Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[Disgustipated]

"Dynamic?" I think you need to reread the examples given on your word-a-day callendar.

Also, idiocracy (the word you think is interchangable with idiocy, because pop culture) is not an adjective.

Why does she hate birds but love the Chinese, and why do you that about her?

lolwut?

*MY* word a day? Fuckouttaheredummy.

 

[Conager]

...it would be like using the word "theocracy" in place of "religious."

...or "kleptocracy" in place of "theiving."

Sadly, Luche-czech only works for spelling and FFS typos, not grammar. Needs a thesaurus add-on as well.

 

[Disgustipated]

...it would be like using the word "theocracy" in place of "religious."

...or "kleptocracy" in place of "theiving."

Sadly, Luche-czech only works for spelling and FFS typos, not grammar. Needs a thesaurus add-on as well.

Is it weird not knowing that I can say a word that triggers you so hard? Wait, you're too dumb to know what I'm doing to you.

I D I O C R A C Y​

 

[Conager]

lolwut?

*MY* word a day? Fuckouttaheredummy.

It's cute that you think you know some big words and their proper usage.

 

[Conager]

Is it weird not knowing that I say a word that triggers you so hard? Wait, you're too dumb to know what I'm doing to you.

I D I O C R A C Y​

Why would I be "triggered" that you say something moronic? You are the one with deep-seated insecurities about your intellectual capabilities.

Remember when I shamed you out of posting a full one third of your posts with the single word, "dummy" and you upped your game to include two more synonyms for "dummy?" Good times!

By the way, idiocracy is not a synonym for dummy.

Neither is idiosyncratic in case you were wondering.

 

[Disgustipated]

Why would I be "triggered" that you say something moronic? You are the one with deep-seated insecurities about your intellectual capabilities.

Remember when I shamed you out of posting a full one third of your posts with the single word, "dummy" and you upped your game to include two more synonyms for "dummy?" Good times!

By the way, idiocracy is not a synonym for dummy.

Neither is idiosyncratic in case you were wondering.

You're a funny little delusional tweaker.

Put that on your "callender" which isn't a date book made to strain foods stuffs.

 

[Conager]

You're a funny little delusional tweaker.

Put that on your "callender" which isn't a date book made to strain foods stuffs.

You mean colander? A word not formed with an extraneous L?

 

[trysail]

"If you've been in the game for fifteen minutes and you don't know who the patsy is...

...you are."​

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/green-climate-fund.jpg




​

 

[trysail]

...Do they know that Germany has succeeded in getting electricity production from renewables all the way up to 30% of the total -- but in the process they have also succeeded in roughly tripling residential electricity rates?... ​

-Frances Menton
"Blue States On The Path to Economic Suicide"
​

​

 

[hobbit.]

'Twarnt my quote: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86028386&postcount=771

By the bye, if you'd drop the extraneous 'U's and the "m-e" at the end of program, you'd reduce your carbon output.

My Yoga instructor also advises i take up pilates.

 

[trysail]

Both are well within historic norms and natural variation.


Stay calm; there's no need for you to panic.


http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png


http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png




​

 

[phrodeau]

Both are well within historic norms and natural variation.
​

Wrong.

http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf

 

[KingOrfeo]

My Yoga instructor also advises i take up pilates.

Wash your hands of him.

 

[trysail]

Destroying the Planet? President Trump did the unthinkable for many – he announced that the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Accords). The reaction of the horrified was predictable. How dare he? A bit of history is useful in explaining the reaction...

For decades, Washington, and many in the West, have been inundated by propaganda that human greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon dioxide (CO2), are the principle cause of dangerous global warming / climate change, without any compelling physical evidence supporting the claim. The Supreme Court even ruled that CO2, vital for life as we generally recognize it, is a pollutant that the EPA can regulate if it deems CO2, and other greenhouse gases, endanger human health and welfare.

The effectiveness of this propaganda can be seen by the reaction to Mr. Trump’s announcement that his administration is pulling out of the Paris Agreement. One is tempted to call it “shock and awe.” The lack of hard evidence that that Paris Agreement will do anything meaningful is scarcely mentioned.

On the website WUWT, Anthony Watts repeated the graph by Bjorn Lomborg projecting the difference by the year 2100 of a) doing nothing, b) completing the promises under Paris by 2030, and c) continuing all the promises under Paris from 2030 to 2100. Completing the promises by 2030 will reduce projected surface temperatures in 2100 by 0.05 degrees C; continuing the promises will reduce projected temperatures in 2100 by 0.17 degrees C.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/paris-accord-impact.jpg​

Given that the projections are for about 85 years, the results are meaningless. Given that none of the climate models used to make such projections have been validated, the results are absurd. Given that many of the instruments used, such as the ones at US airports, have a specified internal accuracy of plus or minus 1 degree C, the projections are ludicrous. [Note, if repeated measurements are made in the same manner and by using the same instrument, and assuming errors are normally distributed, the error declines by a function of the square root of the number of measurements. But, this logic does not apply for measurements from numerous instruments of the same type, much less for measurements from numerous types of instruments.]

In short, we are witnessing outrage expressed over a political decision by those whose scientific position is ludicrous. They have succumbed to... propaganda...​

-Ken Haapala​

​

 

[Peregrinator]

They have succumbed to... propaganda... [/INDENT][/I]

-Ken Haapala​

[/INDENT]

Lulz.


https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/kenneth-haapala

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

The Luntz Memo is still your lodestar, huh?

 

[trysail]

"How Dependent Are GISTEMP Trends On The Gridding Radius Used?"

by Nic Lewis

Global surface temperature (GMST) changes and trends derived from the standard GISTEMP record over its full 1880-2016 length exceed those per the HadCRUT4.5 and NOAA4.0.1 records, by 4% and 7% respectively. Part of these differences will be due to use of different land and (in the case of HadCRUT4.5) ocean sea-surface temperature (SST) data, and part to methodological differences.

GISTEMP and NOAA4.0.1 both use data from the ERSSTv4 infilled SST dataset, while HadCRUT4.5 uses data from the non-infilled HadSST3 dataset. Over the full 1880-2016 GISTEMP record, the global-mean trends in the two SST datasets were almost the same: 0.56 °C/century for ERSSTv4 and 0.57 °C /century for HadSST3. And although HadCRUT4v5 depends (via its use of the CRUTEM4 record) on a different set of land station records from GISTEMP and NOAA4.0.1 (both of which use GHCNv3.3 data), there is a great commonality in the underlying set of stations used.

Accordingly, it seems likely that differences in methodology may largely account for the slightly faster 1880-2016 warming in GISTEMP. Although the excess warming in GISTEMP is not large, I was curious to find out in more detail about the methods it uses and their effects. The primary paper describing the original (land station only based) GISTEMP methodology is Hansen et al. 1987. Ocean temperature data was added in 1996. Hansen et al. 2010 provides an update and sets out changes in the methods.

Steve has written a number of good posts about GISTEMP in the past, locatable using the Search box...​

more...
https://climateaudit.org/2017/05/18/how-dependent-are-gistemp-trends-on-the-gridding-radius-used/

​

 

[Peregrinator]

Nic Lewis:

https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/nic-lewis/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-single-study-syndrome-nic-lewis-edition.html

Steve McIntyre:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

 

[trysail]

...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.

Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.

I haven’t spent much time [in this address] on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

–Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences
​

http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
​

 

[Hard_Rom]

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[trysail]

"Earth Scorching"


"Earth Scorching" ???



Are you serious ?

You gotta be shittin' me. We're talking 0.4° C of quite possibly natural variation in a 36-year period.

Is it any wonder that no intelligent person believes a goddamned word out of the New York Times when climate is involved ?



https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/nyt_earth_scorching.jpg


Read the sorry facts:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/26/earth-scorching-co2/




​

 

[trysail]

Wow !

Very powerful stuff.

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. "On The Death Of Skepticism: Concerning Climate Hysteria
Lindzen is Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

"...While the politicized climate issue dates back to the 60’s, things really took off after the Clinton-Gore administration assumed power and funding for climate increased by about a factor of 15. This was far more than a small backwater and very difficult field could absorb, and led to a vast increase in the number of scientists who claimed their work was related to climate in order to cash in on the windfall. Moreover, the institutional structure for support of alarm was already in place with the United Nations creation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) – both exclusively concerned with only human impacts on climate. Added to this were the wild enthusiasm of the well-funded green advocacy movement, and the motherhood nature of environmentalism.

It is, therefore, informative to look at who the skeptics (not of climate change, but of climate catastrophism and the need for specific action) were when this explosion of support began. Here is a very brief set of examples..."


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08...th-of-skepticism-concerning-climate-hysteria/

​

​

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Wow !

Very powerful stuff.

Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. "On The Death Of Skepticism: Concerning Climate Hysteria
Lindzen is Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

"...While the politicized climate issue dates back to the 60’s, things really took off after the Clinton-Gore administration assumed power and funding for climate increased by about a factor of 15. This was far more than a small backwater and very difficult field could absorb, and led to a vast increase in the number of scientists who claimed their work was related to climate in order to cash in on the windfall. Moreover, the institutional structure for support of alarm was already in place with the United Nations creation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) – both exclusively concerned with only human impacts on climate. Added to this were the wild enthusiasm of the well-funded green advocacy movement, and the motherhood nature of environmentalism.

It is, therefore, informative to look at who the skeptics (not of climate change, but of climate catastrophism and the need for specific action) were when this explosion of support began. Here is a very brief set of examples..."


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08...th-of-skepticism-concerning-climate-hysteria/

​

​

This shit really is so interesting to you that you need to repost it three fucking times?

 

[trysail]

Richard Lindzen makes Bill Nye look like a blithering idiot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw&feature=youtu.be


​

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Richard Lindzen makes Bill Nye look like a blithering idiot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hrUaD86XRw&feature=youtu.be


​

Lizden is misleading when he says thermohaline circulation is driven by wind patterns. Wind driving is a component of thermohaline circulation.

But who cares about facts?

 

[trysail]

Lizden is misleading when he says thermohaline circulation is driven by wind patterns. Wind driving is a component of thermohaline circulation.

Wrongamundo.

Want to try that again?

hint: North Atlantic gyre.

​