammie Wearing Fools wrote, "Fifteen years, no warming, yet we've endured nonstop hysteria in that time, with skeptics derisively called deniers, among other pejoratives. We'll be waiting even longer for the apologies."
He's certainly right about the last point. Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told National Geographic that focus on a global warming pause over the past 15 years is a "misplaced" distraction that misses the big picture. He said, "The IPCC and the issue of climate change is not about the weather next year or the next five years; it's about the long-term climate change that we are engendering."
Schmidt, who has not directly contributed to the IPCC report, added, "We know we're changing the climate. We're very confident in that, and not just temperature, but also pressure, rainfall, ice changes, shrinking of glaciers, and many other factors.
You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.
Why not? Are we back to "They're all crooks"? Try using your brain for just one moment.
The ones whose funding depends upon continued crisis? Are those the ones you are talking about?So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.
I guess that makes sense.
NOT.
Use your brain for just one moment...the vast majority of temperature adjustments to the period prior to 1960 have been down and the vast majority of adjustments after 1959 have been upward.....don't you think that temps after 1959 should be adjusted downward if they are to be adjusted at all due to the increased urban heat island effect due to spreading urban areas?
And the fact that thousands are using it doesn't make it right, or good science. Can you say error cascade?
You didn't address the thousands of climate scientists who use that data day in and day out who have had no complaint with the explanation that GISS and other temperature data sources have provided for the various adjustments they have made.
Why not? Are we back to "They're all crooks"? Try using your brain for just one moment.
=
Why? Because 2012 didn't warm up? You act like climate change just stopped completely and the IPCC is agreeing climate change is no more. You are pulling my leg aren't you? Using the IPCC to discredit climate change is like using Origin of Species to discredit Darwin. Sure, it noted a brief (or even longer lasting trend) of little to no warming but the report also acknowledges that basically man is responsible. I guess that's the part you refuse to accept huh? How convenient.
Direct satellite observations indicate that the Earth is still accumulating energy and the rate at which it is doing so is increasing. In light of that fact, explain how you're able to conclude AGW stopped or was never taking place.
No, not because 2012 didn't warm up....because it hasn't warmed up since 1997.
And try using your brain for just a minute....the models have deviated even further from observation....no tropospheric hot spot has developed as the hypothesis says it must...global sea ice is at record levels....no hurricaines....fewer wildfires...fewer tornadoes....fewer floods...and on and on in the face of IPCC predictions and yet, they claim to be even more confident that the hypothesis is right? Do you ever think at all?
This is simply mental FUCKING DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!
You act like since 1998 was such a record year (at the time) that it hasn't gotten hotter than that before.
data is saying directly the opposite of what I've been reading (I don't read blogs, I only read peer reviewed articles, interviews and professional lectures).
This isn't a matter of Your sources Versus Mine. It's that you pick and choose what's acceptable and try to cast doubt on the science by the idea of federal funding.
This is simply mental FUCKING DEMONSTRATES THE POINT YOU HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY because you accept TONS of BULL SHIT from conservative policy institutes/skeptical science propaganda literally, blogs (paid and unpaid), and conservatively funded studies that attempt to cast doubt and are the only kind in their field because they aren't reviewed by the same peers science considers peers!
joke about sea ice is dumb as hell. It's middle of winter in the relevant areas that tend to freeze.
You always make these remarks like you are a genius and I'm an idiot. Lay off your infallible hypothesis. You are very fallible. There are plenty of valid explanations for why Tornadoes in AMERICA are at their lowest. You simply lie flat out about floods, hurricanes and wildfires. Show me some data first of all about floods.
And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?
And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?
I can show you multiple reviews of the literature that show the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate papers supports the IPCC position.
How about you show us ONE review of the literature that shows anything different? Let's see some actual numbers as to how well your "incredibly large body of peer reviewed data" stacks up with the papers that FULLY support the IPCC.
Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next? There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer. Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away? To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?
And oddly enough, you remain unaware of the incredibly large body of peer reviewed data that finds that the IPCC is dead wrong at every turn. So who is cherrypicking?
I can show you multiple reviews of the literature that show the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed climate papers supports the IPCC position.
the initial creation of the CO2 reactive photon from the surface lowers the energy present and transfers momentum. sequential swaps of the photon between CO2 molecules have no lasting energy exchange until the photon escapes (energy lost, momentum roughly equal) or the photon returns to the surface (energy equal, roughly two units of momentum used).
Satellites say that the OLR is increasing at the ToA.
