freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 12:37pm:


The consequences are understood. Benign warming. Anything else is irrational.

The fact you can't point to one model that has proved to be correct in 40 years of modeling proves my point. They have all overestimated warming.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 2:51pm:



Name one.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 2:51pm:


You do know the average of 90 model runs doesn't mean one is correct?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2021 at 5:04pm:


"Another scientist has pushed back against the doom-and-gloom climate change predictions from the United Nations and other governmental agencies.

Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.

In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor. Explained Woodcock:

"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth's surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' -- in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything in science, it's not significant..."

https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

original link posted -

https://nsidc.org/news/inthenews/nasa-scientist-global-warming-nonsense

But you saw the spread of tempertures depicted by the models; which ONE is spot on? An average of climate models is not ONE.

Perhaps you prefer this one?



"The purple line going through the observations is the Russian model “INM-CM4.” It is the only model that comes close to reality. INM-CM4, over longer periods, does very well at hindcasting observed temperatures. This model uses a CO2 forcing response that is 37% lower than the other models, a much higher deep ocean heat capacity (climate system inertia) and it exactly matches lower tropospheric water content and is biased low above that. The other models are biased high. The model predicts future temperature increases at a rate of about 1K/century, not at all alarming and much lower than the predictions of the other models."

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/facts-and-theories/

So sad that you have to resort to ad homs to try to make yourself believable.

Why are climate "skeptics" always blatant liars?

Quote:


They measure it.

Why did your "data" stop at 2013? Is it because you are so full of crap your eyes are brown? What happened after 2013?

Why did you give us a graph with measured data stopping at 2013 Lee? Did it really not occur to you that that is a bit suss?

So it literally did not occur to you that it is a bit suss that it did not have data up to this year? Do you have some kind of fetish for being lied to?

Quote:


There are all sorts of explanations for why you post the crap you do. None of them reflect well on you.