- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Oh, goody.... more cherry-picked and misleading data from the idiot liar who got himself banned from youtube!!
Nothing wrong with this. But that is only because it came from a real scientist. And then every single thing Tony says in this post of his is just stupid.
What kind of idiot uses a 124-year trend when considering what AGW has been doing to precipitation? Most of the effect from AGW have happened in the last few decades. All Tony is doing by using such a long trend is hiding the recent and immediate effects of AGW on precipitation:
View attachment 67301315
So... Colorado has been seeing a decline in precipitation in recent years.
Saying that this is entirely from "data tampering" is a lie! Again... looking at the last 40 years of this data instead of the ridiculous 124 years shows much more warming:
View attachment 67301316
And that is warming Tony Heller can't make go away no matter if he only uses raw data or not.
Hey... at least the time period I am choosing makes sense and is an acceptable time frame for most scientists. Unlike Tony who cherry-picks to get the result he wants.Cherry pick away. I hope your special pleading gives you comfort.
Actually, no. Your truncated timeline makes little sense.Aren't wildfires a part of nature? They will burn out......eventually. How dare mankind intervene with forest management.
No. CO2 is the main driver of AGW. AGW is not a climate problem.
Quite dishonest of you. Of course CO2 is a component of AGW. AGW is not a problem.
Do you think global warming whatever the cause is a problem? if so, why?Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
500 years ago, the first Europeans to explore that area wrote in their journals about wildfires worse than these.
With regard to humanity, global warming has been a massive benefit in every respect. Our species has been around for ~200,000 years, and yet it has only been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period 11,700 years ago that we developed civilization and the technology we enjoy today. It has also been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period that our population really began to start increasing.Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
GW is not a problem.Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
GW is not a problem.Then, are you saying GW is not a problem of any kind, short or long term? Or just the AGW 50% part? What are you saying?
Do you think global warming whatever the cause is a problem? if so, why?
Notice the wording, will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;Yes, global warming, more broadly climate change, is a problem as edified in the following excerpts from the articles in the links further below:
Why is global warming a problem?
- at the same time that sea levels are rising, human population continues to grow most rapidly in flood-vulnerable, low-lying coastal zones;
- places where famine and food insecurity are greatest in today’s world are not places where milder winters will boost crop or vegetation productivity, but instead, are places where rainfall will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
- the countries most vulnerable to global warming’s most serious side effects are among the poorest and least able to pay for the medical and social services and technological solutions that will be needed to adapt to climate change.
- IPCC: “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/why-is-global-warming-a-problem/
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
- Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average. Yet some regions are experiencing more severe drought, increasing the risk of wildfires, lost crops, and drinking water shortages.
- Some species—including mosquitoes, ticks, jellyfish, and crop pests—are thriving. Booming populations of bark beetles that feed on spruce and pine trees, for example, have devastated millions of forested acres in the U.S.Effects of Global Warming
- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/global-climate-change-impacts-united-states
With regard to humanity, global warming has been a massive benefit in every respect. Our species has been around for ~200,000 years, and yet it has only been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period 11,700 years ago that we developed civilization and the technology we enjoy today. It has also been since the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial Period that our population really began to start increasing.
We are only able to sustain 7.8 billion people on this planet because of global warming. Every year more land is freed from permafrost and becomes arable.
The second thing you should know is that atmospheric CO2 has a negligible effect on the climate. Of all the greenhouse gases water vapor is responsible for 95%+ of the radiative forcing, while atmospheric CO2 is responsible for less than 3%. That is less than 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, all 412 ppmV. Not the pathetically piddly 4.8 ppmV that humanity contributes. If all atmospheric CO2 is less than 3% of the radiative forcing, imagine how small 1.117% of less than 3% would be: 0.0351%
Only Marxists push the AGW scam, and have from the beginning. They are the only ones stupid enough with the massive hubris to believe that the human contribution of 4.8 ppmV of atmospheric CO2 is effecting the climate of the entire planet.
GW is not a problem.
GW is neither a short nor long term problem, now or ever.Typical Jack. You’re not taking a definitive position. “GW is not a problem” is not a definitive answer to the question “Is GW neither a short nor long term problem?”. Your answer appears to be in the present tense. Your usual evasive self. I’ll try one more time. When you say “GW is not a problem”, do you mean GW is neither a short nor long term problem? A direct, forthright answer will be appreciated.
The scientific community disagrees with youGW is neither a short nor long term problem, now or ever.
and the politicians, or at least some of them, agree.The scientific community disagrees with you
Effects
Takeaways Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets...climate.nasa.gov
Notice the wording, will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;
the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.
Also we have to consider that the climate does change without Human activity, and which portion
of the changes are purely natural, and which portion could be changed by changes in Human activity?
Only in your mind, The IPCC report, is a report issued by the UN designed to keep the alarms about climate change ringing,All of which you say has been delineated in the IPCC report of consensus science, which you cannot refute with any science backed by any significant number of scientist.
More BS that you have been shown to be wrong more than once. The IPCC scientists never said that Otto et al.2013 was the best estimate. As a matter of fact, one of the authors of Otto said that the model was too simplistic and was probably not the best study.Only in your mind, The IPCC report, is a report issued by the UN designed to keep the alarms about climate change ringing,
it only represents what the editor's of the report allow through.
Here is an example from AR5 concerning a best estimate of ECS.
AR5 SPM
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
When in reality the scientist working on the report did report a best estimate of ECS, which they published as a Nature article.
otto
"The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C "
But they could not have the lead authors of the last IPCC report, reporting that the ECS from doubling the CO2 level would only be 2.0 °C,
So they made one of the most unscientific statements ever, that the model results disagreed with the observation's, and so no agreement could be found.
In science, if the model disagrees with the observation, the model is wrong!
You do know that Otto, was one of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, right?More BS that you have been shown to be wrong more than once. The IPCC scientists never said that Otto et al.2013 was the best estimate. As a matter of fact, one of the authors of Otto said that the model was too simplistic and was probably not the best study.
Yes. So what? Just because he was a lead author doesn't mean this one particular study is anything special.You do know that Otto, was one of the lead authors of IPCC AR5, right?
If that is the research of one of the lead authors, why did the IPCC exclude it?Yes. So what? Just because he was a lead author doesn't mean this one particular study is anything special.
It wasn't excluded. And I have proven this exact point to you before.If that is the research of one of the lead authors, why did the IPCC exclude it?
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?