Climate Change

[Frankfooter]

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?

 

[Skoob]

The information came from a study that sampled thousands of papers, skoob.
Not from the conversation.

How can you get everything wrong so consistently?

The information was mined from documents/citations on that website.
You can stop peddling misinformation now.

 

[Frankfooter]

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

 

[Skoob]

True, but very sad indeed. Brazil is going through a very rough time. Several other countries are experiencing their worst effects of this Climate Change.
The right wingers are going from the frying pan into the fire with regards to their very partisan Climate Change views. They just cannot go by the Science!!

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.

 

[Skoob]

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

Wrong.
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.

 

[Frankfooter]

Wrong.
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?

 

[Skoob]

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?

 

[K Douglas]

For the life of me I don't understand why you guys don't have this clown on ignore

I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Or perhaps I hope that he will one day become rational.

 

[Frankfooter]

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?

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.

 

[Skoob]

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

 

[JohnLarue]

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 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

 

[Frankfooter]

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

Every day your ignorance surprises me, skoob.
You don't even understand what that quote means, do you?

 

[Frankfooter]

the issue is what you do not understand

anomalies are the change in temperature relative to a reference

larue, the reference is surface temperature.
They are projecting changes (anomalies) in the surface temperature.

Not the temperature in the troposphere.
Are you really unable to understand this?
You're making skoob look clever in comparison.

 

[JohnLarue]

larue, the reference is surface temperature.
They are projecting changes (anomalies) in the surface temperature.

Not the temperature in the troposphere.
Are you really unable to understand this?
You're making skoob look clever in comparison.

they are trying to predict the expected changes in temperature due to the greenhouse gas theory, not the greenhouse surface theory,
you blithering scientific know nothing

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



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 -- the minimum requirement of any predictive model - 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

You're making a corpse look clever in comparison.

 

[JohnLarue]

this is funny

 

[Leimonis]

 

[JohnLarue]

Has the 'settled science" missed something ?

how will the loonie left tax changes in cloud cover % ?
will there be a parallel Ponzi scheme CCCP rebate ?
(CCCP = Climate Cloud Cover Program
not the CCCP - Climate Change and Carbon Plan, a strategic plan adopted by the Oregon Board of Forestry
and not the evil CCCP Союз Советских Социалистических Республик i.e. commie red, pinko, murderous bastards Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
oops, I digress

is evil humanity at fault for storing its computer data in the clouds?




the IPCC treats cloud cover & reflected solar radiation as a constant
specifying with precision it to a tenth of a W/ m 2 >>>> 101.9 W/m2
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html (accessed 6 March 2012).



note the net absorbed is the energy imbalance which theoretically is the driver of the hysteria = 0.9 W/ m2
again defined precision to a tenth of a W/ m2

0.9 W/ m2 is miniscule fraction of all the other the energy flows in the earths Energy "Balance"
a miniscule fraction of values they cant get right ??? I do not think so

also note 396 w/m2 outward surface radiation is greater than the 341 w/m2 source incoming solar radiation ??
the law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
the surface is radiating out more energy than the energy provided by the sun at the top of the atmosphere ??? I do not think so

and 396 w/m2 outward surface radiation is more than 2X the 161 w/m2 absorbed by the surface ???
and 333 w/m2 back radiation radiation is more than 2X the 161 w/m2 absorbed by the surface ???

what a bunch of bozos

and to be skeptical gets one labelled / cancelled as a denier ?

 

[Frankfooter]

they are trying to predict the expected changes in temperature due to the greenhouse gas theory, not the greenhouse surface theory,
you blithering scientific know nothing

Wow, your ignorance combined with a stubborn refusal to accept facts is constantly shocking larue.
The IPCC is projecting changes in the climate due to increases in greenhouse gases and they are projecting and measuring those changes with global surface temperatures.

Go to the NASA page where they report the Global temperature and read the description of what they measure.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

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.

You keep trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing projections for surface temperature with atmospheric, troposphere measurements.

what is wrong with you?

 

[Frankfooter]

Has the 'settled science" missed something ?

No, larue.
Its just too complicated for you to understand.
Give it a try, read this.

Clouds and Aerosols — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[JohnLarue]

You keep trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing projections for surface temperature with atmospheric, troposphere measurements.

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

here learn something