Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[UncleBuck]

Wers mer derter, Buck?

Having trouble finding temp observations that fit your narrative?

no, i'm having trouble finding temp observations that fit your narrative.

ya see, all i can find are temp observations that show that the temps keep going up, and you keep saying that things have not warmed in the last 17 years.

meanwhile, NASA keeps telling me that we have just gone through the hottest decade on record, with the previous decade being the second hottest.

none of this is consistent with a 17 hear "hiatus" in warming that you claim occurred.

so it's tough.

 

[Harrekin]

no, i'm having trouble finding temp observations that fit your narrative.

ya see, all i can find are temp observations that show that the temps keep going up, and you keep saying that things have not warmed in the last 17 years.

meanwhile, NASA keeps telling me that we have just gone through the hottest decade on record, with the previous decade being the second hottest.

none of this is consistent with a 17 hear "hiatus" in warming that you claim occurred.

so it's tough.

Cite where I said there is a hiatus.

I said give me data, bitch-tits.

 

[UncleBuck]

Cite where I said there is a hiatus.

you really make this too easy.

Yeah, cos the no recorded warming for circa 20 years really shows how validated your claim is.

 

[Harrekin]

you really make this too easy.

Wow, stalker much?

I don't even care, where is the data?

Why do you keep arguing with quantitative data?

 

[jahbrudda]

prediction emissions?

tell me, beenthere, what are those scenarios based on? why have three different scenarios?

The graph is a prediction of temperature rise as it correlates to a percentage of co2 increase in the atmosphere.

Scenario A predicts a nearly two degrees rise in temperature if co2 emissions increase by 1.5% per year
Scenario B predicts a 1.4 degrees rise in temperature if co2 emissions increases are constant after year 2000
Scenario C predicts a 0.6 degree rise in temperature if there are no increased co2 emissions after year 2000

Now reality, CO 2 emissions since 2000 have increased about 2.5 percent per year, much more than Hansens scenario A.

So, given the actual observed temperature has risen 0.5 degrees, which scenario is nearest the observerd temperature? Derp.

You can keep up your fantasy of me being a sock puppet, I realize you get frustrated and that's all you got.
But tell me this, have you ever whined to the mods about other members?
I have never sunk that low.

How come you won't you answer that simple question and why do you deflect by asking me a question back?

 

[Harrekin]

The graph is a prediction of temperature rise as it correlates to a percentage of co2 increase in the atmosphere.

Scenario A predicts a nearly two degrees rise in temperature if co2 emissions increase by 1.5% per year
Scenario B predicts a 1.4 degrees rise in temperature if co2 emissions increases are constant after year 2000
Scenario C predicts a 0.6 degree rise in temperature if there are no increased co2 emissions after year 2000

Now reality, CO 2 emissions since 2000 have increased about 2.5 percent per year, much more than Hansens scenario A.

So, given the actual observed temperature has risen 0.5 degrees, which scenario is nearest the observerd temperature? Derp.

You can keep up your fantasy of me being a sock puppet, I realize you get frustrated and that's all you got.
But tell me this, have you ever whined to the mods about other members?
I have never sunk that low.

How come you won't you answer that simple question and why do you deflect by asking me a question back?

Scenario C is actually the prediction if CO2 emissions were significantly curbed starting in 1988.

Unless they changed those conditions too.

 

[sheskunk]

If you have to be told that it's getting hotter what does it really matter?

Are you hot? Would you like an iced tea?

 

[jahbrudda]

Scenario C is actually the prediction if CO2 emissions were significantly curbed starting in 1988.

Unless they changed those conditions too.

This is the info I'm getting, scenario C still relies on a zero increase of co2 emissions, whether it's 1988 or 2000
The bottom line is, Hansen was way off, even with scenario C because of the actual observed increase of co2 by 2.5%

Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res. 93, 9341-9364. (Abstract)

The paper generated future climate predictions based on three scenarios, described in the abstract as follows:

Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html

 

[abandonconflict]

Awe, makes a rational person ask, how did the Arctic ice cap grow so much from 1905 to 1980 when nasa took these satellite photos. One thing that is indisputable is the fact co2 levels have risen dramatically since then.
There's one thing the alarmists cannot manipulate and that is history.

2009 was the first year ever that the northwest passage remained navigable year round.

That you would paste an old newspaper article with out any research attached is no surprise since you think science is a left wing conspiracy. However, the northwest passage has been sought for centuries.

Say bye to the ice caps, according to scientific observation, they're melting.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wow, stalker much?

I don't even care, where is the data?

Why do you keep arguing with quantitative data?

yes, asking me to cite where you said that is you not caring, and me using the search function to find it right away is totally stalking.

you are nothing but ongoing fail.

 

[abandonconflict]

continuous and incessant fail

 

[UncleBuck]

UncleBuck thinks the graph is prediction emissions. LOL

Scenario A predicts a nearly two degrees rise in temperature if co2 emissions increase by 1.5% per year
Scenario B predicts a 1.4 degrees rise in temperature if co2 emissions increases are constant after year 2000
Scenario C predicts a 0.6 degree rise in temperature if there are no increased co2 emissions after year 2000

lol, way to fuck yourself in your own ass. what a feat of stupidity.

by the way, that is not actually what those emissions projections are, you must be getting your info from a bogus source again, like your three falsified graphs and your holocaust denier you like to cite.

 

[UncleBuck]

This is the info I'm getting

you cite holocaust deniers for information.

you might want to show us where you get your shitty info from so we can guide you to a better source, beenthere.

The bottom line is, Hansen was way off

you keep saying that even though you are citing bogus number and posting falsified graphs.

what the fuck do you think will happen if you build from a poor foundation?

 

[sheskunk]

2009 was the first year ever that the northwest passage remained navigable year round.

That you would paste an old newspaper article with out any research attached is no surprise since you think science is a left wing conspiracy. However, the northwest passage has been sought for centuries.

Say bye to the ice caps, according to scientific observation, they're melting.

And then?

 

[heckler73]

SCIENCE!!!11!

 

[Harrekin]

SCIENCE!!!11!

These idiots can't even work out the mean of two lines on chart, you're honestly wasting your time.

 

[UncleBuck]

These idiots can't even work out the mean of two lines on chart, you're honestly wasting your time.

well, we certainly both agree that this whole climate denial shit is a waste of time.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

well, we certainly both agree that this whole climate denial shit is a waste of time.

I think that Harrekin agrees with me. There might be climate change, but humans aren't the cause. But if it is humans, there's nothing we can do about it.

If it weren't a scam, why are Chinese freighters allowed to dock when their fleet.of ships pollutes at 50% more than all cars combined in the world? Why must my 6 year old PVEZ get smog checked, but no one cares about those Chinese ships? Each ship also puts out extreme amounts of sulfur.

We must pay gas guzzler taxes, while these Chinese ships use more fuel than every year than all oil ever pumped out of Saudi Arabia.

Because there's suckers like you and ACC.

So.... STFU!

 

[UncleBuck]

I think that Harrekin agrees with me. There might be climate change, but humans aren't the cause. But if it is humans, there's nothing we can do about it.

If it weren't a scam, why are Chinese freighters allowed to dock when their fleet.of ships pollutes at 50% more than all cars combined in the world? Why must my 6 year old PVEZ get smog checked, but no one cares about those Chinese ships? Each ship also puts out extreme amounts of sulfur.

We must pay gas guzzler taxes, while these Chinese ships use more fuel than every year than all oil ever pumped out of Saudi Arabia?

Because there's suckers like you and ACC.

So.... STFU!

so you're telling me that the increase in global temperatures we are seeing is not caused by human activities in the last two centuries that have caused CO2 levels to be higher than they have in the last 800,000 years, and that this is a "scam"?

if human activities did not cause CO2 levels to go way, way up, and thus temperatures, then what did?

termite farts?

 

[UncleBuck]