Scientist express horror as they see a 2.5 C increase in earth's temperature

[LeroyDumonde]

All these graphs were produced by a massage therapist.

Okay. But I notice that you didn't say that they were wrong. All the Left has is ad hominem attacks.

 

[ding]

Regarding ding's recycled farts here:

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

To cowardly to use the reply button?

There's no misunderstanding. The data is what the data is and the limitations of modeling are what the limitations of modeling are. Feel free to challenge the data, cuck.

 

[Crick]

Okay. But I notice that you didn't say that they were wrong. All the Left has is ad hominem attacks.

Most of them are completely irrelevant but give the uneducated the impression that they are meaningful in this context.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Most of them are completely irrelevant but give the uneducated the impression that they are meaningful in this context.

So when the data disagrees with climate hystericism the data is meaningless. Got it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

All these graphs were produced by a massage therapist.

He didn't make ANY of the chart you moron!

1) Made by Dr. Maue and shown on the

2024 Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE]​

blog.

2) Next chart is from Nature Magazine

3) Based on JLA made by Kyrie

4) Chris Martz made it and based on NOAA data.

5) Made by a scientist with link to the BOM database.

You fail....... yet again!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Most of them are completely irrelevant but give the uneducated the impression that they are meaningful in this context.

You LIE since it was a big deal when that massive 2005 Hurricane season came along then for the next few years the media and several warmist/alarmist blogs flogged it to the world as they pushed the apocalypse claims that it was caused by global warming, in last decade any major Hurricane making landfall is touted as evidence of climate change and so and on and on, you sure forget a lot.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Okay. But I notice that you didn't say that they were wrong. All the Left has is ad hominem attacks.

Crick fails to realize it created by a PHD scientist who studies Tropical storm development and more, the website source was right there, that is how stupid Crick is he attacks a person who didn't make them.

Hurricane Database Source and several other links.

Seen at Post 39

 

[ding]

So when the data disagrees with climate hystericism the data is meaningless. Got it.

The irony is the data they dismiss is literally empirical evidence of earth's climate and how our present landmass distribution affects the planet's climate. It's data that existed before AGW even became a thing. The idiocy of elevating models over empirical evidence is astonishing. But not surprising since they provide absolutely no context for today's climate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Grumblenuts]

There's no misunderstanding. The data is what the data is and the limitations of modeling are what the limitations of modeling are. Feel free to challenge the data, cuck.

Said and done, stupid. You quoted it. Targeted and direct from real climate scientists:

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

 

[Grumblenuts]

The idiocy of elevating models over empirical evidence is astonishing.

The idiocy is thinking Koch Industries paid liars like you earn being taken the slightest bit seriously.

 

[ding]

Said and done, stupid. You quoted it. Targeted and direct from real climate scientists:

RealClimate: A distraction due to errors, misunderstanding and misguided Norwegian statistics

RealClimate: A friend asked me if a discussion paper published on Statistics Norway’s website, ‘To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?’, was purposely timed for the next climate summit (COP28). I don’t know the answer to his question. But this discussion...

www.realclimate.org

Except it wasn't. There was absolutely no refuting the empirical climate data cited.

Glad to see you finally grew a pair of grumblenuts.

 

[ding]

The idiocy is thinking Koch Industries paid liars like you earn being taken the slightest bit seriously.

No one has paid me anything. Were you paid by someone? That must be where you are getting that from.

Debate the data, Dumbnuts.

 

[Crick]

So when the data disagrees with climate hystericism the data is meaningless. Got it.

Why do none of his graphs include simple global temperature? How about CO2 or methane levels? Sea level rise? Global ice mass balance? Ocean heat content?

There's a reason. Think real hard about it and you might figure out why.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Why do none of his graphs include simple global temperature? How about CO2 or methane levels? Sea level rise? Global ice mass balance? Ocean heat content?

There's a reason. Think real hard about it and you might figure out why.

You know that the global warming trend started thousands of years ago, right?

 

[Crick]

You know that the global warming trend started thousands of years ago, right?

No. I know that it did not and now I know that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

No. I know that it did not and now I know that you don't know what you're talking about.

It started about 20,000 years ago.

Paleoclimatology - Wikipedia

 

[Sunsettommy]

No. I know that it did not and now I know that you don't know what you're talking about.

As usual you are incorrect since the Minoan high it has been in slow decline over all ever since around 3,000 years long cooling trend. There are additional large charts in the link to view.

LINK

 

[Grumblenuts]

Except it wasn't.

Except it was despite your denials. And here's a bit regarding Sunsettommy's tiresome BS:

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

Way more than any of you psychotic liars deserve, paid or no.

 

[westwall]

Except it was despite your denials. And here's a bit regarding Sunsettommy's tiresome BS:

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming

Way more than any of you psychotic liars deserve, paid or no.

The only liars being paid are YOUR people.