PM Carney considers Canada a 'leader in climate change’

Frankfooter said:

You couldn't even understand the NASA video explanation for kids on the Greenhouse Effect, could you?

Click to expand...

1. i avoid propaganda
2. My scientific understanding is more advanced than video explanation propaganda for children,.

Repeating something idiotic over and over again won't make it true.

Click to expand...

A teacher once told me repetition helps children learn

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases drive the Greenhouse Effect which makes the planet warmer.

Click to expand...

CO2 (measured in part per million) is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

I post from NASA and the IPCC.
You post one 10 year old chart from someone under the pay of the oil$gas industry. .

Click to expand...

your appeal to authority is irrelevant
the facts do not lie

For some reason you think every single climatologist in every country in the world has been in a conspiracy through all kinds of governments over the last 50 years working on the same conspiracy. And only a handful of plucky old people under the pay of the oil$gas industry know the real truth.

Click to expand...

your unsubstantiated slander of any and all scientists who are sceptical is despicable, however irrelevant in determining scientific truth
the facts do not lie
scientific truth is determined by experimental observations , not by slander, not by appeals to authority, not by census opinion and not by propaganda budgets.

here are the experimental observations



the climate models are flawed.

gee i wonder why locking down almost half of the world population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent
the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

JohnLarue said:

1. i avoid propaganda
2. My scientific understanding is more advanced than video explanation propaganda for children,.

Click to expand...

You got the science wrong, buddy.
Even the kids video is too hard for you to understand.

A teacher once told me repetition helps children learn

Click to expand...

So how many times do we have to tell you that you are wrong?

CO2 (measured in part per million) is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

Click to expand...

Wrong!
Reread the NASA page until you understand it.

your appeal to authority is irrelevant
the facts do not lie

Click to expand...

Correct, the facts do not lie.
CO2 and temperature are rising as the IPCC projected.

The models were right, you've been wrong every single time.

here are the experimental observations

View attachment 549303

the climate models are flawed.

Click to expand...

No, those measurements were flawed, the models were fine.

gee i wonder why locking down almost half of the world population in 2020 had no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent
the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

Click to expand...

Wrong again, there are 7 countries that are already 100% renewables.
Greenhouse gases do drive the Greenhouse Effect.

Frankfooter said:

]You got the science wrong, buddy.

Click to expand...

no i did not
you are not my buddy

Even the kids video is too hard for you to understand.

Click to expand...

that propaganda is morally despicable and factual wrong

So how many times do we have to tell you that you are wrong?

Click to expand...

i see you require more repetition
here you go,
CO2 (measured in part per million) is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system than children

Wrong!
Reread the NASA page until you understand it.

Click to expand...

CO2 (measured in part per million) is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

Correct, the facts do not lie.
CO2 and temperature are rising as the IPCC projected.

Click to expand...

no they are not the experiment clearly shows they are not

The models were right, you've been wrong every single time.

Click to expand...

no
scientific truth is determined by experimental observations , not by slander, not by appeals to authority, not by census opinion and not by propaganda budgets.

here are the experimental observations

No, those measurements were flawed, the models were fine.

Click to expand...

no
the satellite measurements are verified against multiple Independent weather balloon data sets
verification by independent data is the highest quality of scientific verification
the satellite measurements are correct rock solid correct

and the satellite measurements are taken exactly where the Greenhouse Gas theory predicts warming should occur

Wrong again, there are 7 countries that are already 100% renewables.
Greenhouse gases do drive the Greenhouse Effect.

Click to expand...

you obviously do not understand the implications of the lock down experiment

here is the experiment
in 2020 the world locked down almost half of the population , dramatically reducing Anthropogenic activities that generate cO2

the observed results:: no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

you should think carefully about that experimental result as it unravels a whole lot more of the climate scan




no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent
the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system


the experimental results are clearly labelled as from NOAA

Are you going to claim NOAA is on big oils payroll?
Are you going to claim NOAA needs to watch your propaganda for children video ?

JohnLarue said:

that propaganda is morally despicable and factual wrong

Click to expand...

Amazing, you think the NASA kids page on the Greenhouse Effect is wrong and only you know better.

CO2 (measured in part per million) is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system than children

Click to expand...

Hmm, should I take my science from the great larue of NASA.
Tough choice.

CO2 (measured in part per million) is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

Click to expand...

Maybe if you tried it in a bigger font it wouldn't sound so stupid.
Your beliefs are as wacked as a flat earther or anti vaxxer.

As NASA says:

Carbon Dioxide - Earth Indicator

Click to expand...

Key Takeaway:
The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has increased sharply in the past 100 years as measured from the ground and from satellites. Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this increase has warmed the planet.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Frankfooter said:

Amazing, you think the NASA kids page on the Greenhouse Effect is wrong and only you know better.

Click to expand...

Hmm, should I take my science from the great larue of NASA.
Tough choice.

Click to expand...

Maybe if you tried it in a bigger font it wouldn't sound so stupid.
Your beliefs are as wacked as a flat earther or anti vaxxer

Click to expand...

.


scientific truth is determined by experimental observations , not by slander, not by appeals to authority, not by census opinion and not by propaganda budgets.

here are the experimental observations


the experimental results do not match the climate model predictions
the climate models and the theory programed into them are are flawed





in 2020 the world locked down almost half of the population , dramatically reducing Anthropogenic activities that generate cO2

the observed results: no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent
the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system




do not bother with your nonsense rhetoric
the facts do not lie

JohnLarue said:

.scientific truth is determined by experimental observations , not by slander, not by appeals to authority, not by census opinion and not by propaganda budgets.

here are the experimental observations

View attachment 549513

Click to expand...

Those are 10 year old data, in the troposphere over the tropics, where the data was found to be faulty due to ignoring orbital drift in the stats.
We are in a discussion about surface temperatures, but we will include both because you won't shut up about this one, 10 year old faulty chart.

First the surface temperatures, for those of us who live on the surface of the planet.



The experimental observations in the troposphere show the warming expected, for those of us who live in the clouds.

Frankfooter said:

Those are 10 year old data, in the troposphere over the tropics,

Click to expand...

in the troposphere over the tropics exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
re 10 year old data: the climate models were flawed in 2017 and remain flawed
the climate models run too hot
that will happen when there is an predetermined agenda and a pre-determined outcome

where the data was found to be faulty due to ignoring orbital drift in the stats.

Click to expand...

identified and resolved in 2004 , a full thirteen years prior to the 2017 graphic
i see you continue to recycle your propaganda talking points multiple times after they have been addressed multiple times.
that does not work with scientific issues
what is next on your recycled list of completely wrong propaganda

We are in a discussion about surface temperatures, but we will include both because you won't shut up about this one, 10 year old faulty chart.

Click to expand...

nope
in the troposphere over the tropics exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
re 10 year old data: the climate models were flawed in 2017 and remain flawed

re: shut up
true scientific discovery does not seek to shut up, silence or cancel opposing views , skepticism
in fact true scientific discovery welcome skepticism as it paves the way to the truth

The experimental observations in the troposphere show the warming expected, for those of us who live in the clouds.

Click to expand...

in the troposphere over the tropics exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
lets see what your propaganda shows


too funny

36 CMIP models vs 102 CMIP Models in the Christy Graphic - Where are the other 66 models . or are they only used for propaganda purposes

they plotted three separate observation lines, yet did not identify three separate observations data sets in the legend
no author is identified
who created this mess

the models are running hotter than the observations. surprize surprise

the lower two observation lines appear to be in agreement with each other, however there is no way to specifically identify which observation set they represent .. who created this mess graphic
lets use the same years as before for the two observations which are aligned with each other


hmm , much lower than the 0.155 C Degrees per decade for UAH as per the scientist (Dr. Roy Spenser) who collects the independently verified UAH satellite data
and much , much lower vs the full set of 102, flawed, propaganda producing climate models 0.28 C degrees per decade
and nowhere near the 0.3°C to 0.4°C per decade. the propaganda driving, totally irresponsible, never going to happen RCP 8.5 scenario

copied from your post

congratulations once again you prove there is no climate crisis

here is the real deal


the climate models are deeply flawed


i noticed you continue to avoid the Mauna Loa graphic

almost half of the world population in 2020 locked down and there was no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

AI Overview




Maurice Strong (1929–2015) was a Canadian diplomat and entrepreneur who pioneered global environmental governance, acting as a key architect for the UN's climate framework. He organized the 1972 Stockholm Conference, was the first UNEP executive director, and managed the 1992 Earth Summit, which laid the groundwork for the IPCC and UNFCCC.

Click to expand...

UNFCCC is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change



that is a pre-determined agenda and an evil agenda

JohnLarue said:

in the troposphere over the tropics exactly where the greenhouse gas theory predicts the warming should occur
re 10 year old data: the climate models were flawed in 2017 and remain flawed
the climate models run too hot
that will happen when there is an predetermined agenda and a pre-determined outcome

Click to expand...

The satellite data was flawed as UAH did not account for orbital drift.
You have to stick to the flawed data as the corrected numbers show the warming expected.
Your entire argument relies on this one chart of bad data.

This is the correct readings in the tropics, troposphere.

Click to expand...

You've been wrong every single year.
This is what the rising CO2 levels are doing.

Frankfooter said:

The satellite data was flawed as UAH did not account for orbital drift.

Click to expand...

you do not seem to understand the issue was identified and corrected in 2004 , 13 years before the 2017 Christy graphic
please confirm you understand 2017 is 13 years after 2004

You have to stick to the flawed data as the corrected numbers show the warming expected.
Your entire argument relies on this one chart of bad data.

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

www.carbonbrief.org

Click to expand...

'


you do not bother to read your own posts
from your link

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

Click to expand...

correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors,

Click to expand...

RSS is Not UAH

please confirm you understand RSS is Not UAH

This is the correct readings in the tropics, troposphere.

Click to expand...

Oh your 200th "chart'', this month

do you get a volume discount on propaganda charts as you seem to produce a lot of them
what does a good propaganda chart cost you these days?

this one will fail you as well because you do not read / understand what you post

lets have a look



#1 Tropical CMIP6 TMT - corrected

corrected , that is pretty ironic given how you complained to no end about corrections in the very same post
it would be funny if it were just a single incident, however you continuously make the same mistake of posting without reading and understanding what you are posting
Please confirm that you understand what credibility and accountability are ?

#2 lets look at the slopes of your super duper , hot off the press, ultra definitive, latest climate crisis screaming ''chart"


from a different one of your posts, the UAH displays 0.155 C degrees/ decade. well within the realm of natural variability

i do not know what you are doing to your "charts' but you keep on lowering the rate of the observations in C degrees per decade

congratulations once again you prove there is no climate crisis

you are solving global warming with your endless streams of "Charts" that you do not read carefully and obviously do not understand

#3.your super duper , hot off the press, ultra definitive, latest climate crisis screaming ''chart". now uses 24 CMIP models vs 102 CMIP Models in the Christy Graphic
your prior ''chart'' had 36 CMIP models vs 102 CMIP Models in the Christy Graphic - Where are the other 66 models . or are they only used for propaganda purposes

can you say biased, misleading cherry picking ?

#4
no author is identified
who created this mess ?

You've been wrong every single year.

Click to expand...

you have never been right

This is what the rising CO2 levels are doing.

Click to expand...

no
this what CO2 levels are doing


i noticed you continue to avoid the Mauna Loa graphic

almost half of the world population in 2020 locked down and there was no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system



and the climate models are flawed

[/QUOTE]

JohnLarue said:

you do not seem to understand the issue was identified and corrected in 2004 , 13 years before the 2017 Christy graphic
please confirm you understand 2017 is 13 years after 2004

Click to expand...

Wrong again, larue.
The paper that found the orbital drift issue came out in 2017 and fixed the data in your chart after it was posted.
That is why you won't post anything by Christy since 2017.
Read the article on the study.

'Here's a direct link to the 2017 study.

RSS is Not UAH

Click to expand...

You are hilarious, not only are you stuck with the one flawed UAH chart from Christy, you won't accept balloon data, satellite data or surface readings. You have one chart and that is the only chart you think is right, nothing since and nothing else from Christy. No RSS, no NASA, no NOAA, just the one chart from before the orbital drift issue was corrected.

Oh your 200th "chart'', this month

#1 Tropical CMIP6 TMT - corrected

corrected , that is pretty ironic given how you complained to no end about corrections in the very same post
it would be funny if it were just a single incident, however you continuously make the same mistake of posting without reading and understanding what you are posting
Please confirm that you understand what credibility and accountability are ?

Click to expand...

Yes, they found a flaw with UAH data that didn't account for orbital drift.

#3.your super duper , hot off the press, ultra definitive, latest climate crisis screaming ''chart". now uses 24 CMIP models vs 102 CMIP Models in the Christy Graphic
your prior ''chart'' had 36 CMIP models vs 102 CMIP Models in the Christy Graphic - Where are the other 66 models . or are they only used for propaganda purposes

Click to expand...

There are fewer model runs of troposphere warming and less for just tropical troposphere.
So?
You think you found a conspiracy?

Crazy that we've had a record cold winter in Toronto while the rest of the planet saw close to record warmth.

Frankfooter said:

Wrong again, larue.
The paper that found the orbital drift issue came out in 2017 and fixed the data in your chart after it was posted.

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

www.carbonbrief.org

.

Click to expand...

jesus

no, you are absolutely 100% wrong, once again

from the article

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

Click to expand...

RSS is not UAH




this is the post correction data and it stil shows the climate models running way too hot





now since you are so concerned about corrections why have the hot running climate models not been corrected

why has there not been an announcement retracting the inaccurate climate propaganda based on RCP 8.5 ????

You are hilarious, not only are you stuck with the one flawed UAH chart from Christy, you won't accept balloon data, satellite data or surface readings. You have one chart and that is the only chart you think is right, nothing since and nothing else from Christy. No RSS, no NASA, no NOAA, just the one chart from before the orbital drift issue was corrected.

Click to expand...

corrected before 2017

AI Overview


The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) has made multiple revisions and corrections to its satellite-based temperature dataset (Lower Troposphere - TLT) since it was first published in the early 1990s, addressing significant errors in, most notably,
1998, 2005, and 2015.

Click to expand...

the climate models are flawed

Yes, they found a flaw with UAH data that didn't account for orbital drift.

Click to expand...

corrected before 2017

AI Overview


The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) has made multiple revisions and corrections to its satellite-based temperature dataset (Lower Troposphere - TLT) since it was first published in the early 1990s, addressing significant errors in, most notably,
1998, 2005, and 2015.

Click to expand...

before 2017

There are fewer model runs of troposphere warming and less for just tropical troposphere.
So?
You think you found a conspiracy?

Click to expand...

you really do not have a clue what you blither about

climate models make predictions abut absolute temperature changes
the satellite data sets are not models and only measure actual results

it is amazing you still do not understand this

Crazy that we've had a record cold winter in Toronto while the rest of the planet saw close to record warmth.

Click to expand...

just another example of how you do not understand climate, climate is regional
according to the climate alarmists it is amazing children still get see snow anywhere

on to co2 levels



i noticed you continue to avoid the Mauna Loa graphic

almost half of the world population in 2020 locked down and there was no observable impact on the rate of C02 accumulation

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

JohnLarue said:

RSS is not UAH[

Click to expand...

The newer version of the UAH data agree fairly well with RSS V4.0 from 1979 to about 1998 over the entire globe, and warms slightly relative to RSS V4.0 in the tropics during this period. After 1998, the RSS version shows more warming than UAH V6.0 in both regions.

Christy adjusted to account for orbital decay in UAH V6.0, which is why you won't use the modern numbers.
But he also used a bullshit study to get the 0.3ºC projection you like to refer to.

Realclimate has it all.

The 1994 article is a short correspondence piece in Nature, where Christy and McNider analyzed MSU2R lower troposphere dataset and using ENSO and stratospheric volcanic effects to derive an ‘underlying’ global warming trend of 0.09 K/decade. This was to be compared with “warming rates of 0.3 to 0.4 K/decade” from models which was referenced to Manabe et al. (1991) and Boer et al. (1992). Hence the “one quarter” claim.

But lets dig deeper into each of those elements in turn. First, 1994 was pretty early on in terms of MSU science. The raw trend in the (then Version C) MSU2R record from 1979-1993 was -0.04 K/decade. [Remember ‘satellite cooling’?]. This was before Wentz and Schabel (1998) pointed out that orbital decay in the NOAA satellites was imparting a strong cooling bias (about 0.12 K/decade) on the MSU2R (TLT) record. Secondly, the two cited modeling papers don’t actually give an estimated warming trends for the 1980s and early 90s. The first is a transient model run using a canonical 1% increasing CO₂ – a standard experiment, but not one intended to match the real world growth of CO2 concentrations. The second model study is a simple equilibrium 2xCO2 run with the Canadian climate model, and does not report relevant transient warming rates at all. This odd referencing was pointed out in correspondence with Spencer and Christy by Hansen et al. (1995) who also noted that underlying model SAT trends for the relevant period were expected to be more like 0.1-0.15 K/decade. So the claim that the MSU temperatures were warming at “one quarter” the rate of the models wasn’t even valid in 1994. They might have more credibly claimed “two thirds” the rate, but the uncertainties are such that no such claim would have been robust (for instance, just the uncertainties on the linear regression alone are ~ +/-0.14 K/dec).

Replication of the Christy and McNider calculation and figure from 1994 but using the UAH v5.5 data.
But it gets worse. In 2014, McNider and Christy were well aware of the orbital decay correction (1998), and they were even aware of the diurnal drift correction that was needed because of a sign error introduced while trying to fix the orbital decay issue (discovered in 2005). The version of the MSU2R product at the beginning of 2014 was version 5.5, and that had a raw trend of -0.01 K/decade 1979-1993 (+/- 0.18 K/dec 95% CI, natch). Using an analogous methodology to that used in 1994 (see figure to the right), the underlying linear trend after accounting for ENSO and volcanic aerosols was…. 0.15 K/dec! Almost identical to the expected trend from models!

So not only was their original claim incorrect at the time, but had they repeated the analysis in 2014, their own updated data and method would have shown that there was no discrepancy at all.

Now in 2014, there was a longer record and more suitable models to compare to. Models had been run with appropriate volcanic forcings and in large enough ensembles that there was a quantified spread of expected trends. Comparisons could now be done in a more sophisticated away, that compared like with like and took account of many different elements of uncertainty (forcings, weather, structural effects in models and observations etc.). But McNider and Christy chose not to do that.

Instead, they chose to hide the structural uncertainty in the MSU retrievals (the TMT trends for 1979-2013 in UAH v5.5 and RSS v3.3 were 0.04 and 0.08 +/- 0.05 K/dec respectively – a factor of two different!), and ignore the spread in the CMIP5 models TMT trends [0.08,0.36] and graph it in a way as to maximise the visual disparity in a frankly misleading way. Additionally, they decided to highlight the slower warming TMT records instead of the TLT record they had discussed in 1994. For contrast, the UAH v5.5 TLT trends for 1979-2013 were 0.14± 0.05 K/dec.

But all these choices were made in the service of rhetoric, not science, to suggest that models are, and had always been, wrong, and that the UAH MSU data had always been right. A claim moreover that is totally backwards.

Frankfooter said:

Wrong again, larue.

Click to expand...

where is your 201st graph this month ?

did you rethink your rapid fire of 'charts' strategy after showing ever decreasing trendlines ? that was even funnier than your multiple mistakes earlier this week
you just pretended your latest screw up in a long line of screw ups never happened and you will just post the same charts latter, hoping nobody notices
your graphs displayed ever decreasing warming , yet you posted them thinking they were some strange evidence of a climate catastrophe

you clearly do not understand scientific principles, you do not read or understand what you post and you compensate with more non stop propaganda pieces
that's not working
it would be comical if it was not so disturbing to observe
its not working

just like all the expensive, and economically disruptive efforts to reduce ' carbon footprints' are not working
a trillion dollars spent on green nonsense and a 2020 lockdown of half the worlds population
and ,the result: no observable effect on the ever increasing co2 levels




no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

you refuse to acknowledge this good news, so what's your next plan, ?

JohnLarue said:

where is your 201st graph this month ?

did you rethink your rapid fire of 'charts' strategy after showing ever decreasing trendlines ?

Click to expand...

Surface warming is increasing, larue. We hit 1.5ºC and will hit 2ºC in less than a decade.
There are no 'decreasing trendlines'.
There is an endless side of charts and graphs for you, after all, 99.7% of scientists back the consesus.
There is a reason why you on have one chart.....

and ,the result: no observable effect on the ever increasing co2 levels

Click to expand...

View attachment 550032

no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system

you refuse to acknowledge this good news, so what's your next plan, ?

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you like to gloat about the oil$gas industry putting more pollutants in the air.

Frankfooter said:

Surface warming is increasing, larue. We hit 1.5ºC and will hit 2ºC in less than a decade.

Click to expand...

the surface temp record is a mess,

• incomplete,
• filled with errors that can not , will not be corrected
• its been fiddle with
• contaminate by the urban island heat effect

you are more likely measuring the rate of urban sprawl , rather than true actual global temperature increase over and above natural variability

natural variability did not suddenly stop in 1800

There are no 'decreasing trendlines'.

Click to expand...

yes you posted a series of graphs which comically showed less and less warming as your also reduced the number of flawed climate models

Thank you for the comic relief

There is an endless side of charts and graphs for you, after all, 99.7% of scientists back the consesus.

Click to expand...

experimental observations determine scientific truth, not consensus

There is a reason why you on have one chart.....

Click to expand...

because it displays the scientific observations
the climate models are flawed

I have no idea why you like to gloat about the oil$gas industry putting more pollutants in the air.

Click to expand...

it is not my fault you have no idea
i suggest you may consider your complete lack of scientific understand

i have provided you with the answer to that question multiple times

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system


a trillion dollars spent on green nonsense and a 2020 lockdown of half the worlds population
and ,the result: no observable effect on the ever increasing co2 levels
no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

JohnLarue said:

the surface temp record is a mess,

• incomplete,
• filled with errors that can not , will not be corrected
• its been fiddle with
• contaminate by the urban island heat effect

you are more likely measuring the rate of urban sprawl , rather than true actual global temperature increase over and above natural variability

natural variability did not suddenly stop in 1800

Click to expand...

Who cares what your feelings are about surface temperature. You also can't understand the kids level Greenhouse Effect.
Your views are incredibly scientifically illiterate and you insult all of science here daily.

experimental observations determine scientific truth, not consensus

Click to expand...

Yet you refuse to accept all experimental observations made in the last decade. You refuse to accept temperature, precipitation, extreme weather events, jet stream changes, sea surface temperature changes and any other measurements. The only thing you trust is one faulty and intentionally misleading chart from 10 years ago, despite it having been forgotten about after it was debunked when it came out. You hold on to one chart like its your bible and no facts can change your feelings about your one true chart.

because it displays the scientific observations
the climate models are flawed

View attachment 550127

Click to expand...

Buddy, you can't even understand the kids explanations of the Greenhouse Effect.
You should not be talking as if you think you are more of an expert on the climate than all of the IPCC and NASA.
Its idiotic.

Frankfooter said:

Who cares what your feelings are about surface temperature. You also can't understand the kids level Greenhouse Effect.

Click to expand...

they are not feelings they are facts
the physics involved is far more complicated and falsifies the children's propaganda you follow/ get mislead by

Your views are incredibly scientifically illiterate and you insult all of science here daily.

Click to expand...

look in the mirror when you say that

you have continually and constantly demonstrated that you have zero scientific education and zero scientific understanding
it would be a comedy show watching you pretend to be scientifically literate if it were not for your very disturbing compulsion to deliberately mislead others
you do not have one ounce of respect for science and zero understanding of scientific integrity

climate alarmism mascaraing as science is going to erode public trust in science
you will not care one tiny bit and will be oblivious to the damage the climate con has caused

[Yet you refuse to accept all experimental observations made in the last decade.

Click to expand...

hmm. from climate alarmists and activists who do not respect science and deliberately mislead others .

layer on the well know issues with the surface temperature data record
filled with errors
biased by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddle with

then layer on the dishonest, evil and mentally unbalanced behavior of climate alarmists
the bullshit hockey stick
the' 'hide the decline' tampering of data,
the reprehensible , evil, cancelling of skeptical scientists

and then layer on the insane position of the original lunatic who was instrumental in establishing the international structures (like UNEP) that led to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

AI Overview

Maurice Strong
(1929–2015) was a Canadian diplomat and entrepreneur who pioneered global environmental governance, acting as the first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and organizing the 1972 Stockholm Conference and 1992 Rio Earth Summit. While not the founder of the IPCC, he was instrumental in establishing the international structures (like UNEP) that led to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Click to expand...

yeah I reject your propaganda
if you has any sense you would see the tide has turned as more and more people are questioning the not only the ridiculous impossible climate solutions i.e. NetZero , carbon taxes, EV mandates etc, etc, etc, they are also questioning the propaganda





Did you really think you could fool a planetary population in perpetuity?

You refuse to accept temperature, precipitation, extreme weather events, jet stream changes, sea surface temperature changes and any other measurements.

Click to expand...

no i don't, physical measurements are what there are

however if the measurement data sets are incomplete, filled with errors, tainted by the urban island heat effect or fiddled with then absolutely they need to be reject

re; extreme weather events

the IPCC has explicitly stated the vast majority of extreme weather events show no indication of any trend beyond natural variability
including:

• River floods
• Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
• Landslides
• Drought (all types)
• Severe wind storms
• Tropical cyclones
• Sand and dust storms
• Heavy snowfall and ice storms
• Hail
• Snow avalanche
• Coastal flooding
• Marine heat waves

you know this as it has been shown to you many time

yet you you just wait a few days and then restate false claims about extreme weather that you know to be wrong
you do this over and over and over again
you do this on a daily basis

you destroy your credibility

The only thing you trust is one faulty and intentionally misleading chart from 10 years ago, despite it having been forgotten about after it was debunked when it came out. You hold on to one chart like its your bible and no facts can change your feelings about your one true chart.

Click to expand...

odd how the term ' debunked' was never taught in science

here is the proof the climate models are flawed along with all the climate propaganda based on those climate models

Buddy, you can't even understand the kids explanations of the Greenhouse Effect.

Click to expand...

a buddy is someone i respect
you are not my buddy

You should not be talking as if you think you are more of an expert on the climate than all of the IPCC and NASA.
Its idiotic.

Click to expand...

i have scientific understanding, you quite obviously do not

you are the very last person to tell anyone what they can or can not say
what is wrong with you ?


onto the co2 accumulation

i noticed you stay well clear of this ""chart""


a trillion dollars spent on green nonsense and a 2020 lockdown of half the worlds population
and ,the result: no observable effect on the ever increasing co2 levels
no amount of EVs, suspension of freedoms, renewables ,or sequestration is going to stop that accent

the good news is CO2 is not the control knob for our extremely complex , chaotic, non-linear, dynamic climate system


why you avoid this issue is obvious
it undermines your entire flawed narrative and eliminates the need for so called climate action

and the absence of a change in rate in 2020 has another implication for the failed climate alarmism
all in good time

JohnLarue said:

they are not feelings they are facts
the physics involved is far more complicated and falsifies the children's propaganda you follow/ get mislead by

Click to expand...

When you call kids explanations of science on NASA 'children's propaganda' that should be a clue that you are really screwed in the head.

you have continually and constantly demonstrated that you have zero scientific education and zero scientific understanding
it would be a comedy show watching you pretend to be scientifically literate if it were not for your very disturbing compulsion to deliberately mislead others
you do not have one ounce of respect for science and zero understanding of scientific integrity

climate alarmism mascaraing as science is going to erode public trust in science
you will not care one tiny bit and will be oblivious to the damage the climate con has caused

Click to expand...

Buddy, cut it out.
You slander the 99.7% of scientists who stand with the IPCC and their findings.
You can't understand the Greenhouse Effect and have declared yourself smarter than everyone else in some kind of Dunning Kruger fantasy.





h

mm. from climate alarmists and activists who do not respect science and deliberately mislead others .

layer on the well know issues with the surface temperature data record
filled with errors
biased by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddle with

then layer on the dishonest, evil and mentally unbalanced behavior of climate alarmists
the bullshit hockey stick
the' 'hide the decline' tampering of data,
the reprehensible , evil, cancelling of skeptical scientists

and then layer on the insane position of the original lunatic who was instrumental in establishing the international structures (like UNEP) that led to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Click to expand...

Your entire post is you ranting about how much you don't understand and how the entire world is wrong and you are right.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and putting a shit ton of it in the atmosphere has warmed up the planet 1.5ºC already.
If you were right the temperature would have gone down, but you can't explain why its warming and had to scour the internet to even find one 10 year old chart that said it wasn't warming as much as expected in the tropics in the clouds, 10 years ago.

yeah I reject your propaganda
if you has any sense you would see the tide has turned as more and more people are questioning the not only the ridiculous impossible climate solutions i.e. NetZero , carbon taxes, EV mandates etc, etc, etc, they are also questioning the propaganda

Click to expand...

Whatever, buddy, you clearly can't reason your way out of a paper bag but are totally sure that despite the planet warming 1.5ºC that is not really warming.
You are the frog in the pot, a useful idiot for the oil and gas industry.

Here ya go Franky. Right from the horses mouth.