- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 5,407
- Reaction score
- 1,128
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
It is not 0.51°C. You need to learn how to read a graph. Here is a clue... the temp in your graph in 1880 is about -0.3°C.
It is not 0.51°C. You need to learn how to read a graph. Here is a clue... the temp in your graph in 1880 is about -0.3°C.The first issue is your source. PragerU is not a credible source. I have no issues with Richard Lindzen, other than appearing in a YouTube video that has no credibility. Which in return damages his credibility. He would have been better served to simply make the video under his own name.
The second issue is his "Group 1" in which he claims are "scientists with the International Panel on Climate Change." When in reality it it is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and consists entirely of politicians, not scientists.
The third issue is the amount of temperature change since 1880. According to NASA's GISS data the mean temperature increase between 1880 and 2011 is only 0.51°C (0.936°F) which is half of what he is claiming because he is getting his misinformation from the extremely leftist and highly political IPCC.
View attachment 67356722
It is a lie that,This is a lie.
And this is even more denialist BS!! Long is ignoring aerosols again. And when one does calculations like this you have to take into account the cooling from aerosols or you will make the warming from GHGs look smaller than they really are.
Seriously, long... this intellectual dishonesty from you is getting really old.
Then by all means prove me wrong and demonstrate with the observed data a 2.72 feedback factor?the high feedback factors needed for a doubling of CO2 to be 3 C or higher, cannot be demonstrated with the observed temperature data!
Apparently I can read graphs better than you. During the two warming periods between 1880 and 2010 the temperature increased by 0.89°C. However, during the two cool periods between 1880 and 2010 the temperature decreased by 0.38°C. Resulting in a net increase of 0.51°C. Once again, this comes directly from NASA, not the propaganda bullshit the IPCC is trying to push off.It is not 0.51°C. You need to learn how to read a graph. Here is a clue... the temp in your graph in 1880 is about -0.3°C.
The light colored aerosols cool, and the dark colored aerosols warm.This is a lie.
And this is even more denialist BS!! Long is ignoring aerosols again. And when one does calculations like this you have to take into account the cooling from aerosols or you will make the warming from GHGs look smaller than they really are.
Seriously, long... this intellectual dishonesty from you is getting really old.
Yeah he's only published over 200 papers on climate and taught it for 30 years at MIT so what would he know . DENIALIST !I could see that this was denialist misinformation 20 seconds into it with the cherry-picked temp data that completely left out the last four years of record temps. And much of the rest of it is old and no longer thought to be true.
Translation . Lw hyperpartisans like schmidt and mann And oppenheimer don’t like him.LAFFHe was.
Then he retired, and went bonkers, scientifically. He garners very little respect in the scientific community. I mean… he’s on the board of Heartland, which is widely considered a complete joke by all legitimate scientists in the field.
No thanks. I have been watching you make a fool of yourself attempting to do this for years. And I am smart enough to know I don't have the skill to do it. I don't know why you can't figure out that you have the same problem considering all the times you do stupid stuff like forgetting to include aerosols in your calculations. Or did you not forget and are being intentionally misleading?Then by all means prove me wrong and demonstrate with the observed data a 2.72 feedback factor?
Choose any years temperature as the input temperature, and the temperature 10 years later, less the forcing, cannot produce a feedback factor anywhere near high enough.
The IPCC gave us all a bunch of information on this subject including some handy graphs that we can see what the positives and negatives are. You should have seen it under radiative forcings shown in the executive summary that you claimed to have read. Did you miss it or are you just ignoring inconvenient facts again?Let me ask you since you, claim I am ignoring the aerosols, between 2011 and 2020 (Years selected by the IPCC)
What addition or subtraction did aerosols contribute to the 0.105°C of forcing?
If it is such a large factor, as you claim, then you must have a number in mind.
Greenhouse gasses force a positive imbalance, are you saying the aerosols are pushing the other way, fine but by how much?
Seriously dude... you need to learn how to read a graph. Get back to me when you understand why 0.51°C is wrong.Apparently I can read graphs better than you. During the two warming periods between 1880 and 2010 the temperature increased by 0.89°C. However, during the two cool periods between 1880 and 2010 the temperature decreased by 0.38°C. Resulting in a net increase of 0.51°C. Once again, this comes directly from NASA, not the propaganda bullshit the IPCC is trying to push off.
It is a lot more complicated than that. And the IPCC report explains it fairly well. Maybe you should read it instead of just guessing.The light colored aerosols cool, and the dark colored aerosols warm.
Please understand that concept.
Did you see the graph I am talking about? It ended at the start of 2016. Do you not know that after that temps hit a new high?Yeah he's only published over 200 papers on climate and taught it for 30 years at MIT so what would he know . DENIALIST !
The last FOUR years temps you say ...... are you kidding me !
So now you are a science denier? Why am I not surprised?Seriously dude... you need to learn how to read a graph. Get back to me when you understand why 0.51°C is wrong.
Everyone who really knows how to read that graph is either laughing at you or wincing.So now you are a science denier? Why am I not surprised?
What part of NASA's GISS data did you not comprehend? It is NASA telling you that the net increase in temperature between 1880 and 2011 was only 0.51°C, not I. You would just prefer to believe the propaganda bullshit from the IPCC rather than actual science.
Incorrect, only ignorant fools and science denying morons claim NASA is full of shit.Everyone who really knows how to read that graph is either laughing at you or wincing.
So you think that I am wrong but cannot prove it, I think that means that what you think is a belief!No thanks. I have been watching you make a fool of yourself attempting to do this for years. And I am smart enough to know I don't have the skill to do it. I don't know why you can't figure out that you have the same problem considering all the times you do stupid stuff like forgetting to include aerosols in your calculations. Or did you not forget and are being intentionally misleading?
The question was what amount of negative aerosol forcing needs to be subtracted from the 0.105°C of greenhouse gas forcing between 2011 and 2020?The IPCC gave us all a bunch of information on this subject including some handy graphs that we can see what the positives and negatives are. You should have seen it under radiative forcings shown in the executive summary that you claimed to have read. Did you miss it or are you just ignoring inconvenient facts again?
I was pointing out is id more complicated and that your remarks were wrong.It is a lot more complicated than that. And the IPCC report explains it fairly well. Maybe you should read it instead of just guessing.
It’s pretty funny, actually.Everyone who really knows how to read that graph is either laughing at you or wincing.
So wait… if you say NASA is wrong, you are a science denying moron?Incorrect, only ignorant fools and science denying morons claim NASA is full of shit.
In Brief:
The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible on the timescale of people alive today, and will worsen in the decades to come.
From the blogger section of NASA.... OK....So wait… if you say NASA is wrong, you are a science denying moron?
Hmmm. Wanna hear what NASA says about climate change?
Here’s one thing:
So you think the NASA position is not this one? You think NASA somehow allows people to just put personal views on their website unrelated to their position?From the blogger section of NASA.... OK....
I have answered this and similar questions by you a bazillion times. Just how bad is your memory?So you think the NASA position is not this one? You think NASA somehow allows people to just put personal views on their website unrelated to their position?
That’s literally the stupidest ****ing take ever. And if you dont see that, its amazing.
When your answer is, essentially, ‘nuh-uh’, it deserves to be repeatedly called out.I have answered this and similar questions by you a bazillion times. Just how bad is your memory?
Please stop trolling me.
Look. I have shown why what they say is wrong before. I have long ago quoted from each study they used on the consensus for example. Explained it. Not my problem you don't have the scientific competency to understand.When your answer is, essentially, ‘nuh-uh’, it deserves to be repeatedly called out.
I don't expect this will even be opened by the usual suspects but it explains in the simplest laymans terms why we have gotten ourselves into this current paranoia , and why it is being propagated
youtube.com/watch?v=RCgEAmr42yI
Stand by for the torrent of hysteria and abuse this guy now gets for using common sense and stating the obvious
As I said, it was a bunch of ‘nuh-uh’.Look. I have shown why what they say is wrong before. I have long ago quoted from each study they used on the consensus for example. Explained it. Not my problem you don't have the scientific competency to understand.
What good would it be for me to explain it in detail again? You will just deny it again.
Please stop harassing me.
Everyone who really knows how to read that graph is either laughing at you or wincing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?