You are comparing predictions of surface temperatures with actual atmosphere temperatures, how does that make any sense?
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Larue, are you being intentionally dishonest or are you that stupid?
The IPCC projections are for surface temperatures and you want to measure them by the temperatures in the clouds.
Its like in your HVAC job before you retired 40 years ago the clients came to you and said, 'mr johnny, our furnace won't turn off its 45ºC in here' and then you went and said 'don't be silly, I just measured the temperature outside and its 18ºC there, everything is fine'.
As you said:
You are comparing apples to oranges.
You are comparing the temperature in the clouds to projections for the temperature on the ground.
what is wrong with you?
they are not predictions of surface temperatures, they are predictions of temperature anomalies
look at the scale moron
was the average surface temperature 0.1 C in 1980?
was the average troposphere temperature 0.1 C in 1980?
you do not have a clue what you blither about
explain how an atmospheric gas CO2 can heat up the surface without heating up the atmosphere ?
do not forget to include an explanation of how your moron theory obeys the laws of thermodynamics, the Stephan- law and energy conservation
Last edited:
They are temperature anomalies of surface temperature, larue.
comparing temperature anomalies (change in temperature predicted by the models ) with temperature anomalies (change in temperature- observed by satellite / weather balloon data )
it is called a relative comparison
look at the scale, moron
Last edited:
comparing temperature anomalies (change in temperature) relative to a different reference
1979 = 0 as per Christy
1979 = looks to be -0.4 as per your fraudster Mann
you do not understand what you post
what a moron
You're doubling down on comparing apples to oranges using faulty old data, larue.
The IPCC projections are for anomalies in surface temperature readings and you keep posting a chart that uses troposphere data.
Not only that, but you only use old data as all new satellite troposphere shows the warming they would expect in the 0-10km of the troposphere.
How can you not understand this?
The information was mined from documents/citations on that website.
You can stop peddling misinformation now.
Wrong.
Its amazing how little you understand about academic searches are done, how that paper worked and where that information came from.
You'll love this study too.
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study
Anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month.
theconversation.com
Remember how people would say that people were dying after getting their covid vax's? It was like anyone who died afterwards for any reason, they believed it was attributed to the vaccine?
Remember that...still goes on to this day.
That's how you guys sound about climate change whenever there's a flood or forest fire.
Wrong.Wrong.
Its amazing how little you understand about academic searches are done, how that paper worked and where that information came from.
You'll love this study too.
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study
Anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month.
This info was mined from here:
https://clarivate.com/products/scie...and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/
A for-profit website as I mentioned.
You claimed 99.9% of scientists agree. You are peddling misinformation again. Stop it.
Every day your ignorance surprises me in new ways, skoob.
When you do a google search do you then declare that all the results are therefore google?
The info was confined to the contents of that single for-profit web site. Not a global search.
I don't expect a person with a grade school education to actually understand this, so just go have a popsicle and call it a day ok?
I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Or perhaps I hope that he will one day become rational.
You do realize that was a service that does global searches for academic papers, don't you?
Its like using google, when it worked, but as a better search engine dedicated to research.
None of the papers were hosted on that site.
Really? Does this sound like a free global search? How do you think data that is "entered by users" gets there if it was a global search like Google?
We are not using any of the LLM API endpoints directly but accessing it from a private space. This ensures that data entered by users in the query will not be accessible to any other party.
https://clarivate.com/products/scie...=Blog&utm_medium=Earned_Press#productfeatures
the issue is what you do not understand
anomalies are the change in temperature relative to a reference
its call a relative comparison and it is used extensively in time series analysis in business and science
have you never seen the consumer price index on a chart ?
gas price data, food price data , furniture price data, rent price data etc. etc. , all pegged to a reference
lots of different types of price data, all pegged to a time reference
explain how an Atmospheric Gas CO2 manages to heat up the surface faster than the Atmosphere ?
be sure to explain how your morons theory obeys the laws of Thermodynamics , the Stephan Law and conservation of energy
Confirmation
The Satellite data are experimental observations confirmed by 4 independent weather balloon data sets,
confirmation deems The Satellite experimental observations to be accurate and reliable
The failed climate models are an attempt to predict future data via an attempt to code physics theory into a computer program.
Predictions which cant replicate the past -- fail
Predictions which do not agree with other models -- fail. There is no way these bozos got the physics theory right when the distribution of Predictions is such a mess
Predictions which do not agree with other confirmed satellite/ weather balloon observations-- fail.
hmm.....independent confirmation vs. failures on multiple levels...... hmm
How can you not understand this?
well..........your decision to drop out of high school does explain a lot
Last edited:
Every day your ignorance surprises me, skoob.
You don't even understand what that quote means, do you?
