Climate Change

[Frankfooter]

you are just not bright enough to figure out that the two satellite data sets match the 4 independent weather balloon data sets
independent data sets matching is a confirmation of their accuracy

larue, cut it out.

You're lying and you're lying very poorly.
The IPCC projections and temperature measurements are clearly SURFACE temps, not those taken by weather balloons in the troposphere.
This is not about temperatures in the clouds, its about surface temperatures.

Note that the IPCC projections are mapped against Global Surface Warming.

Then compare that to NASA global temperature measurements.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

This graph shows the change in global surface temperature compared to the long-term average from 1951 to 1980. Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS). NASA’s analysis generally matches independent analyses prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other research groups. Overall, Earth was about 2.45 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.36 degrees Celsius) warmer in 2023 than in the late 19th-century (1850-1900) preindustrial average. The 10 most recent years are the warmest on record.

The animation on the right shows the change in global surface temperatures. Dark blue shows areas cooler than average. Dark red shows areas warmer than average. Short-term variations are smoothed out using a 5-year running average to make trends more visible in this map.

 

[Frankfooter]

sure, just as soon as you tell us in your own words what the following means

You don't understand the paper you posted, do you?
I thought so.

 

[JohnLarue]

Definitely human impact in last for climate change in last 100 years.

there is no definitive experimentally verified evidence that separates anthropogenetic impacts from natural variability.
you can go pour a gallon of water into lake Ontario and you will be adding incrementally to the lake volume, but you can not measure the change in the water level
The atmosphere is enormous and atmospheric plant food is measured in parts per million
the all important 15 micron absorption wavelength is saturated


climate changes, always has , always will

The actual temperature change is debatable.

yes it is

Climate change policies are also debatable.

Climate change policies are beyond stupid

 

[Frankfooter]

there is no definitive experimentally verified evidence that separates anthropogenetic impacts from natural variability.

You are lying again, larue.
I've posted this study every time you've made this claim and each time you ignore and move on to some other stupid claim.

This NASA study confirmed that solar energy balance has changed due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
In Brief:
A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[JohnLarue]

You are lying again, larue.
I've posted this study every time you've made this claim and each time you ignore and move on to some other stupid claim.

This NASA study confirmed that solar energy balance has changed due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
In Brief:
A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

NASA Goddard should have hired a head scientist who is willing to debate / defend their conclusions in a public form
Gavin Schmidt destroyed NASA Goddard scientific credibility.
theories that can not stand up to the rigours of debate are just propaganda

Schmidt's flawed models results are somewhere in this mess

 

[Frankfooter]

larue, look at the NASA study I posted.
It answers your challenge about experimental proof.

 

[JohnLarue]

larue, look at the NASA study I posted.
It answers your challenge about experimental proof.

what part of

NASA Goddard should have hired a head scientist who is willing to debate / defend their conclusions in a public form
Gavin Schmidt destroyed NASA Goddard scientific credibility.
theories that can not stand up to the rigours of debate are just propaganda

did you not understand ?

Statistics Norway is not running away from debate

ttps://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
Statistisk sentralbyra
Statistics Norway

To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?

Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.

Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.

 

[Frankfooter]

what part of

did you not understand ?

Statistics Norway is not running away from debate

ttps://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
Statistisk sentralbyra
Statistics Norway

Gavin Schmidt is the head of NASA's GISS program, why should he have to publicly debate anti science trolls?
If there are contrary theories and evidence present them with your research in a paper.

You keep posting that Norway study but you can't even explain what its central premise is about.
You clearly cannot understand the subject.

You used bait and switch troposphere charts instead of using surface temperatures.
You then declared there is no experimental evidence and ran away when I presented it.

Now you are down to character assassination on the head of NASA's GISS program.
What is wrong with you?

 

[canada-man]

2009 Global Warming:
San Francisco ~ Foggier Summers

2021 Climate Change:
San Francisco ~ Declining Fog

 

[Frankfooter]

2009 Global Warming:
San Francisco ~ Foggier Summers

2021 Climate Change:
San Francisco ~ Declining Fog

ignorant

 

[JohnLarue]

 

[JohnLarue]

 

[Frankfooter]

View attachment 322471

Wow, your science is getting so much better.
This one includes text as well as pictures.

larue, what is wrong with you?

 

[JohnLarue]

Wow, your science is getting so much better.
This one includes text as well as pictures.

larue, what is wrong with you?

not much is wrong with me

I am able to recognize the hypocrisy , deceit and inconsistencies of climate change pseudoscience

I do not spend my life intentionally trying to mislead others.

determining what is wrong with you however requires the expertise of a mental health professional
get some help

 

[Frankfooter]

not much is wrong with me

I am able to recognize the hypocrisy , deceit and inconsistencies of climate change pseudoscience

I do not spend my life intentionally trying to mislead others.

determining what is wrong with you however requires the expertise of a mental health professional
get some help

You have now admitted you can't debate the facts, post articles you don't even understand and can't understand basic science reported from NASA.
Why do you think you are smarter than the IPCC and NASA?

You've failed in every part of this debate and are down to posting ancient memes.

 

[JohnLarue]

You have now admitted you can't debate the facts, post articles you don't even understand and can't understand basic science reported from NASA.
Why do you think you are smarter than the IPCC and NASA?

You've failed in every part of this debate and are down to posting ancient memes.

scientific debate requires intelligence and scientific understanding. you do not qualify

 

[Frankfooter]

scientific debate requires intelligence and scientific understanding. you do not qualify

larue, you have failed over and over again.
You have now admitted you can't debate the facts, post articles you don't even understand and can't understand basic science reported from NASA.
Why do you think you are smarter than the IPCC and NASA?

All you can do is post memes.

You are the epitome of a Dunning Kruger right winger.

 

[roddermac]

larue, you have failed over and over again.
You have now admitted you can't debate the facts, post articles you don't even understand and can't understand basic science reported from NASA.
Why do you think you are smarter than the IPCC and NASA?

All you can do is post memes.

You are the epitome of a Dunning Kruger right winger.

He posts memes because the facts presented by the climate change fear mongers is nothing more than a joke.

 

[roddermac]

View attachment 322472

Burning cow farts produces more energy than solar panels. That's a fact.

 

[JohnLarue]

Burning cow farts produces more energy than solar panels. That's a fact.

bossy doing blue angels




Do Greta or AOC finally make a positive contribution to society via entertainment by holding the lighter ?