July 11, 2014
https://twitter.com/TillyLaCampagne/status/484776177794441216/photo/1
Clearly that is proof of global warming. Nobody can deny it.
And yet, you continue to post here. :smack:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293
In reality, the much colder winter trend, obvious in any data on global temperatures, has brought the entire global mean down, so much that we know have a 17 year flat trend, and an actual negative trend (cooling) from 1997, or 2002, depends on the analysis, but in any case, it’s global cooling.
But since it’s because of the colder winter trend, and that is due to global warming, the cooling is from the warming.
It’s science.
To be precise, the cooling trend in one portion of the northern hemisphere is due to warming in the rest of the world.
Glad I could help. You may return to your unhinged harangue.
Where is it warming?
There are a lot of types of science fiction, or genres, one is time travel, another is space war and another is global warming. The biggest thing about Globular warming is the prediction that the sea level was gonna rise by 3 meters be fore the end of the 20th century. Didn’t happen. Just a lot of BS. They boldly say that the sea level did rise by 7 millimeters, but I defy anyone to even measure the worldwide sea level within 7 millimeters. f one or a group invents a predictive science which cannot meet any of its own predictions it is time to give it up.
Mornin’, Dingo. Mind the jizz on the floors, and please check out with the front clerk when you’ve finished up.
How about 80 % of the world?
Multiple data sets discussed here:
as for predictions:
“Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate”
Done deal. Lots of data sets discussed here:
Please give me three specific examples.
Also, please let me know what you mean by “global warming” – is it simply the claim that global surface temperatures have been increasing? Or something more?
Skeptical Science is a self-published site, none of their predictions are scientific in the classical sense of the word. They’re a commercial website and will and do say anything that’ll make them a fast buck. What the hell is a “Hiroshima atomic bomb of heat”? The official unit of measure for energy (including heat) is the Joule. The only reason to use any other is to hide their lying ways.
The algorithm for temperature predicts the IPCC uses completely fails in the 1880-1930 time interval. That means it’s completely wrong. They have an axe to grind and they lie, lie, lie.
“Business as usual” is the stupidest criteria I’ve ever heard. That assumes all technological development ends, complete stand still. No one has any new ideas for the next 100 years. A preposterous notion used by charlatans world-wide.
Ralfy, why are you giving citations when you make no statement?
The citations are given in the same page. Also, the article was published in a newspaper:
“IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think”
Third, there are at least two papers mentioned in the article, and they are mentioned in other sites. For example,
“IPCC Climate Forecast from 1990- Amazingly Accurate”
“IPCC vs Reality: Who Got it Right?”
“IPCC’s climate projections on target so far”
(Truncating mine)
Citations for what?
Please explain what it is you wish me to understand.
Please make a statement, then give your citations if asked for.
What, exactly, is your opinion?
It’s used because “umpteen-bajillion joules” is not a figure the layman can do anything with. But “A billion hiroshima bombs”? People can sort of contextualize that.
Citation fucking needed!
I look forward to glacial melting switching off the Gulf Stream and triggering a new Ice Age. Those damned Brits have been coasting along with a climate that doesn’t match their latitude for too long. London is ten degrees further north than Chicago, but its summers are cooler and its winters warmer. I’d love it if they got month-long stretches with the temperature topping out at +32C or -18C.
That’s less than a second of solar burn. You just can’t dumb down astronomical numbers, or it makes you look like an idiot. How about a 100 W light bulb burning on every 1-1/3 square meters of the Earth’s surface?
Just look at the fool thing, extend that straight line down the complete data set. No, that’s a terrible fit. I’m calling for a citation on the math involved in drawing that red line, no fucking citation needed to ask.
The alarmists present this, it’s for them to explain …
Alarmists have no sense of humor. They think you are serious.