Getting hot yet?

[mark francis]

Global cooling? Really?

80 years ago? How relevant us that?

Should all climate predictions be made using only recent data? How recent? less than 40 years?

 

[mark francis]

Global cooling? Really?

That is complete bullshit.
When was orbital forcing ever contemplated or tested by science then concluded it was the primary cause.?

I am not a scientist. If you want me to believe your opinions about "orbital forcing" take precedence over what was said in the Forbes article then you are going to have to explain yourself.

 

[mark francis]

Democrats have proven their suspicions because republican godbotherers like you have never revealed it. It's common belief if it's not proven it cannot be proven either way. That's like your silly story about judges not being able to prove election fraud.
Democrat cultists yet you belong to a religious cult yourself.

If you still believe the Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, then I cannot help you.

 

[Boris Norris]

Should all climate predictions be made using only recent data? How recent? less than 40 years?

A time span is not relevant. What is is the data be accurate and not conflict with scientific data.
Obviously one must be wrong. In this case some nut saying the world is cooling but offers no evidence is obvious wrong yet you soak it up because it suits your politics.

 

[Boris Norris]

Forbes reported the information. If you claim they are wrong then it is your duty to prove them wrong.

I already have by simply using scientific data. Why hasn't Forbes challenged them for accuracy?
Because it wouldn't sell a magazine or con suckers like you.

 

[Boris Norris]

I already have by simply using scientific data. Why hasn't Forbes challenged them for accuracy?
Because it wouldn't sell a magazine or con suckers like you.

Heres the data you should be reading but it doesn't suit your agenda.

The earth is cooling???
What a joke you dumb prick.

World of Change: Global Temperatures

The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[mark francis]

A time span is not relevant. What is is the data be accurate and not conflict with scientific data.
Obviously one must be wrong. In this case some nut saying the world is cooling but offers no evidence is obvious wrong yet you soak it up because it suits your politics.

Al Gore Slips On Artic Ice; Misstates Scientist's Forecast : The Two-Way : NPR

THE TWO-WAY

Al Gore Slips On Artic Ice; Misstates Scientist's Forecast

December 15, 20092:14 PM ET

Al Gore slipped on Arctic ice by misstating a scientist's forecast on the pace of melting.

Tariq Mikkel Khan/Polfoto/AP Photo

Like most politicians, practicing and reformed, Al Gore has been known to stretch the truth on occasion.

Like the time he said in 1999, "During my time in the U.S. Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

So it's not surprising that he played it a bit fast and loose during a speech he gave at the Copenhagen climate-change conference with a global-warming prediction a scientist provided to his office. And even scientists who believe humans are contributing to global warming were alarmed by the misstatement of the forecast.

In a piece headlined "Inconvenient Truth For Al Gore As His North Pole Sums Don't Add Up" the Times, the right-leaning British news operation, reports:

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

 

[mark francis]

I already have by simply using scientific data. Why hasn't Forbes challenged them for accuracy?
Because it wouldn't sell a magazine or con suckers like you.

A bare-naked denial is not a well-reasoned refutation. You have not irrefutably proven Forbes wrong.

 

[mark francis]

Heres the data you should be reading but it doesn't suit your agenda.

The earth is cooling???
What a joke you dumb prick.

World of Change: Global Temperatures

The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Your source:
Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.
That statement reflects a great deal of confidence in the hype supporting climate change assumptions when facts and data cannot provide much support. Climate science is nowhere close to a compilation of irrefutable facts and logical conclusions based upon adequate levels of data and indisputable conclusions based upon that limited data. Here is another snippet from a peer-reviewed article that casts doubt on popular narratives lacking solid scientific support:


This conclusion is supported by comparison of the CO2 trend with the trend in the ocean heat content. The phase relationships between the CO2 and temperature are more complicated after the removal of the trends. The phase relationships are chaotic on time scales shorter than the annual time scale. During 1986-2008, the atmospheric CO2 changed in an-ti-phase with the global temperature. The phase relationship reversed in 1979 and after 2010. The atmospheric CO2 was in-phase with the global temperature on the El Nino time scale (2.3 - 7 years) except during very strong El Nino years in 1991-1999 when CO2 led the global temperature.


On the Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature (scirp.org)
American Journal of Climate Change > Vol.4 No.3, June 2015
On the Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
Alexander Ruzmaikin1*, Alexey Byalko2
1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA.
2Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chernogolovka, Russia.
DOI: 10.4236/ajcc.2015.43014 PDF HTML XML 5,659 Downloads 8,482 Views Citations

Abstract

 

[Boris Norris]

Your source:
Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—

particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.

Read that again you moron. Christ your dumb.

That statement reflects a great deal of confidence in the hype supporting climate change assumptions when facts and data cannot provide much support.

You wouldn't know about facts because you have never seen them or likely to so fuck off with your idiot statements.

Climate science is nowhere close to a compilation of irrefutable facts and logical conclusions based upon adequate levels of data and indisputable conclusions based upon that limited data. Here is another snippet from a peer-reviewed article that casts doubt on popular narratives lacking solid scientific support:


This conclusion is supported by comparison of the CO2 trend with the trend in the ocean heat content. The phase relationships between the CO2 and temperature are more complicated after the removal of the trends. The phase relationships are chaotic on time scales shorter than the annual time scale. During 1986-2008, the atmospheric CO2 changed in an-ti-phase with the global temperature. The phase relationship reversed in 1979 and after 2010. The atmospheric CO2 was in-phase with the global temperature on the El Nino time scale (2.3 - 7 years) except during very strong El Nino years in 1991-1999 when CO2 led the global temperature.

CO2 lead the global temperatures. Does that tell you anything fuckwit.

On the Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature (scirp.org)
American Journal of Climate Change > Vol.4 No.3, June 2015
On the Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
Alexander Ruzmaikin1*, Alexey Byalko2
1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA.
2Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chernogolovka, Russia.
DOI: 10.4236/ajcc.2015.43014 PDF HTML XML 5,659 Downloads 8,482 Views Citations

Abstract

Go away. You are an embarrassment to the most negative deniers yet you propose the opposite of your narrative as proof your right.
Do you understand what you're reading?
How could anything with a pulse connect what you push as a fact.
You're nutty.

 

[mark francis]

Read that again you moron. Christ your dumb.


You wouldn't know about facts because you have never seen them or likely to so fuck off with your idiot statements.

CO2 lead the global temperatures. Does that tell you anything fuckwit.


Go away. You are an embarrassment to the most negative deniers yet you propose the opposite of your narrative as proof your right.
Do you understand what you're reading?
How could anything with a pulse connect what you push as a fact.
You're nutty.

Heaping up reams of peer-reviewed nonsense papers will never turn global warming fiction science into truth.

 

[Boris Norris]

Heaping up reams of peer-reviewed nonsense papers will never turn global warming fiction science into truth.

Much the same is the abundance of faith you have there's a god will never make it real. The difference in this instance is science has proof. You've got nothing.