Climate Change

[Skoob]

You do realize that was a service that does global searches for academic papers, don't you?
Its like using google, when it worked, but as a better search engine dedicated to research.

None of the papers were hosted on that site.

Really? Does this sound like a free global search? How do you think data that is "entered by users" gets there if it was a global search like Google?

We are not using any of the LLM API endpoints directly but accessing it from a private space. This ensures that data entered by users in the query will not be accessible to any other party.
https://clarivate.com/products/scie...=Blog&utm_medium=Earned_Press#productfeatures

 

[JohnLarue]

You're doubling down on comparing apples to oranges using faulty old data, larue.
The IPCC projections are for anomalies in surface temperature readings and you keep posting a chart that uses troposphere data.
Not only that, but you only use old data as all new satellite troposphere shows the warming they would expect in the 0-10km of the troposphere.

How can you not understand this?

the issue is what you do not understand

anomalies are the change in temperature relative to a reference
its call a relative comparison and it is used extensively in time series analysis in business and science

have you never seen the consumer price index on a chart ?
gas price data, food price data , furniture price data, rent price data etc. etc. , all pegged to a reference
lots of different types of price data, all pegged to a time reference


explain how an Atmospheric Gas CO2 manages to heat up the surface faster than the Atmosphere ?
be sure to explain how your morons theory obeys the laws of Thermodynamics , the Stephan Law and conservation of energy



Confirmation
The Satellite data are experimental observations confirmed by 4 independent weather balloon data sets,
confirmation deems The Satellite experimental observations to be accurate and reliable

The failed climate models are an attempt to predict future data via an attempt to code physics theory into a computer program.
Predictions which cant replicate the past -- fail
Predictions which do not agree with other models -- fail. There is no way these bozos got the physics theory right when the distribution of Predictions is such a mess
Predictions which do not agree with other confirmed satellite/ weather balloon observations-- fail.

hmm.....independent confirmation vs. failures on multiple levels...... hmm


How can you not understand this?

well..........your decision to drop out of high school does explain a lot

 

[Frankfooter]

Really? Does this sound like a free global search? How do you think data that is "entered by users" gets there if it was a global search like Google?

We are not using any of the LLM API endpoints directly but accessing it from a private space. This ensures that data entered by users in the query will not be accessible to any other party.
https://clarivate.com/products/scie...=Blog&utm_medium=Earned_Press#productfeatures

Every day your ignorance surprises me, skoob.
You don't even understand what that quote means, do you?

 

[Frankfooter]

the issue is what you do not understand

anomalies are the change in temperature relative to a reference

larue, the reference is surface temperature.
They are projecting changes (anomalies) in the surface temperature.

Not the temperature in the troposphere.
Are you really unable to understand this?
You're making skoob look clever in comparison.

 

[JohnLarue]

larue, the reference is surface temperature.
They are projecting changes (anomalies) in the surface temperature.

Not the temperature in the troposphere.
Are you really unable to understand this?
You're making skoob look clever in comparison.

they are trying to predict the expected changes in temperature due to the greenhouse gas theory, not the greenhouse surface theory,
you blithering scientific know nothing

explain how an Atmospheric Gas CO2 manages to heat up the surface faster than the Atmosphere ?
be sure to explain how your morons theory obeys the laws of Thermodynamics , the Stephan Law and conservation of energy



The failed climate models are an attempt to predict future data via an attempt to code physics theory into a computer program.
Predictions which cant replicate the past -- the minimum requirement of any predictive model - fail
Predictions which do not agree with other models -- fail. There is no way these bozos got the physics theory right when the distribution of Predictions is such a mess
Predictions which do not agree with other confirmed satellite/ weather balloon observations-- fail.

hmm.....independent confirmation vs. failures on multiple levels...... hmm

You're making a corpse look clever in comparison.

 

[JohnLarue]

this is funny

 

[Leimonis]

 

[JohnLarue]

Has the 'settled science" missed something ?

how will the loonie left tax changes in cloud cover % ?
will there be a parallel Ponzi scheme CCCP rebate ?
(CCCP = Climate Cloud Cover Program
not the CCCP - Climate Change and Carbon Plan, a strategic plan adopted by the Oregon Board of Forestry
and not the evil CCCP Союз Советских Социалистических Республик i.e. commie red, pinko, murderous bastards Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
oops, I digress

is evil humanity at fault for storing its computer data in the clouds?




the IPCC treats cloud cover & reflected solar radiation as a constant
specifying with precision it to a tenth of a W/ m 2 >>>> 101.9 W/m2
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html (accessed 6 March 2012).



note the net absorbed is the energy imbalance which theoretically is the driver of the hysteria = 0.9 W/ m2
again defined precision to a tenth of a W/ m2

0.9 W/ m2 is miniscule fraction of all the other the energy flows in the earths Energy "Balance"
a miniscule fraction of values they cant get right ??? I do not think so

also note 396 w/m2 outward surface radiation is greater than the 341 w/m2 source incoming solar radiation ??
the law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
the surface is radiating out more energy than the energy provided by the sun at the top of the atmosphere ??? I do not think so

and 396 w/m2 outward surface radiation is more than 2X the 161 w/m2 absorbed by the surface ???
and 333 w/m2 back radiation radiation is more than 2X the 161 w/m2 absorbed by the surface ???

what a bunch of bozos

and to be skeptical gets one labelled / cancelled as a denier ?

 

[Frankfooter]

they are trying to predict the expected changes in temperature due to the greenhouse gas theory, not the greenhouse surface theory,
you blithering scientific know nothing

Wow, your ignorance combined with a stubborn refusal to accept facts is constantly shocking larue.
The IPCC is projecting changes in the climate due to increases in greenhouse gases and they are projecting and measuring those changes with global surface temperatures.

Go to the NASA page where they report the Global temperature and read the description of what they measure.

Global Surface Temperature | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

This graph shows the change in global surface temperature compared to the long-term average from 1951 to 1980. Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS). NASA’s analysis generally matches independent analyses prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other research groups. Overall, Earth was about 2.45 degrees Fahrenheit (or about 1.36 degrees Celsius) warmer in 2023 than in the late 19th-century (1850-1900) preindustrial average. The 10 most recent years are the warmest on record.

You keep trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing projections for surface temperature with atmospheric, troposphere measurements.

what is wrong with you?

 

[Frankfooter]

Has the 'settled science" missed something ?

No, larue.
Its just too complicated for you to understand.
Give it a try, read this.

Clouds and Aerosols — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[JohnLarue]

You keep trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing projections for surface temperature with atmospheric, troposphere measurements.

explain how an Atmospheric Gas CO2 manages to heat up the surface faster than the Atmosphere ?
be sure to explain how your morons theory obeys the laws of Thermodynamics , the Stephan Law and conservation of energy

here learn something

 

[Frankfooter]

explain how an Atmospheric Gas CO2 manages to heat up the surface faster than the Atmosphere ?
be sure to explain how your morons theory obeys the laws of Thermodynamics , the Stephan Law and conservation of energy

Again, larue, this is about you repeatedly comparing apples to oranges.
This is from the IPCC projections, note that they talk about surface temperatures, even noting its surface air temperatures.
Not the temperature in the troposphere.

Will you ever admit you are wrong, or will you keep denying this forever?

 

[JohnLarue]

]Again, larue, this is about you repeatedly comparing apples to oranges.

no it is about comparing anomalies
predicted changes in temperature vs observed changes in temperature

since you continue to dodge the question, your view is worthless
(actually your view has negative value..... you know... due to your long comical history of continuous deceit)

explain how an Atmospheric Gas CO2 manages to heat up the surface faster than the Atmosphere ?
be sure to explain how your morons theory obeys the laws of Thermodynamics , the Stephan Law and conservation of energy

This is from the IPCC projections, note that they talk about surface temperatures, even noting its surface air temperatures.
Not the temperature in the troposphere.

no it is about comparing anomalies
predicted changes in temperature vs observed changes in temperature

if you had any scientific training you might have understood this.
its not my fault you dropped out of high school

 

[bver_hunter]

Remember how people would say that people were dying after getting their covid vax's? It was like anyone who died afterwards for any reason, they believed it was attributed to the vaccine?
Remember that...still goes on to this day.

That's how you guys sound about climate change whenever there's a flood or forest fire.

The righties were making that propaganda about more people dying from the vaccines etc. The vaccines have those microchips that are going to track your every movement by the Deep State. So what is your point?

When we are seeing the scale of the unprecedented fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes etc., you guys come up with statements like it is just a cycle and not a big deal. The forest fires were deliberately started etc. etc........ Enough said!!

 

[Frankfooter]

no it is about comparing anomalies
predicted changes in temperature vs observed changes in temperature

Its about comparing the changes in temperature on the surface of the planet where humans live instead of in the clouds, where your satellite reads temps.
I'm sure as your HVAC job you had before you retired 30 years ago, you'd be telling customers, that its really warm in their house and they really should take the temperature inside the stove for reference, its way better than using the thermostat.

You're comparing apples to oranges.
Surface temperatures to the temperature in the clouds.

Are you too stupid to understand this or just too dishonest to care?

 

[wigglee]

Good to see the instant karma of wildfires currently threatening Alberta right after Ontario had the warmest winter ever...LOL Yea... big hoax..

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Ontario had the warmest winter ever...LOL Yea... big hoax..

El Nino year, bro

 

[oil&gas]

Good to see the instant karma of wildfires currently threatening Alberta right after Ontario had the warmest winter ever...LOL Yea... big hoax..

Sooner or later Newfoundland will be hit as well by Karma in the
form of massive snow storm or tsunami. Drilling in deep water for
polluting oil and gas couldn't be less damaging to Earth's climate
than oil sands extraction.

 

[canada-man]

Good to see the instant karma of wildfires currently threatening Alberta right after Ontario had the warmest winter ever...LOL Yea... big hoax..

most wild fires are set by people

 

[JohnLarue]

Good to see the instant karma of wildfires currently threatening Alberta right after Ontario had the warmest winter ever...LOL Yea... big hoax..

the warmest winter ever ?
wrong, ask a geologist

best be sure of what is included or not included in your definition of "ever."
best be sure of what data source is the basis for a claimed new record

GOLDSTEIN: Feds scrapped 100 years of data on climate change

Canadians already suspicious of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious given a report by Ottawa-based Blacklock’s…

torontosun.com

GOLDSTEIN: Feds scrapped 100 years of data on climate change

Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.

The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.

“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”

since all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 were deemed unreliable due to limited number of weather stations , all you can claim is that

Ontario had the warmest winter ever. recorded .LOL Yea... big hoax.. since 1950 – Korean War begins.

that is a damn sight short of 'ever'

BTW like so many states/ provinces the record hottest temperature observation for Ontario occurred in the 1930s

42.2 °C (108 °F) Iroquois Falls , 1935