Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 3
2020 goes down in the NASA record books as the hottest, though it barely edged 2016: 1.02C above the 1951-1980 average vs 1.01C over average in 2016.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20210114/

"
“The last seven years have been the warmest seven years on record, typifying the ongoing and dramatic warming trend,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Whether one year is a record or not is not really that important — the important things are long-term trends. With these trends, and as the human impact on the climate increases, we have to expect that records will continue to be broken.”
"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Update/correction: The NASA data page has been updated with the December and yearly global temperature, and it reports that 2020 finished in a tie with 2016 at 1.02 deg C over the 1951-1980 average.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
2020 Hottest Year on Record, per NASA

That is impossible Ben because the temperature data we have from around the world, show that our planet is cooling for the last 100 - 150 years and in fact, the Geological record shows that the planet is cooling for roughly the last 10,000 years:

a. The US has been cooling the last 123 years. Here is a graph for US summer temperatures of all US Historical Climatology Network Stations the last 100 years that show cooling. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/20...

b. Russia is cooling for the last 123 years and here is the graph of all Russian GSN Stations that show cooling. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20...

c. France is cooling for the last 123 years and here is a graph of all French GHCN stations that show cooling. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20...

More from here. https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/for-climate-scientist...

d. Australia has been cooling for the last 155 years and here is a graph of all GHCN stations that show cooling: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/bom-hiding-all...

e. Antarctica is cooling for the last 40 Years: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Ken_2.jp... and data here https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Also RSS shows Antarctica cooling during the same period RSS https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Ken_3.pn...

The South Pole is also cooling for the last 63 plus years and the Southern Ocean for at least the last 40 years. https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/14-southern-s...

And finally the Geological record - the temperature of the Holocene, the last 10,000 years. http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/GISP2.jpg This says that with the exception of The Little Ice Age we live at the coldest part of the last 10,000 years.

Conclusion: The claim that 2020 is the hottest year on record has no basis in fact.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ajax posts fake news again. I wish we could FA fake news.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
ajax posts fake news again. I wish we could FA fake news. - jaagu

-------------

Fake news, aka ideas or opinions snowflake progressives don't agree with, get FA'ed all the time. They claim to believe in diversity, except when it is diversity of opinions they don't agree with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Fake news, aka ideas or opinions snowflake progressives don't agree with, get FA'ed all the time. They claim to believe in diversity, except when it is diversity of opinions they don't agree with.

===========================================

Nope! Fake news that Trump worshipers and snowflake right wingers vomit all over the boards!

This has nothing to do with diversity. Science only has one set of facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
snowflake right wingers

Sorry, there is no such thing. All snowflakes are leftwing/liberal crybabies. Whaah, boo-hoo is their calling card.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, there is no such thing. All snowflakes are leftwing/liberal crybabies. Whaah, boo-hoo is their calling card.

----------------------------------

I saw other people call you snowflake. I guess you should be called soot-flake.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, there is no such thing. All snowflakes are leftwing/liberal crybabies. Whaah, boo-hoo is their calling card.

----------------------------------

I saw other people call you snowflake. I guess you should be called soot-flake.


Never argue wit an idiot. Some listeners (readers) may not see the distinction.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I saw other people call you snowflake. I guess you should be called soot-flake.

So, you're writing about 'your own post' on a different board? See a shrink and don't miss the appointment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, you're writing about 'your own post' on a different board?

Ok, in the spirit of good humor, what you're really trying to do is come up with some witty slang term to sling around at folks...hmm
You seem to want to relate it to coal, i assume. Charcoal doesn't flake, it powders... so we need something else...The marketer in me suggest something along the lines of, um, 'char-tards'. It relates to charcoal and you think people who would even dare lighting it on fire or having in their homes for warmth or cooking, etc, as equivalent to a re-tards (not hip with it). So, have at it. A new word for your vocabulary courtesy of an adversary who thinks man-made global warming is live action fraud.
Besides, char-tards haz a certain ring to it, no?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Besides, char-tards haz a certain ring to it, no? - wadigo

-----------------------

I recently watched an episode on Nova titled something like "Polar Extremes". It was interesting as they started with the polar regions eons ago and took the viewer through periods of warming and cooling and what caused each cycle. Interesting stuff.

Eventually and inevitably they got around to global warming and how human activity was driving change at a faster pace than ever observed in history. They mentioned some giant number of tons of CO2 being emitted each year. To help the viewer visualize that amount of carbon, they started with one vehicle getting 25 mpg. They did the math showing one gallon of gas, when burned, resulted in IIRC 6 lbs of carbon which they represented by charcoal briquets like you would use in your grill.

They showed the car traveling down a pristine ocean front drive emitting charcoal briquets from its exhaust as it traveled. The relabeled these briquettes as "car tu rds" <the TMP nanny filter requires me to insert the space in tu rd> and proceeded to show how big a pile one car would produce in a year, a pretty big pile. Then they showed a car tu rd mountain indicating much the USA would produce in a year. The concluded with a car tu rd mountain range for how much is produced world wide each year.

So to add to your example, we have ignorant char-tards traveling about, obliviously spewing car tu rds wherever they go.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh No!! I've plagiarized Nova!
So sorry. (Don't tell Greta)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"So to add to your example, we have ignorant char-tards traveling about, obliviously spewing car tu rds wherever they go"

But those trees and other leafy plants just eat up those car tu rds by the megaton. Those jungles love those little bricketts worth of carbon.

In fact, if it weren't for CO2, you'd be eating rocks and dirt for dinner. there wouldn't be any animals, toads, birds, reptiles, etc....

No bees.....no bird seed......no birds.....

Just 14,000 years ago, the planet was covered in ice. The next ice age is coming soon. Maybe a little warmth might stall it off? They average every 18,000 year intervals.




t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
They did the math showing one gallon of gas, when burned, resulted in IIRC 6 lbs of carbon which they represented by charcoal briquets...
-------------------------------

I get about 5.3 lbs.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

One gallon of gasoline produces 19.6 lbs of CO2 when burned. 19.6 x (12/44) = 5.3 lbs carbon

12/44 is the ratio of atomic and molecular weights to give pure carbon.

- Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Just 14,000 years ago, the planet was covered in ice. The next ice age is coming soon. Maybe a little warmth might stall it off? They average every 18,000 year intervals.

t.


-------------------

To my surprise the Nova show did not hector us to attempt to stop global warming and acknowledged the planet had seen these temperatures and CO2 levels before. The point was the change was happen faster than any previous cycle and "we" might not be able to adapt in the shortened cycle.

I put "we" in quotes because "we" were not around at the last temperature peak but somehow warmists have concluded we will be unable to adapt over 8,000-10,000 years when in previous cycles "we" would have had 12,000-15,000 years".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I saw other people call you snowflake. I guess you should be called soot-flake.

So, you're writing about 'your own post' on a different board? See a shrink and don't miss the appointment.

============================================================

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!🤣

The other person was wzambon2 who called you a rightwing snowflake on the conservative board on 1/14/2021.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The other person was wzambon2 who called you a rightwing snowflake on the conservative board on 1/14/2021.

Please write him/her/it a note and explain he is using the term incorrectly. thank you very much
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
soot-flake writes:

Please write him/her/it a note and explain he is using the term incorrectly. thank you very much

===================================================

🤣🤣🤣 You already did try to explain it wzambon2 [who is a prolific poster with a green star]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
t. writes:

Just 14,000 years ago, the planet was covered in ice.

=========================================================

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Are you trying to out lie Trump. The whole planet was not covered in ice!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"The whole planet was not covered in ice! "

True...but NYC was under a mile of ice and EU was frozen nearly all the way to the Med.

Most of North America was under the ice sheet ....... and probably a good chunk of South America as well.

The oceans fell 200-300 feet.


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"The whole planet was not covered in ice! "

True...but NYC was under a mile of ice and EU was frozen nearly all the way to the Med.

Most of North America was under the ice sheet ....... and probably a good chunk of South America as well.

The oceans fell 200-300 feet.


t


---------------------

Just for the record, the entire planet HAS been covered in ice before. It was just longer ago than 14,000 years.

I am an expert on these matters since I watched that show on PBS that I previously posted about.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Snowball Earth


http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150112-did-snowball-earth-m...

"The ice brought Earth to a standstill. Where there were once waves lapping onto a tropical shore and warm waters teeming with life, there was just the whistling of the wind and a cold barren landscape, covered in ice as far as the eye could see. Even at the equator – the warmest place on Earth – the average temperature was a frigid -20°C, equivalent to modern-day Antarctica. Most life was wiped out, and the creatures that did survive huddled in small pockets of open water, where hot springs continued to bubble up.

This was "Snowball Earth" – a deep freeze that began around 715 million years ago and held Earth in its icy grip for a good 120 million years. ""

---

If you want a laugh, read the Wiki page on Snowball Earth - the folks there weasel word the 'hypothesis' as if it never could have happen.

It did. The evidence is overwhelming. But it does upset the precarious 'global warming' and CO2 mantra.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
jaagu: Are you trying to out lie Trump. The whole planet was not covered in ice!

Are you trying to reason with a troll? Tsk, tsk. There are a few ignoranti who come here to post their spew, and they seem to rec one another's idiocy. Pity. Best to ignore them.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tele wrote: [Snowball Earth did [happen]. The evidence is overwhelming.

Which is fine, but then he incorrectly added: But it does upset the precarious 'global warming' and CO2 mantra.

Wrong. Snowball Earth doesn't upset one bit the fact of recent global warming or the fact that our CO2 and other heat trapping pollution is causing it.

Tele conveniently provided a link which contradicts his own statement: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150112-did-snowball-earth-m...
"
[Snowball Earth] was probably caused by rapid weathering of Earth's continents, which sucked carbon dioxide – a planet-warming greenhouse gas – out of the atmosphere and caused temperatures to plummet. There were two distinct pulses of extreme glaciation, interspersed with a 20-million-year warm period. Finally, around 660 million years ago, Earth's volcanoes topped up the atmospheric carbon dioxide enough to haul the climate out of its frozen state.
"

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are one of the strongest control knobs that affect global climate, and the Snowball Earth period is no exception to that rule.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wrong. Snowball Earth doesn't upset one bit the fact of recent global warming or the fact that our CO2 and other heat trapping pollution is causing it... Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are one of the strongest control knobs that affect global climate...

Tell us Ben:

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Mars with a CO2 concentration exceeding 95%? No answer!

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Venus with a CO2 concentration exceeding 97%? No answer! Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level) with a very minor adjustment for Venus being closer to the Sun.

Your assumption that CO2 is causing Global Warming violates our daily observations and basic science.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let me guess, Ajax is spouting some nonsense that was debunked 20 years ago and has been refuted on this board for more than a decade ... yep.

Pure propaganda, all the time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Mars with a CO2 concentration exceeding 95%? No answer!
• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Venus with a CO2 concentration exceeding 97%? No answer! Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level) with a very minor adjustment for Venus being closer to the Sun.
Your assumption that CO2 is causing Global Warming violates our daily observations and basic science.

Let me guess, Ajax is spouting some nonsense that was debunked 20 years ago and has been refuted on this board for more than a decade ... yep. Pure propaganda, all the time.
----

Ben, If you are unable to respond to the arguments - because you don't have any facts, you don't have any data, you don't have any observations and you don't have any science whatsoever, then you attack your opponent.

Ben, this is an admission from your part that you lost the debate and that Global Warming is a fraud.

Have a nice day.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I see the ignored fool is yapping, but I've way, way too much time arguing with that brick wall/sock puppet propagandist to get drawn in for more of it. I'd encourage people to check out his claims using Google and reputable sources to see how easily they are debunked.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I see the ignored fool is yapping... [Big snip of nonsense]

Ben, you are reading and replying to my posts and you are telling the board you have me on ignore? You are laughable!

Regardless, if you want to defend your precious Global Warming, then respond to this argument that has proven that Global Warming has no basis in fact and it is a fraud!

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Mars with a CO2 concentration exceeding 95%? No answer!

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Venus with a CO2 concentration exceeding 97%? No answer! Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level) with a very minor adjustment for Venus being closer to the Sun.

Bottom line, you cannot respond to this argument because it is based on rock solid facts and against these facts, there is no argument!

Have a nice day Ben and Thank You for the feedback!


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thank you for ignoring the ridiculous claims by this fool (note the small "f".) Would that more folks would do so, He and his fellow fools are barking and barking. Ignoring them is the best treatment. Yes, they trade recs back and forth. They want nothing less than to destroy this board.

Why? I have no idea why they continue to spout their nonsense.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Thank you for ignoring the ridiculous claims by this fool (note the small "f".) ... CNC

He is not ignoring my posts CNC. He is reading my posts and he is replying to my posts and so are you!

And you both seem unable to respond to the arguments I presented because frankly you don't have any science to back you up.

Speaking of science this is Richard Feynman on why Science rejects Global Warming. "Richard Feynman - The Key to Science" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0 one minute long.

Question: Is the claim that CO2 is causing Global Warming validated by nature and our experience?

Answer: No. No because:

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Mars with a CO2 concentration exceeding 95%? No answer!
• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Venus with a CO2 concentration exceeding 97%? No answer! Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level) with a very minor adjustment for Venus being closer to the Sun.

Therefore, your claim that CO2 is causing Global Warming is not validated by nature and our experience.

CNC, Thank you for the feedback and for admitting that you too are unable to defend the fraud of Global Warming.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top