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.
Seeing as the full height of the Y-axis is 1.4C, that's an interesting take Ian
No, Honey Boo Boo, the Cult, including NOAA and NASA are unabashed about altering past data to fit their failed theory
Frank, do you think Ian was able to read a span of 8.5C off a graph with a vertical span of 1.4C?
And if NOAA and NASA are "unabashed about altering past data to fit their failed theory" then you must have an admission from them that that is what they are doing. Where is it fuckface?
it shows a 3.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 1982
it shows a 6.7C rise from 1890-1981 in 2002
it shows a 8.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 2014
an extra 5C added to the trend in a third of a century. that works out to 15C per century if the adjustments continue at the same rate. sorta gives a whole new meaning to 'man-made global warming'.
edit- thanks to Crick for pointing out that I skipped a decimal. it's only 1.5C per century. how much warming is expected, again?
it shows a 3.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 1982
it shows a 6.7C rise from 1890-1981 in 2002
it shows a 8.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 2014
an extra 5C added to the trend in a third of a century. that works out to 15C per century if the adjustments continue at the same rate. sorta gives a whole new meaning to 'man-made global warming'.
edit- thanks to Crick for pointing out that I skipped a decimal. it's only 1.5C per century. how much warming is expected, again?
Can you explain to us how you could have typed "15C" and not had reality check alarms going off in your head?
That graph, like all the graphs in that set, were intended to show that mainstream GCMs have worked far, far better than many of the fools here would like us to believe. That Hansen's projections from 1982 are still holding close to actual measurements is an astounding testament to the validity of well-made GCMs.
When you have a confession from someone at NOAA, NASA, GISS, Hadley, NCDC or any of the other data holders, that they have manipulated data to falsify the magnitude of global warming, or even a few actual climate scientists making that same charge, let us know. Until then, the claim that any adjustment of the data in the direction you don't like is, in and entirely of itself, evidence of deceptive manipulation is become tiresome. It should embarrass you to make it Ian.
And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?
Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.
Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
LOL. Ian, you bias is so great that you automatically adjust even the reading of a simple graph to fit your bias. That error concerning the y-axis was very telling.
It's called a typo, dipshit. Can you explain why NASA and NOAA adjusted previous data?
LOL. Ian, you bias is so great that you automatically adjust even the reading of a simple graph to fit your bias. That error concerning the y-axis was very telling.
And you offer no explanation as to why the 1890 temperature were reduced?
And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?
Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.
Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
It's called a typo, dipshit. Can you explain why NASA and NOAA adjusted previous data?
It's a typo he repeated four times.
NASA and NOAA adjusted their data to make it more accurate. I've told you that repeatedly. Can you explain why, if they were falsifying the data, no climate scientists have ever noticed or complained? Are we back to the grand universal conspiracy theory again?
And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?
Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.
Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
Why, yes, Frank, they have a time machine. It has spinning wheels with zodiac symbols, lots of crystals and big fat capacitors. It's all very hush-hush. It was actually invented by Nikolai Tesla who used it to travel into the future and learn science way ahead of his own time. They say he actually learned how to make the time machine by traveling into the future and then returning to a time before he had built it and leaving himself notes. He found that time was not a straight linear thing but like a "big sphere full of wobbly-bobbly timey-whimey stuff". It's very complicated and you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it.
But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."
You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.
But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."
You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.
Here. Someone showing that the trace amounts of greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere are warming the planet
*************************************************************************************
The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).
As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.
If you'd like to show that you're smarter than Billy Bob, the resident atmospheric physicist, just read the whole abstract.
My word, but whatever name you post under, you are still one dumb fuck.And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?
Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.
Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
As is so consistently the case with you, you make grandiose assertions but are lacking in depth or support.
You are a denialist of reality.
The ridicule is directed at ass-wipes like algore, your fucking dishonest and ignorant cult leader.
The ridicule is directed at the fact that your petty little group of Faith-based believers finds it necessary to distort and falsify data.
As I noted earlier, climate may well be changing. YOUR data cannot reasonably be used as valid evidence of that proposition. BUT, even if the climate is changing (i.e, try specificity. Maybe you can stick to the thesis that it is getting warmer, not just "changing") YOUR silly theory has little to no explanatory power. We can agree that climate changes over time. (It always has and always will). But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."
You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.
My word, but whatever name you post under, you are still one dumb fuck.And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?
Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.
Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
As is so consistently the case with you, you make grandiose assertions but are lacking in depth or support.
You are a denialist of reality.
The ridicule is directed at ass-wipes like algore, your fucking dishonest and ignorant cult leader.
The ridicule is directed at the fact that your petty little group of Faith-based believers finds it necessary to distort and falsify data.
As I noted earlier, climate may well be changing. YOUR data cannot reasonably be used as valid evidence of that proposition. BUT, even if the climate is changing (i.e, try specificity. Maybe you can stick to the thesis that it is getting warmer, not just "changing") YOUR silly theory has little to no explanatory power. We can agree that climate changes over time. (It always has and always will). But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."
You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.
I have posted the latest science from the scientists themselves on threads in this board. All you have posted is nonsensical flapyap.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.
