Select Company Escorts

Climate Change

Previous Thread Next Thread
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,395
3,060
113
Frankfooter said:
Holy shit, larue.
Why are you such a dishonest dipshit?
Click to expand...
you are the most dishonest individual i have ever encountered

If you want to make this idiotic claim that climate change should only be measured in the clouds find predictions for changes there to measure it.
Click to expand...
#1. My god you are stupid
#2 That is not my claim- DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME - you ignorant fool
#3 if you had being paying attention you would know cloud formation is next to impossible to predict


Stop this idiotic claim that you can compare surface temperature predictions with satellite measurements that ended in 2015 in the troposphere.
Click to expand...
the satellite data is independently verified by weather balloon data . this means they are accurate.
the surface data record is
filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with
the surface data record is a mess


Its idiotic.
Don't compare apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
so use the accurate satellite data set and stop using the inaccurate mess that is the surface data set

1717259252020.png
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,395
3,060
113
Frankfooter said:
You are a fool, the models are very accurate.
You are actively participating in fossil fuel disinformation that will make your kids lives worse.

Click to expand...


The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century
Click to expand...
GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...


the climate models do not stand up to INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics


1717242162113.jpeg
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,813
22,234
113
JohnLarue said:
the satellite data is independently verified by weather balloon data . this means they are accurate.
the surface data record is
filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
Click to expand...
I don't care about your incredibly ignorant views on why you think a data set that ended in 2015 is 'more accurate'.

You are still acting like a dishonest dipshit.
Find projections for change in the troposphere if that's your metric.
Stop being an asswipe by trying to compare surface temperature projections to troposphere readings.

Its really stupid and really dishonest.
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,395
3,060
113
Frankfooter said:
I don't care about your incredibly ignorant views on why you think a data set that ended in 2015 is 'more accurate'.
Click to expand...
simply because you do not understand the significance / important of independently verified data
it is really too bad for you that you dropped out of high school.

independent verification is scientific confirmation that the satellite data is accurate

You are still acting like a dishonest dipshit.
Click to expand...
the are few words to describe your behaviour. none of them are complementary

Find projections for change in the troposphere if that's your metric.
Click to expand...
how many times to you need to told?
our climate system is far too complex to predict with any significant degree of confidence


Stop being an asswipe by trying to compare surface temperature projections to troposphere readings.
Click to expand...
so use the accurate satellite data set and stop using the inaccurate mess that is the surface data set

1717360981276.png

Its really stupid and really dishonest.
Click to expand...
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere
it makes perfect sense to view tropospheric temperature anomaly's

what is very dishonest is insisting on using surface temperature data that you know is

filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with

you insist on using flawed data in order to maintain your false narrative and evil propaganda
that is as dishonest as it gets


now learn something from you favourite country Norway

https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/i-hvilken-grad-endrer-temperaturnivaet-seg-pa-grunn-av-klimagassutslipp/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century
Click to expand...
GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...

the climate models do not stand up to INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,813
22,234
113
JohnLarue said:
simply because you do not understand the significance / important of independently verified data
it is really too bad for you that you dropped out of high school.

independent verification is scientific confirmation that the satellite data is accurate
Click to expand...
I expect I have more degrees than you, larue.
Your phys ed bachelor doesn't really count for much.

Its clear that you couldn't have gone much further than that, you are unable to find legit sources, unable to credit your sources accurately, unable to do research, unable to understand basic concept, unable to take part in actual dialog or debate and unable to learn anything.

You post the same crap over and over again but can't understand the basics.
1) you are still being a dishonest dipshit by trying to compare surface temperature projections with measurements in the troposhpere
2) your satellite data is old and suspect, it stops in 2015 and you can't explain why.
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,395
3,060
113
Frankfooter said:
I expect I have more degrees than you, larue.
Click to expand...
you expect to be wrong then
it is brutally obvious you did not finish high school,


Your phys ed bachelor doesn't really count for much.
Click to expand...
too funny
wrong again

Its clear that you couldn't have gone much further than that, you are unable to find legit sources, unable to credit your sources accurately, unable to do research, unable to understand basic concept, unable to take part in actual dialog or debate and unable to learn anything.
Click to expand...
you think copy and paste of internet articles and claiming a consensus of opinion is science.
you do not have a clue about true scientific discovery
for Christ sakes you do not understand the importance / significance of independent verification

You post the same crap over and over again but can't understand the basics.
Click to expand...
you repeat the same propaganda over and over despite having their flaws explained to multiple times

1) you are still being a dishonest dipshit by trying to compare surface temperature projections with measurements in the troposhpere
Click to expand...
asked and answered

2) your satellite data is old and suspect, it stops in 2015 and you can't explain why.
Click to expand...
satellite data is not suspect , it has been verified by independent weather balloon data sets. you blithering moron
if you want an update , arrange to fund Dr. Christy to provide an update

1717381897582.png
what is very dishonest is insisting on using surface temperature data that you know is

filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with

you insist on using flawed data in order to maintain your false narrative and evil propaganda
that is as dishonest as it gets


now learn something from you favourite country Norway
https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/f...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century
Click to expand...
GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...
the climate models do not stand up to INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,813
22,234
113
JohnLarue said:
satellite data is not suspect , it has been verified by independent weather balloon data sets. you blithering moron
if you want an update , arrange to fund Dr. Christy to provide an update
Click to expand...
You won't used the updated temperatures because you know it proves you are lying.
Because you are a dishonest dipshit.

NASA says surface temps are more reliable.
I trust them, not some dipshit phys ed teacher.

In summary, while satellites provide valuable information about Earth's temperature, ground thermometers are considered more reliable because they directly measure the temperature where people reside. Satellite data require complex processing and modeling to convert brightness measurements into temperature readings, making ground thermometers a more direct and accurate source of temperature information for us.
 
J

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,395
3,060
113
Frankfooter said:
You won't used the updated temperatures because you know it proves you are lying.
Because you are a dishonest dipshit.
Click to expand...
if you want an update , arrange to fund Dr. Christy to provide an update

NASA says surface temps are more reliable.
I trust them, not some dipshit phys ed teacher.

In summary, while satellites provide valuable information about Earth's temperature, ground thermometers are considered more reliable because they directly measure the temperature where people reside. Satellite data require complex processing and modeling to convert brightness measurements into temperature readings, making ground thermometers a more direct and accurate source of temperature information for us.
Click to expand...
the greenhouse effect occurs almost entirely in the troposphere

1717381897582.png


what is very dishonest is insisting on using surface temperature data that you know is

filled with errors
contaminated by the urban island heat effect
incomplete
has been fiddled with

you insist on using flawed data in order to maintain your false narrative and evil propaganda
that is as dishonest as it gets


now learn something from you favourite country Norway
https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/f...594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

The GCMs have various limitations. First, the effect of increasing CO2 emissions on the climate cannot be evaluated precisely on time scales that are of the order of less than or equal to 100 years. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of the uncertainty which is partly due to the choice of the subscale models and the parameterization and calibration of these, as well as insufficient data. Third, according to some evaluations, GCMs are not sufficiently reliable to distinguish between natural and man-made causes of the temperature increase in the 20th century
Click to expand...
GCMs are typically evaluated applying the same observations used to calibrate the model parameters. In an article in Science, Voosen (2016) writes; “Indeed, whether climate scientists like to admit it or not, nearly every model has been calibrated precisely to the 20th century climate records – otherwise it would have ended up in the trash”. Unfortunately, models that match 20th century data as a result of calibration using the same 20th century data are of dubious quality for determining the causes of the 20th century temperature variability.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are shite

we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...
i.e. climate models are still shite

In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.
Click to expand...
the climate models do not stand up to INDEPENDANT statistical analysis, nor do they represent the atmospheric physics
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,813
22,234
113
JohnLarue said:
if you want an update , arrange to fund Dr. Christy to provide an update
Click to expand...
No, its up to you to post current numbers and not use a data set that ended 9 years ago.
You really have no clue why satellite readings aren't as reliable, do you?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom