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.
Actual predictions by climate science that have NOT failedYou are doing great Patriot, but he is too far gone to rationally understand how you used his own words to destroy him because he never thinks beyond the end of his nose.
Meanwhile here is an useful prediction page to catch up on at Watts Up With That? that shows new predictions come online while they show older ones that failed all in detail and direct links to predictions it is the definitive expose of failed prediction to see.
Failed Prediction Timeline
LINK
Actual predictions by climate science that have NOT failed
1) CO2 levels will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with fossil fuel usage
2) Global temperatures will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with CO2 levels.
3) There will be deleterious effects on the Earth's flora and fauna from the unprecedentedly rapid temperature increase.
You fools cannot deny these basics facts. God you fuckers are STUPID.
I blame the trees and animals with gas, would eliminating them ease the pain at all?...this is all about the price tagActual predictions by climate science that have NOT failed
1) CO2 levels will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with fossil fuel usage
2) Global temperatures will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with CO2 levels.
so as "a prediction that has not failed" this has already occurred?3) There will be deleterious effects on the Earth's flora and fauna from the unprecedentedly rapid temperature increase.
how bad will the language and name calling get if you are denied access to the vault?You fools cannot deny these basics facts. God you fuckers are STUPID.
The trees and animals are not responsible for the increase in CO2. Isotopic analysis shows that the excess originated from the combustion of fossil fuels. If you need that explained, just let me know.I blame the trees and animals with gas, would eliminating them ease the pain at all?...this is all about the price tag
Yes.so as "a prediction that has not failed" this has already occurred?
I have no idea what vault you're talking about.how bad will the language and name calling get if you are denied access to the vault?
How does this reconcile itself with the greenhouse effect? does the definition need amending? or will it go the way of "women" where we must consult science professionals to understand how plant growth is and is not destroying the planet?3) There will be deleterious effects on the Earth's flora and fauna from the unprecedentedly rapid temperature increase.
Actually I knew the whole "cow farts" thing was a hoax too, just needed a hoaxer to make the claim for me.The trees and animals are not responsible for the increase in CO2. Isotopic analysis shows that the excess originated from the combustion of fossil fuels. If you need that explained, just let me know.
so claiming it is "going to happen" is wrong.Yes.
then perhaps you should stop pretending to know what is really going on.I have no idea what vault you're talking about.
Actual predictions by climate science that have NOT failed
1) CO2 levels will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with fossil fuel usage
2) Global temperatures will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with CO2 levels.
3) There will be deleterious effects on the Earth's flora and fauna from the unprecedentedly rapid temperature increase.
You fools cannot deny these basics facts. God you fuckers are STUPID.
You are LYING and Misleading as usual and there is no Climate Emergency showing up.
NASA doesn't agree with you because the planet is VERY HAPPY for all the additional CO2 floating around in the air:
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
LINK
=================
No evidence of a developing Climate Emergency either which YOU and other climate cultists ignores over and over:
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
LINK
================
Fact: NO Hotspot exists.
Fact: NO Positive Feedback Loop exists.
Fact: Crop yields continues to increase.
Fact: NO developing Climate emergency exists.
Fact: CO2 at the 440 ppm level has negligible warm forcing left as this chart amply demonstrates.
View attachment 938568
LINK
and this,
Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.
View attachment 938570
The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …
LINK
and this too showing that CO2 almost nothing left at the 400 ppm level and has been known since 1971 by published research.
3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturated
LINK
================
You have been wrong for years now.
And since it is cooler today with lower seas that ought to be your first clue that temperature is not a function of atmospheric CO2.the Same, the sea levels were 15 Metres Higher and Arctic summer temperatures were 14 degrees higher than the present day."..."
Actual predictions by climate science that have NOT failed
1) CO2 levels will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with fossil fuel usage
2) Global temperatures will continue to rise at unprecedented rates with CO2 levels.
3) There will be deleterious effects on the Earth's flora and fauna from the unprecedentedly rapid temperature increase.
You fools cannot deny these basics facts. God you fuckers are STUPID.
The lying is taking place on your side of this argument. This list of "predictions" include NOTHING from mainstream climate science. All of mine are.I noticed you ignored the link I posted which show actual predictions Faling badly, because your lying is stupid.
The planet has no emotions. The Earth's environment is a very complex system and this oversimplification ignores enormous amounts of damage being caused directly and indirectly by the rapidly increasing temperatures we are producing with our unchecked CO2 and methane emissions.1) The planet loves the CO2 increase very much as it fosters increase biota growth which is good for us.
The planet has no emotions. The rate of extinctions is hundreds if not thousands of times greater than the natural background rate and the vast majority are being caused by humans, many of those from the effects of global warming.2) The planet loves a warmer world as it expands the food supply for herbivores and predators.
Do you have any evidence that that greening has benefitted humans?3) No, the plants love it heck even parts of the Sahara are greening up.
From NASA you have repeatedly ignored because you want to remain ignorant and stupid:
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
LINK
What decline stopped after 2007?There have been a number of "climate scientists" who have made predictions that failed badly here is a link to a running list of predictions that have failed big time from the crop of AGW supporting scientists such as Zwally, Wadham, Belchen, Serreze, Maslowski, now they have gone very quiet as the decline stopped after 2007......
Ice Free Arctic Forecasts
LINK
Do you have any evidence that that greening has benefitted humans?
3) Do you have any evidence that that greening has benefitted humans?
4) What decline stopped after 2007?
And I responded. This graphic IS NOT the product of the IUCN and can found in NO IUCN resource anywhere. This was procuced by someone named Wrightstone. IUCN data show nothing but massively increasing extinction rates for all categories of animals over this time span. You've been informed of this yet you still publish this graph. That makes you a WILLFUL LIAR.For Crick,
1) Crick has no evidence to offer that CO2 and CH4 is damaging plants of the world and that Methane/CO2 is now a negligible factor in todays heat budget.
2) Crick has no evidence to offer to show because it doesn't exist, here is the official INTERNATIONAL organization that tracks Extinctions worldwide,
There’s no sign of the fabled “Sixth Wave Of Extinctions”.
View attachment 941521
I showed you this before even posted the link to show how a big a liar you are as there are over a dozen published papers referred in the paper showing that extinction rate is not increasing and misleading as well.
This isn't from IUCN either.
Where is this increase credited to atmospheric CO2 levels asshole?Here is a sample from the USDA LINK
Corn for grain production in 2023 was estimated at a record high 15.3 billion bushels, up 12 percent from the 2022 estimate. The average yield in the United States was estimated at a record high 177.3 bushels per acre, 3.9 bushels above the 2022 yield of 173.4 bushels per acre. Area harvested for grain was estimated at 86.5 million acres, up 10 percent from the 2022 estimate.
Sorghum: Grain production in 2023 was estimated at 318 million bushels, up 69 percent from the 2022 total. Planted area for 2023 was estimated at 7.20 million acres, up 14 percent from the previous year. Area harvested for grain, at 6.12 million acres, up 34 percent from 2022. Grain yield was estimated at 52.0 bushels per acre, up 10.9 bushels from 2022.
Rice: Production in 2023 totaled 218 million cwt, up 36 percent from the 2022 total. Planted area for 2022 was estimated at 2.89 million acres, up 30 percent from 2022. Area harvested, at 2.85 million acres, was up 32 percent from the previous crop year. The average yield for all United States rice was estimated at 7,649 pounds per acre, up 264 pounds from the 2022 average yield of 7,385 pounds per acre
LOL, you are so lazy as the well documented answer is in the link I provided this headline that was bolded and right in front of you,
Ice Free Arctic Forecasts
I have already posted many times showing the decline stopped after 2007 but your renowned Swiss cheese memory bank doesn't allow you to keep up with reality.
Was the arctic ever ice free?
Was the arctic ever ice free?
One hundred quadrillion years? I hope that was just being dramatic.Dinosaur fossils are found on Alaska's North Slope ≈ 100,000,000 million years ...
The bottom of Greenland's ice is 3 million years old at most.and here I'm defining "ice free" as no ice at sea level year round ... every summer all the ice at sea level melts ... everywhere ... "Look at the bones, man, look at the bones" ...
IIRC the bottom of Greenland's ice is 30 millions years old ... because before then all the ice melted every year ...
it proves that ice didn't exist. You are suggesting ice is needed. Why?One hundred quadrillion years? I hope that was just being dramatic.
so there is a base and it too was ice free. Why do you need it to have ice?The bottom of Greenland's ice is 3 million years old at most.
blows your nonsense up!"The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirms that the Greenland Ice Sheet melted and the island greened during a warm period likely within the last million years"
