Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[otto105]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

 

[jc456]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

 

[SSDD]

well, never do we see any actual testing from the warmers, only the condescending comment of consensus!! We have consensus. They have that on a few scientists they chose to go to to get that consensus. What we want to see is their observation of fact to make that claim and when challenged for that material, all you get back is ...consensus. total bullshit. spit!!!!!

We have all the facts and consensus from actual scientists....you have a political belief that the Chinese cooked it up...

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Which part of that do you think supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? As I look at it, I don't see a thing there that actually supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate.

 

[otto105]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

 

[otto105]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Sunsettysonmething


Just because a rock fell off of a hill 3 million years ago doesn't explain why one fell off today.

I stand by what I posted and you have yet to provide any information that refutes the facts presented.

Translation:

I am a drooling science illiterate who can't make a reasoned reply, that is why I will duck the debate and make a fool of myself.

A reasoned debate?

You have 2 oil and gas geologists on one side and 98 actual climate scientists on the other.

And you want to debate?

still pwned.

Yup, I knew that I was dealing a South Park kid.

 

[daveman]

So, you prove that Hansen didn't make the prediction by proving he made the prediction.

Brilliant.

It's clear I'm going to have to help you out here.

Bob Weiss interviewed Hansen.

Hansen said 40 years after a doubling.

Some time later, in an interview with Salon, Weiss misremembered and said "Hansen said 20 years from now." That's Weiss talking, not Hansen. That's what you quoted.

Later, Weiss admits he screwed it up. Hansen agrees. Everyone agrees the actual statement was "40 years after a doubling."

Being Weiss is your source as well, you're kind of screwed. If you say he's reliable, then Hansen never made your prediction, because Weiss retracted it. If you say he's a fraud, then Hansen never made any prediction, because you can't trust Weiss on anything.

So, admit you were wrong, or shut the fuck up.

And when in a hole, stop digging.

Oh, I admit I got the timing of the prediction wrong. Really not a huge deal.

But you? You claim Hansen never said NYC was going to be underwater...when he most clearly and undeniably did.

But you'll never admit you were wrong. Cultists don't do that.

 

[daveman]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Reality says CO2 lags temperature changes.

Sorry to destroy your cult. Oh, well

 

[daveman]

Of course NYC has never experinced flooding.

Now you get to prove that those flood events are caused by climate change.

Oh, wait -- you can't.

 

[daveman]

And the CO2 at that layer traps most radiant heat from escaping.

Incorrect;

The sparse amount of CO2 at that altitude will stop nearly nothing in the LWIR band.

And nearly nothing is EXACTLY the amount needed to increase the temperature of the whole planet by 3 degrees. Remember that the energy from the sun is enormous, and once you start a feedback loop of accumulating heat, it builds up incredibly fast.

We are talking about installing a one way valve on a huge incoming radiation source.over the entire planet. And clearly no where but the upper troposphere matters at all because every where else in side the atmosphere, energy moves mostly by conduction or convection. It is ONLY at the edge of space where radiation is the only means of energy movement. And it is only CO2 that can work at those cold temperatures. And the fear is that if it gets hot enough, frozen methane hydrate on the ocean floor and arctic tundra will melt and release enough methane to make this boundary to space even more impervious to outgoing energy.

Hey, you know something cool about radiation? It goes in all directions. Towards the surface, and out into space. And at that altitude, there is more space visible from any single point than there is planet.

Wait...you didn't think it just went down into the gravity well, did you? Because that would be dumb.

 

[daveman]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Of course the prediction was made...gore didn’t make it though...the prediction was made by no less than Hansen himself....what a liar you are hairball...

Is it 2028 already?
My my, how time does fly.

And how many electric, hybrid, or other lower emissions cars have we switched to because of these predictions?
How much hotter would it be if the predictions had not been made and we had not reduced emissions?

Guess whoever gives you your opinion didn't tell you that making those batteries produces more CO2 than simply burning gas...the batteries don't break even on CO2 till they have been in operation longer than their life expectancy...there is more CO2 in the air because of electric cars.

It's actually much worse than that after you factor all the conversation and transmission losses into the equation. Given the state of the current power grid, electric cars are simply insane from any standpoint, especially environmental. Only a complete gullible dumbass would be suckered into buying one.

Electric cars don't eliminate pollution. They merely relocate the source.

 

[otto105]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Reality says CO2 lags temperature changes.

Sorry to destroy your cult. Oh, well

You have destroyed nothing.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide


Other than your credibility.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I rest my case.

An intelligent post would have actually debated my comment by providing actual observed data, but instead did what I said they do. too funny

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

Extremely likely means 99% certainty.


Got it.

The only thing that is extremely likely is that the models will run away from the real temperature and you will be left holding an empty bag.. Your modeling fails with 100% certainty. Thus you have no working knowledge of the system your purporting to be spot on.. You and the IPCC are making Wild Ass Guesses that you claim are scientific yet you can not articulate one verifiable, empirically observed fact that proves your assumptions..

You idiots bore me with your lies and deceptions...

 

[Billy_Bob]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Reality says CO2 lags temperature changes.

Sorry to destroy your cult. Oh, well

You have destroyed nothing.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov


Other than your credibility.

LOL... NASA's Carbon Dioxide myth has been busted and it is a fraud... Tell me where your beloved IPCC now rates CO2's ability to warm the atmosphere.. I'll wait...

You are aware that appeals to your authority are fallacy arguments, don't you?

 

[SSDD]

Consensus...what a laugh...which other branch of science offers up "consensus" as evidence that their mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer...none. Any other branch of science bombards you with evidence upon evidence upon evidence in support of their hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get name calling and "consensus...

I get a kick that that's all they got. nothing more. we say here's our data, and they'll come back.....consensus, fk off. the only reason one would stoop so low is that one has zero data to back up one's argument. I am comfortable with my position, and I am positive they ain't got shit for data.

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And, this statement right here is nonsense in its own wording.

"Scientific Consensus

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

extremely likely is not a tested theory. nor is it any word that should be used in a definition of Consensus. dude, it's hysterical. Obviously they had zip to use to qualify their statement.

Extremely likely means 99% certainty.


Got it.

The only thing that is extremely likely is that the models will run away from the real temperature and you will be left holding an empty bag.. Your modeling fails with 100% certainty. Thus you have no working knowledge of the system your purporting to be spot on.. You and the IPCC are making Wild Ass Guesses that you claim are scientific yet you can not articulate one verifiable, empirically observed fact that proves your assumptions..

You idiots bore me with your lies and deceptions...

I was reading yesterday that Glacier National Park is quietly removing the signs they had put up at some of the favorite viewing spots that the glacier would be gone by 2020. Chalk up yet another predictive failure of the unfalsifiable hypothesis....like I have said before...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues.

Climate Oops: National Park Begins Subtle Removal of "Gone by 2020" Signs After Glaciers Just Keep Not Being Gone

 

[SSDD]

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Reality says CO2 lags temperature changes.

Sorry to destroy your cult. Oh, well

You have destroyed nothing.

NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov


Other than your credibility.

LOL... NASA's Carbon Dioxide myth has been busted and it is a fraud... Tell me where your beloved IPCC now rates CO2's ability to warm the atmosphere.. I'll wait...

You are aware that appeals to your authority are fallacy arguments, don't you?

If they didn't have logical fallacy, they would have nothing at all.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice that Otto is STILL ignoring the NOAA data about Tornadoes in post 148

Notice that I exposed Otto's content free postings for they are, a science illiterate, who can't provide a reasoned reply to anything, in post 159

Otto who ignores the rebuttal evidence that NASA is lying and avoids a specific statement I ask him about that drives home the deliberate omission of data that destroys their snow argument in post 163. The statement he keeps dodging:

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

His TWO unsupported replies against sourced evidence I provided, on my post 163:

Otto writes,

"Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would? "

and,

"Sunsettysonmething


Just because a rock fell off of a hill 3 million years ago doesn't explain why one fell off today.

I stand by what I posted and you have yet to provide any information that refutes the facts presented."



The fool doesn't realize he is being exposed as a ignoramus who can't begin to make an argument along scientific lines on anything, but he did even worse than that when he reached Galaxy class stupidity.

 

[jc456]

Otto 105 writes,

Go right ahead and try to refute all this...

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Your link tries to convince anyone what is already well known, that climate is always in a state of change.

You post this because you think that it defends the AGW conjecture when it doesn't even come close. Your science illiteracy prevents you from seeing obvious errors deliberate or not, such as the first chart:

It is a lie since the RESOLUTION of the CO2 ice core data over 800 thousand years are very different from the Instrumental data.

This one is highly misleading because they don't tell you the true Spring snow baseline:

Decreased Snow Cover

• 
  
  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.

From Rutgers Snow Labs for Spring Snowfall:

Yes it has declined, but they started the chart during cold, expanding snow fall database time frame of the late 1960's. Meanwhile they didn't show the FALL and WINTER snow fall extent, gee I wonder why......, snicker. They did that because it destroys their vanishing snowfall claim, a very dishonest attempt they get away with because of small brained putz like YOU who have low critical thinking skills to draw from. Here are the Fall and Winter charts.

and,

Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up.

There are other problems with the NASA link you posted, but this is enough to show their presentation is misleading and dishonest, it was updated on May 28, 2019 which means they are now FLAT OUT LYING TOO YOU about their claims in the link. There have been much new information that flatly destroys their claims.

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

 

[otto105]

Dude, more moisture in the atmosphere do to warming means more precipitation.

Additionally, these graphs hardly disprove anything in regard to AGW. Why would you think that it would?

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

 

[jc456]

You once again have no argument to make, just baseless assertions.

The IPCC have PROJECTED that there would be LESS snow and more rain/freezing rain in the future, they stated this in 2001. Meanwhile here is an article to help educate you:

The Kevin Trenberth Effect: Pulling Science Back to the Dark Ages. Part two - The Big Snow Job

"Trenberth’s 1999 paper framing the effects of global warming on extreme precipitation declared, “With higher average temperatures in winter expected, more precipitation is likely to fall in the form of rain rather than snow, which will increase both soil moisture and run off, as noted by the IPCC (1996) and found in many models.” The 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment repeated those expectations stating, “Northern Hemisphere snow cover, permafrost, and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.” Soon climate scientists
like Dr. Viner proffered alarming scenarios that ‘children would no longer know what snow was’. Similarly in 2008 politicians like RFK Jr. warned DC children would be deprived of the fun of sledding due to global warming."

LINK

Your science illiteracy continues since the claim that increased moisture is the reason is silly when it still requires the freezing air to make this happen, which has been increasing as I pointed out,

Meanwhile you didn't address this statement because it calls NASA a liar about Snowfall extent.

"Now look hard at all three Charts and see one particular statistical importance that NASA didn't bother to bring up."

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

why don't you look up who they are?

 

[otto105]

Has the IPCC stopped developing its report? 2001?

Why not go back to some TIME report from the late 70's about the oncoming ice age....

the IPCC isn't a science organization, correct?

Wow, I assumed you knew what a scientist was....I guess I was wrong.

you are wrong for sure.

So, who is the workforce of the IPCC other than volunteer SCIENTISTS.


Now I know its hard for you to understand since you pull your information from political groups.

why don't you look up who they are?

Dude, you have nothing, stop digging.