Heatwaves in India occur in before the monsoon rainy season which starts in mid June to July. it has nothing to do with climate alarmism invented by the the club of rome and eugenics and nazi linked families like the Rockefellers
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
no i did not
there is no scientific rational to exclude water vapor and designate it as a feedback only molecule
nope
you can not just label something you do not like or do not understand as a lie
the paper refences are extensive and include quotes from the IPCC report supporting a non-scientific rational for excluding water vapor
so shad up
https://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg
......
[40] Webb, P. (2020) Introduction to Oceanography. https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/
exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????
yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple
and frankfooter will never be able to figure this out..................
- because he dropped out of high school
- because he does not want to figure it out
sure i can
however there is no scientific rational to label Water Vapour differently than CO2 as both are greenhouse gases and both can absorb infrared radiation
the physical laws of nature do not distinguish molecules the way your propaganda does
pseudoscience .........pure and simple
They didn't exclude water vapour, larue, don't be an idiot.
You just can't read and understand the IPCC reports so are totally incompetent to realize how idiotic your claims are.
Your entire argument is based off of one paper that wasn't even peer assessed or properly published.
Its an idiotic position that no climatologist or scientist who's not taking oil money would back.
You can't do basic research, can't read a scientific paper and can't tell legit work from oil funded disinformation.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg
exclude the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (water vapor) because it does not fit their false narrative ?????
exclude clouds because they can not model cloud formation ???????
exclude ozone because it was too difficult to quantify ?????
yet they claim this is settled science
pseudoscience .........pure and simple
no god damn wonder the climate models are so piss poor
larue, now you're back to the apples to oranges chart that compares out dated satellite temperatures in the troposphere with surface temperatures?
Not only can you not learn anything new you can't even remember what you posted last week.
You're totally hopeless.
Clearly unable to learn the basics.
You can't read the IPCC reports, can't understand high school level posts on NASA and can't remember what you did a week ago.
Leave it alone and stick to yelling at clouds.
this has been explained to you numerous times
but you just do not learn
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
& the surface temp record is a god damn mess
the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
if you had the first clue about scientific discovery you would understand the importance of that fact.
It proves the climate models are a mess >>>> No wonder when they treat water vapour as a feedback only molecule , exclude clouds and exclude ozone
the physics of our climate is so much more complex than high school level
you are void of scientific understanding
nope
you leave it alone and stick to something you understand
lets us know when you figure out what that is
Last edited:
says the high school drop out
Answer: are you going to pay Dr. John Christy to do reanalysis on 107 failed models to bring them up-to-date ?
I believe the first reanalysis took 2 years
they point has been made
the models run too hot
they have not modelled the code to replicate the physics ( ie treat water vapor as a feedback only moles, omit clouds, omit O3)
Science Under Attack
The weaknesses of computer climate models – in particular their exaggeration of global warming’s impact – have long been denied or downplayed by modelers. But in a recent about-face published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature , a group of prominent climate scientists tell us it’s t
www.scienceunderattack.com
"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman
Climate Science Establishment Finally Admits Some Models Run Too Hot
May 30, 2022
(SSP5-8.5) is the basis for all the bullshit doom and gloom propaganda you spew
Science Under Attack
But the models have a dismal track record. Apart from failing to predict a recent slowdown in global warming in the early 2000s, climate models are known even by modelers to consistently run hot. The previous generation of models, known in the jargon as CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project P
www.scienceunderattack.com
"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman
Latest Computer Climate Models Run Almost as Hot as Before
February 22, 2021
Why is your chart using air pressure tropical anomalies in a debate about global temperatures larue?says the high school drop out
Answer: are you going to pay Dr. John Christy to do reanalysis on 107 failed models to bring them up-to-date ?
I believe the first reanalysis took 2 years
they point has been made
the models run too hot
they have not modelled the code to replicate the physics ( ie treat water vapor as a feedback only moles, omit clouds, omit O3)
Science Under Attack
The weaknesses of computer climate models – in particular their exaggeration of global warming’s impact – have long been denied or downplayed by modelers. But in a recent about-face published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature , a group of prominent climate scientists tell us it’s t
"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman
Climate Science Establishment Finally Admits Some Models Run Too Hot
May 30, 2022
View attachment 328895
View attachment 328896
(SSP5-8.5) is the basis for all the bullshit doom and gloom propaganda you spew
Science Under Attack
But the models have a dismal track record. Apart from failing to predict a recent slowdown in global warming in the early 2000s, climate models are known even by modelers to consistently run hot. The previous generation of models, known in the jargon as CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project P
"If it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman
Latest Computer Climate Models Run Almost as Hot as Before
February 22, 2021
How can you post stuff like that and not notice?
Are you really that clueless?
the high school drop out once again displays his ignorance
what part of Temperature anomalies confuses you ?
the 300-200 hPa is the pressure altitude of the troposphere
Pressure altitude - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Given an atmospheric pressure measurement, the pressure altitude is the imputed altitude that the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) model predicts to have the same pressure as the observed value.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published the following formula[1] for directly converting atmospheric pressure in millibars (mb) to pressure altitude in feet (ft):
ℎ=145366.45[1−(Station pressure in millibars1013.25)0.190284].
![{\displaystyle h=145366.45\left[1-\left({\frac {\text{Station pressure in millibars}}{1013.25}}\right)^{0.190284}\right].}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/a6cc0a7688744c8ca9519a447051658b9a130ee1)
and once again you demonstrate how you are completely void of scientific understanding and
once again you demonstrate how your decision to drop out of high school continues to haunt you
what a fool
Attachments
larue, are you really that stupid or are you that willfully ignorant?
This is a discussion about surface temperatures and you keep posting troposphere, or atmospheric stats.
I call you out on this every single time and then eventually you run away and return to your idiotic claims that water vapour is a forcing effect, not CO2.
Then eventually you run away from that and get back to posting apple to orange comparisons of troposphere to surface temperatures.
Its the same, incredibly idiotic claims.
Over and over again.
we have already resolved this
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
hence the troposphere is where to look
nice try
nope
you are not bright enough to understand the scientific principals , yet you want to ring fence the subject matter >>> fail
what a clown
Last edited:
you are that clueless
pressure is used to determine altitude
did you think pilots daggle long tape measures out the plane so they know their altitude ?
what a clown
We live on the surface of the planet, larue, not in the clouds.
Stop being such a dishonest dipshit.
If you want to use temperatures in the troposphere find projections for the troposphere and chart them together.
Stop posting bullshit surface projections against temperatures in the troposphere.
Its idiotically dishonest.
The IPCC models surface temps, not troposphere.
Last edited:
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
& the surface temp record is a god damn mess
the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
if you had the first clue about scientific discovery you would understand the importance of that fact.
It proves the climate models are a mess >>>> No wonder when they treat water vapour as a feedback only molecule , exclude clouds and exclude ozone
shad up
just arrange for funding for Dr, Christy and ask him politely
you have never posted anything honest
hence their abysmal track record
they can not even model the past , a bare minimum requirement for any predictive model
the ipcc models are junk
garbage in >> garbage out
the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
if you had the first clue about scientific discovery you would understand the importance of that fact.
It proves the climate models are a mess
explain how the surface is heating up faster than the troposphere using the greenhouse gas theory ?
you can not
the satellite records are verified by independent weather balloon data sets.
the satellite records are accurate
the surface temperature record is flawed
the ipcc models are junk
garbage in >> garbage out
Last edited:
So stop being a dishonest dipshit and find projections for climate change in the troposphere and compare those to your satellite measurements.
Then stop being a dipshit by using old, faulty satellite data that stops in 2015.
Or, tell the people of India to move to the troposphere where its 6ºC cooler.
Just get them a massive ladder so they can climb up to the clouds.
Otherwise, admit you're a dishonest dipshit who refuses to compare surface projections to surface temperatures because you know that proves the IPCC is correct and you're just peddling fossil fuel disinformation that will make your kids lives miserable.
yawn
look stupid
the satellite data is verified by independent weather balloon data sets
therefore the satellite data is accurate. verified by separate experiment >>> scientific proof
the greenhouse effect occurs in the troposphere
therefore all you need to do is explain (using scientific fundamentals ) how the greenhouse effect is somehow warming the surface at a faster rate than the troposphere (where the greenhouse effect occurs)?
you can not explain that
the only logical explanation is the surface temperature data record & the models based on it are flawed
we already know the surface temperature data record is
- filled with errors
- biased by the urban Island heat effect
- is woefully incomplete
- .has been fiddled with
you are a purveyor of bovine scatology and a scientific know nothing
Wow, you are still acting like a dishonest dipshit, but now an incredibly stupid dipshit.
The IPCC projects changes in surface temperatures and checks those projections with surface temperatures.
If you want to fly a weather balloon 5km up in the sky and report that its not quite so hot up there you are free to do so, but you should also expect to be called an idiot. But if you want to say that because its cooler in the clouds you think the IPCC is wrong, then you're really a total moron.
Yikes indeed.
Same in Mexico right now.
The planet is hitting wet bulb temperatures where humans can't survive.
Mexico heat dome seeing monkeys drop dead from trees as temperatures rocket
Last week, environmentalists had reported that 138 of the midsize primates, known for their roaring vocal calls, had been found dead in the Gulf coast state of Tabasco since May 16
www.mirror.co.uk
You may indeed be correct. Houghton 2002 also confirms that.
Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change
This is where the 50% came from, I should have known better (Schmidt et al 2010)
This of course is alarmist Gavin Schmidt's paper. He's a mathematician. 50% of warming is due to water vapor. 25% is clouds and 20% is CO2. But wait aren't clouds caused by water vapor??
And of course several university climate science depts. have parroted this 50% like its empirical. Wikipedia is even worse it says water vapor accounts for 36%-90% of greenhouse warming. What a joke.
