New Video : “Precisely As Scientists Predicted”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to New Video : “Precisely As Scientists Predicted”

  1. Psalmon says:

    Hope you don’t mind me posting this here, since it is far more appropriate:

    In Colorado today, the Hardrock 100 mile mountain trail race that is run in the San Juan mountains out of Silverton, has been cancelled for 2019 because of snow.

    This race is in MID JULY.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/Byh4tU8nfSr/?igshid=zmfg93sr1m32

    • Psalmon says:

      Here’s one of the snow tunnels they posted back on May 22.

      Reportedly late season snow was frequent, heavy, avalanched, and filled up valleys deep with debris and heavy compacted snow which will not melt soon. A problematic hiking/climbing season in the Rockies.

  2. Shark says:

    Go to hand it to Tony. He sure knows how to cherry-pick data.

    Climate change is measured over the entire globe, over decades of time, not in isolated areas like the American west over one or two years.

    Isolate a single puzzle piece from the whole and it looks like you’ve got a snake. Add the isolated piece back to the greater whole and you realize it’s actually the trunk of an elephant. This is how Tony consistently fools his audience.

    From 1972–2015, the average extent of snow cover in North America decreased at a rate of 3300 square miles per year, in spring and summer, while winter remained stable, according to EPA statistics. This shows that warming is nipping at the edges of the seasons. But at the same time, and what Tony neglects to explain, is that snow fall may actually increase during the winter in colder regions. That’s because with every degree rise in temperature, the air can hold 7% more moisture, and what would fall as rain in warmer areas, falls as increased snow in colder ones.. Studies show that the tropics actually drive moist currents to parts of Alaska and boost winter snowfall there.

    Here’s the most recent assessment of snowpack by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory: “20% loss in annual maximum amount of water contained in Western United States mountain snowpack in the last 3 decades, due to human influences.”

    A study by Geert Van Oldenborgh (2018) showed that heat extremes almost everywhere on the globe are now warmer than a century ago. One exception is the eastern United States, which rivaled today’s heat in the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s.

    It’s important for all of us to look at the big picture, globally, over long periods of time, instead of demonizing those who try to help Tony to present a more complete story.

    • spike55 says:

      1972..

      Now that would be the peak of the new ice age scare wouldn’t it, little minnow !

      You know , the cold period after the 1940s peak (similar to now)

      Be very glad of that warming while it lasts, muppet !

    • spike55 says:

      “It’s important for all of us to look at the big picture”

      You mean the FACT that the world is only just a degree or so above the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years?

      You mean the FACT that whole AGW farce is actually a load of total BOLLOCKS !!

      You mean the FACT that REAL scientists are warning of a protracted COOLING trend.

      You do know that warming by increased atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you. !

    • rah says:

      Dog Fish says- “From 1972–2015, the average extent of snow cover in North America decreased at a rate of 3300 square miles per year, in spring and summer, while winter remained stable, according to EPA statistics.”

      EPA? How about Rutgers Snow Lab for a longer period:

    • rah says:

      Rutgers on winter

    • rah says:

      Rutgers snow spring

      Now Dog Fish.
      Go back to what ever bottom you’ve been feeding on and see if you can find something really substantive to bring back to us.

  3. Gator says:

    Go to hand it to Tony. He sure knows how to cherry-pick data… From 1972–2015, the average extent of snow cover in North America decreased at a rate of 3300 square miles per year…

    Nice bowl of cherries Snark!

    Why are lefties so self-unaware? LOL

  4. Shark says:

    Spike, surely you’ve heard of sulfate aerosol pollution (from burning coal) reflecting sunlight from the 40s to the 70s, causing worldwide cooling, and is, in fact, the phenomenon behind the “New Ice Age Scare” of the 70s and which vanished with passage of the Clean Air Act, after which world temps consistently increased, decade after decade, and continues today. Right?

    It also should give you pause to consider that, according to proxy data, we were consistently cooling for the last 2000 years, and then began to reverse at the start of the industrial age. Coincidence? And now we have very low solar activity, yet we continue to warm.

    Your REAL scientists? Oh, the 3% ridiculed by the 97%, you mean? THOSE scientists? Some of them on the payroll of big oil? THOSE scientists?

  5. SHARK says:

    Ah, as expected. More cherry-picking. Using Rutgers own historical data, the ANNUAL MEAN snow extent has consistently dropped since 1967. Back to my original point of the importance of looking at the big picture.

    The United States and China were the world’s biggest polluters in the 60s. Put curbs on one and sulphate aerosol pollution drops worldwide. You can even see the effect the Clean Air Act had in ice cores.

    No warming except during the big El Ninos? Is that why NOAA measured the warmest global ocean temps ever recorded last year? Or why record heat is outpacing record cold by a 2 to 1 margin? Or why the last five years have been the warmest on record?

  6. Shark says:

    Still warming out of the LIA? How does that work when the sun has been firmly ensconced in a low activity phase since about World War II? Where’s the heating coming from, if not the sun? (And the ocean can’t create heat above what it has stored, in case you were going to use that silly argument.) And why has NASA measured cooling in earth’s outer atmosphere since 1978, yet our inner atmosphere continues to warm? So, the sun is failing to heat the outer atmosphere, yet it’s warming the inner? Are your synapses communicating?

    The hockey stick in splinters? Hardly. More than 2 dozen reconstructions of past climate support Mann’s data, including the most comprehensive study, involving 78 scientists worldwide, the PAGES 2K CONSORTIUM, from 2013. A panel appointed by the National Research Council also supported Mann’s findings.

    But if you run to conspiracy sites like Heller’s or pseudoscientific sites like Wattsupwiththat (flunking numerous fact checks according to MEDIA BIAS data) or conservative blogs written by non-scientists supported by oil-industry funding, yeah, you’ll have plenty of blanks to fire back at me. So fire away.

    • Gator says:

      Why would we not expect the Earth to warm back to RWP or MWP levels? Your estimation of our Sun is way off, as is your understanding of ocean cycles.

      Conspiracy is believing that .15% of greenhouse gases drives our climate. You may as well blame witches.

      Multiple studies have shown that skeptics are generally more knowledgeable about climate science than the rest of the population. We have carefully reviewed the science and found, that if anything, CO2 has little to nothing to do with recent climate changes.

      Quit denying that our planet’s climate does not change naturally. Only a fool would think that it should not change on its own, as it always has.

      Go sacrifice a virgin or something, and take your religion elsewhere. This site is about science, not superstition.

    • spike55 says:

      “And the ocean can’t create heat above ”

      DUMBO shark.. It circulates it. El Ninos have been the ONLY warming in the last 40 years.

      They are NOT caused by anything to do with humans

      STILL WAITING for that empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

      NEVER observed, NEVER measured. its a MYTH !!

      Poor little tadpole … although you look more like a leach. !!

    • spike55 says:

      “also supported Mann’s findings.”

      Pal helps pal, the corruption and brain-washing run deep in the AGW scam.

      … Mann’s fabrication is a load of JUNK science, EVERYONE knows that, even Mann himself knows that

      So you are saying that the coldest period in 10,000 years only ended in 1850!

      Certainly most of the warming happened from 1850-1940.

      Then the AMO turned, and it cooled for 30 years, and many of the current AGW clowns climbed on the “global cooling, new ice age” scare

      Be VERY GLAD of that slight but highly beneficial NATURAL warming little leach !

      Now, where’s that empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

      Your “science” is not just lacking.. it is NON-EXISTENT.

      • spike55 says:

        And using tree rings as a thermometer, when you KNOW that CO2 has risen over that period

        JUST DUMB !!!!!!

        Without those CO2 assisted tree rings, you get a much more REALISTIC viewpoint.

    • spike55 says:

      “sun has been firmly ensconced in a low activity phase since about World War II?”

      Now you are just flat out LYING.. as is the AGW cultist meme.

      The sun was in a Grand Solar MAXIMUM for the latter half of last century.

      Highest 50 year activity in the 400 or more years

    • rah says:

      “sun has been firmly ensconced in a low activity phase since about World War II?”

      LOL! Too funny! Again the Dog Fish deals in fiction.

  7. Shark says:

    MWP was not warmer than now. If you stop your climate graph at 1950, which the most commonly reproduced graphs do, yes. If you continue to the 2000s, no. Again, Mann’s data, supported by numerous reconstructions by other scientists say it’s so.

    Thanks also for supplying the graph that clearly shows solar activity dropping from 1959 on. Do you actually read your own graphs? So during this drop we continued to warm, even during the big drop from 2010 on. So, where is the warming coming from? Stored heat in the ocean that, through the magic of circulation, manages to heat itself?

    An army of scientists support Mann. You support Wattsupwiththat, because Watts is so much smarter than they are. Where are Watts’ studies published, by the way? Trying not to giggle here.

    Science demands skepticism. It must cultivate and support skeptics. You people are not skeptics. You’re deniers, a completely different animal. A skeptic questions but does not IGNORE mountains of data that oppose his opinion.

    • rah says:

      Well over 400 scientific studies in the years before Mann’s Hockey Stick showed much more warming during the MWP and much more cooling during the LIA. Then there is a plethora of newer science since Mann put out his claim.
      https://notrickszone.com/?s=medieval+warm+period
      that shows that the MWP was warm in the southern hemisphere and across the areas of the northern hemisphere when Mann said it was a localized event.

      Mann’s single species tree ring proxy was worthless. If it was valid he would not have had to pull his “nature trick” and scab the modern instrument temperature record on the end of the stick. He did that because his interpretation of the temperatures from his tree ring proxy simply was not matching up with the instrument temperature record. https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Tree+Ring+Proxy

    • spike55 says:

      “MWP was not warmer than now.”

      BULLCRAP !!!

      It was warmer and it was global.

      https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.03818700000005&z=1

      Poor little leach has never even boiled water .

      Still keeps warming up if you turn the gas down from 10 to 8, ignorant twat. !

      Its the cumulative heat, and the latter half of last century, including the peak that gave the 1940’s warm period, was the strongest set of solar cycles in some 400 years.

      Only one DENIER here, and that is YOU, little leach.

      ——

      You STILL haven’t put forward any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

      And no possible way that atmospheric CO2 can warm the oceans.

      So, stick y=to your ZERO-EVIDENCE and keep producing more of you mindless ignorant gish-gollop !

      It HILARIOUS to watch someone so brain-washed that their mind is now like a crinkled old raisin.

    • spike55 says:

      Seems we have a mathematical ILLITERATE in this little leach.

      The poor brain-hosed little twerp can’t even see that the section outlined in the diagram below show the STRONGEST SOLAR PERIOD in over 400 years

      SO DUMB, so deliberately and wilfully DUMB.

      And he avoid producing any empirical evidence of warming by CO2..

      Guessing that he KNOWS there is NO EVIDENCE. ;-)

    • spike55 says:

      “Science demands scepticism”

      Yet you GULLIBLY and UNTHINKINGLY swallow everything your AGW cult priests shove down your throat,

      Just like a vulture chick being fed.

      Then you regurgitate it as mindless puke.

    • Gator says:

      The real climate change denier reveals himself.

      MWP was not warmer than now.

      Only real deniers of science claim that the Vikings settled Greenland when it was colder. There was not one person who denied the MWP until it became an inconvenient truth for alarmists. Then Mann et al tried to erase it. And guess who swallowed?

      Being a skeptic means thinking for oneself, and clearly Snark is incapable of doing this.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “Science demands skepticism. It must cultivate and support skeptics.”

      Agreed.

      “You people are not skeptics. You’re deniers, a completely different animal. A skeptic questions but does not IGNORE mountains of data that oppose his opinion.”

      Never was there a more consummate example of projection. A scientist/skeptic tries to disprove what he/she thinks is true. Don’t try to defend your position. Try to disprove it.

      Your disillusionment awaits.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Disillusionment requires scientific curiosity and intellectual honesty.

        He doesn’t show any.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Yeah, nothing worse than the combination of arrogance and ignorance.

          Just perhaps his embarrassing bluffs will help begin to open the little minnow’s eyes. It was debating a skeptic much more knowledgeable than I, that helped me to look deeper into all this a decade ago.

    • spike55 says:

      “mountains of data ”

      Yet you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing one little paper showing empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

      In the whole of your child-like gibbering here, you have not produce one single piece of this mythical “mountain of science”

      You are just an EMPTY , VAPID nonce. !!

  8. rah says:

    “Science demands skepticism. It must cultivate and support skeptics. You people are not skeptics. You’re deniers, a completely different animal. A skeptic questions but does not IGNORE mountains of data that oppose his opinion.”

    Says the Dog Fish that ignores the Mt. Everest of Data that Mann’s Hockey Stick and Cook’s “survey” are garbage.

  9. SHARK says:

    The hockey stick data is valid according to a couple of dozen other reconstructions. Your data, meanwhile, spews from Wattsupwiththat, notorious flunkee of fact checks. MWP, no matter how extensive, can’t compare with today’s warming, unless you refer to graphs that stop at 1950.

    • Gator says:

      Still denying the MWP. Proof that Snark has never been a skeptic, because if he had he would not be denying a well established scientific fact.

      This map was created using over a thousand MWP studies, the red indicates warming during the MWP.

    • neal s says:

      How come crops had been grown in Greenland during MWP and yet they cannot be grown there now (unless greenhouses are used)? Plants don’t lie, but apparently you and all others who claim MWP was not warmer than now, do lie.

      No matter how many additional liars corroborate a lie, it is still a lie.

      Maybe you don’t realize that ‘pal review’ prevents most if not all papers, which would oppose CAGW, from being published.

    • spike55 says:

      Oh poor little ZERO-EVIDENCE leach, pretending to be a snark.

      PATHETIC, is the best description

      STILL WAITING for empirical evidence for the very basis of your delusional religious farce.

      All you have so far is mindless regurgitated bluster.

      The true sign of the climate cultist.

  10. SHARK says:

    Your MWP graphs stop at 1950, a fact you conveniently overlook. That MWP was global is completely irrelevant. Add our most striking warming decades after 1950 and see how MWP compares. It doesn’t.

    • neal s says:

      How come crops had been grown in Greenland during MWP and yet they cannot be grown there now (unless greenhouses are used)? Plants don’t lie, but apparently you and all others who claim MWP was not warmer than now, do lie.

    • Gator says:

      The 1930’s was the hottest decade on record, so I have no idea what you are speaking of.

      Vikings farming Greenland, and it wasn’t warmer. What color is the sky in your world Snark?

    • spike55 says:

      Again, utter and complete brain-washed regurgitation from the leach.

      1940s warm, 1940-1970 COOLING

      Warming only from El Nino effects because the ocean was warmed during the GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM of the latter half of last century, which was ta period of the STRONGEST SOLAR influence in over 400 years

      Even a moronic cretin like you can see this on the graph below.

      STOP your incredibly mind-numbed DENIAL of the major climate forcing.. THE SUN.

      STOP your idiotic brain-washed DENIAL of the MWP.

      Makes you look like a zero-brain CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER

  11. SHARK says:

    Zero evidence? You do agree that C02 has a warming effect, right? You can see it demonstrated in a lab. Going from there, spectroscopy wavelength measurements show energy being radiated back to earth by ozone, methane and nitrous oxide, but overwhelmingly by C02. The energy trapped in the atmosphere corresponds to the wavelength energy captured by C02. So is the spectroscopy wrong? The outer atmosphere has cooled since NASA began monitoring, while the inner has continued to warm. That is certainly worth considering as evidence as well.

    • Gator says:

      Our planet is not a lab. If you are so certain that .15% of greenhouse gasses is driving climate change, then prove it.

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    • spike55 says:

      “Zero evidence? You do agree that C02 has a warming effect, right?”

      And you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing one single paper that provides empirical evidence of that moronic ANTI-SCIENCE statement.

      The ONLY warming has come from the oceans, and CO2 cannot and does not warm the oceans

      Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on this planet.

      Show us where it has, if you think so.

      Or remain a ZERO-EVIDENCE gullible stooge.

    • spike55 says:

      Outgoing Long Wave Radiation matches the lower troposphere temperature.

      NO ENERGY IS BEING TRAPPED..

      If energy was being trapped as CO2 increased the graphs would diverge..

      but THEY DON’T.

      Your GULLIBLE IGNORANCE is so funny, little gummy. :-)

      Note that this fishy little trollette has not produce one single bit of evidence in any of its mind-numbed little anti-science rants.

    • Sara Hall says:

      You seem to have completely forgotten to mention that most important contributor to the warming of the atmosphere…water… aka clouds. But then I’ve read that the models just don’t know how to deal properly with clouds, so their overwhelming contribution is conveniently ignored.

  12. shark says:

    1930s hottest on record in the United States, not the world. The U.S. represents about 5% of the world’s land mass, not a good yardstick to represent the entire globe. In 1934, the hottest year of all, South America, Alaska, Australia, and parts of Africa were actually cooler than normal.

    MWP global locations of warming DID NOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY, but were often decades or more apart.

    Number one climate forcing is C02. The sun at baseline output does not count as a forcing.

    • rah says:

      Moron fish says: “Number one climate forcing is C02”

      LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Water vapor?

      Just for a start. What a maroon!

      • SHARK says:

        Better do some homework, Rah. C02 IS the number one forcing factor. It ranks far above the sun’s normal output. Go open a climatology textbook and try not to dwell too long in embarrassment when you find out who the “maroon” is.

        • Gator says:

          BS.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          By not answering these questions you are admitting that you cannot refute NV, and that you have no clue how much if any warming is caused by CO2.

          Stop lying Snark.

        • rah says:

          SHARK says:
          July 12, 2019 at 2:06 pm
          Better do some homework, Rah.:

          HAHAHAHAHA! Too friggin funny!
          IPCC WG1, “Water vapour feedback acting alone approximately doubles the warming from what it would be for fixed water vapour (Cess et al., 1990; Hall and Manabe, 1999; Schneider et al., 1999; Held and Soden, 2000). “Note however that this is the direct water vapor feedback effect; vapor in turn affects cloud formation and other things, thus the total impact on temperature from including vapor can be greater than just the increased absorption of upwelling radiation.”

          Water vapor accounts for well over 1/2 of the radiation spectrum CO2 absorbs and thus it is the predominate “green house gas”.

          Listen dog fish you pea wit. Let me put it in terms even you may be able to understand. In true desert why can the temperature range vary 40 or even 50 deg. F between the daily high and low when there is no trough or ridge driving the weather? Is it the absence of CO2? Of course not! It’s the absence of water vapor.

          • Shark says:

            Water vapor is not considered a forcing; nor is the sun’s normal output. Like I said, better do some more homework. Those are part of the normal climate system. A forcing is anything beyond the norm, a solar max or a volcanic eruption, not the normal state of the climate.

          • rah says:

            Dog Fish says:
            “Water vapor is not considered a forcing; nor is the sun’s normal output. Like I said, better do some more homework. Those are part of the normal climate system. A forcing is anything beyond the norm, a solar max or a volcanic eruption, not the normal state of the climate.”

            Science says:

            “Climate forcing definition
            Climate Feedback Definition. Climate forcing, also known as radiative forcing, refers to changes in net irradiance between the different layers of the atmosphere. These changes in irradiance (the power of electromagnetic radiation per unit area) will either cause a cooling or warming effect.”

            So Dog Fish, a climate forcing is anything that can cause a change in the climate. Doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not!

            You’ve just proven that you don’t even know what a climate forcing is and thus are just another clueless fool not even fit to discuss the issue with. Go back to the bottom and fill up because I’m tired of catching you and moving on to a different fishing spot.

          • Gator says:

            Snark is a perfect example of an unquestioning believer. A useful idiot.

          • spike55 says:

            “Water vapor is not considered a forcing; nor is the sun’s normal output.”

            ROFLMAO,

            What dead, addled mind came up with that garbage. !!

            Sun not a climate forcing.. ROFLMAO.

            Its the major source of energy for the whole darn planet, bozo !!!

            CO2 is NOT a forcing, nor can it “trap” energy

            The whole AGW farce is built on a monumental anti-science fallacy.

            The IGNORANCE is so, so deep with this little twerp.

            Notice that the mindless leach is STILL totally incapable of producing any actual empirical science to back up his brain-hosing. Hose was on absolute full, and washed all its brains away, if it ever had any.

      • SHARK says:

        As C02 traps heat, the temperature rises, allowing the atmosphere to hold significantly more moisture. C02 and water vapor work together to compound warming. Climate 101. Did you attend that class? I’m thinking not.

        • Gator says:

          It is impossible for CO2 to “trap” heat. CO2 and WV do not work together, in fact they have overlapping bandwidths.

          Now prove you are not a serial liar.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        • spike55 says:

          What a load of UNPROVEN anti-science GARBAGE !

          Atmospheric CO2 does not and cannot “trap heat”

          It is a scientific NONSENSE.

          Seems you FAILED science and physics at junior high

          STILL WAITING for that paper that give empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

          Why are you running around like a headless chook !!

        • spike55 says:

          So funny to see you doubling down on your RAMPANT IGNORANCE

          CO2 does NOT produce any energy, period

          There is basically zero of this anti-science “forcing” and what there is is MAGNITUDES LESS than the energy derived from the SUN.

          Please keep up your moronic IGNORANCE, little leach.

          Its hilarious , and shows the level of NIL-EDUCATION of the average AGW religious zealot. !

          STILL WAITING for that empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

          Massive BLANK so far. You are just running around yapping a load of brain-washed ignorant anti-science gibberish.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        RAH,

        The squirt should look up these white fluffy things

        • rah says:

          For me, getting my deck finished before my “vacation” ends is my major priority. My good neighbor is helping me and it’s been kicking both our asses in the heat of the day with no shade. Tuesday temp got up to 98 F with a heat index (Something the dog fish has does not understand obviously) was 103 F. Hard labor in the sun in those conditions just plain kicks ass! Hardest sustained physical work I’ve done in years!

          Icy Hot, ASA, and Gator Aid getting me by but my ass is dragging at the end of every day. I sleep well at night when I’m not cramping up.

          Then there is the fact that this is the first time for installing a composite deck so there has been a learning curve. Finally though it’s starting to look like something. Really like the fact that there are no screw heads exposed anywhere but on the outside perimeter “picture frame” planks. Have twice as many joists as called for. All Joists installed to the side rails using galvanized joist hangers installed with 1 1/2″ galvanized masonry nails. All of the wooden structure treated, ground contact, lumber. All of it sealed with Thompson’s on all sides and ends to give it extra protection. Concrete footers put in 36″ deep (6″ deeper than recommended to get below the frost line in my area) and the wood rests on the old style cast aluminum post bases (now they make them out of plastic) so it’s not in contact with the 8″ diameter concrete footers. Exposed outside frame of structure to be clad with the same composite planking used on the deck.

          The thing will certainly outlast me and probably outlast the house. This is the second “vacation” in a row that I have taken on a significant home improvement project. Last year it was the remodel of the dinning room.

          When the deck is done I’m going to use the money saved by doing a deck instead of the concrete slab to get it covered with a awning but that I intend to contract that out.

          “Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten” Abraham Lincoln.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “I sleep well at night when I’m not cramping up.”

            My legs cramp and wake me if I have sweated a lot the day before and not replenished the lost mineral salts. Then I found Electrolyte capsules. They do the trick.

    • Gator says:

      Snark, the US has the best network of weather stations on Earth, so the 1930’s is relevant. As for your continued lies about the MWP, nobody cares. We have read the studies for decades now, and we know that you guys are the real climate change and science deniers.

      Now, how about you put your money where your lying mouth is?

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      It is a very simple puzzle really, and only a fool’s errand for a select few.

      • SHARK says:

        So you’re saying 95% of the rest of the world
        is irrelevant, by comparison? And you went to school where?

        • Gator says:

          And BTW, I graduated from a major US university 35 years ago after studying Earth Sciences, including Climatology. My earth sciences studies started over 40 years ago, right at the tail end of the global cooling scare, and right before the great global warming swindle.

          Let’s try again.

          Climate Science 101:

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying about CO2)

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

          Quit dithering.

        • Gator says:

          While we are waiting for you to answer the necessary questions, let me be clear. I did not say that 95% of the globe is irrelevant (straw man), I pointed out that only 5% has quality long term records. The 95% you are bleating on about has very little coverage.

          Now, answer the questions.

        • spike55 says:

          Your MANIC EVASION of the actual questions is noted.

          ZERO-SCIENCE, ZERO-EVIDENCE, the AGW cultist way

          Just mindless anti-science jibber-jabber.

      • Gator says:

        Where is your answer?

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

        Quit dithering liar.

    • spike55 says:

      “Number one climate forcing is CO2.”

      TOTAL AND UTTER BULLSHIT !!

      You are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of providing any empirical evidence to back up that MORONIC statement.

    • spike55 says:

      “MWP global locations of warming DID NOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY, but were often decades or more apart.”

      what a stupid statement.. Resolution is in decades, idiot. !

      At least you now ADMIT that the MWP was GLOBAL.. well done.

      Now work on your DENIAL of the RWP and the Holocene Optimum.

      Show us just HOW DUMB you really are.

      • SHARK says:

        Peak warming for regions around the world did not occur simultaneously during the MWP. The Medieval Warming period is most striking for its unusually low volcanic activity, which, along with higher solar irradiance, would contribute to warming. Conversely, the planet caught up with its lagging volcanic activity and surpassed its usual level leading up to the LIA, very likely the main cause of cooling. These factors are not in play today and bear no relation to today’s cause of climate change. Pretty important, as I originally posted, to consider the big picture and avoid cherry-picking.

        • Gator says:

          The Medieval Warming period is most striking for its unusually low volcanic activity, which, along with higher solar irradiance, would contribute to warming.

          What? I thought CO2 was the only driver? Make up your mind Snark.

          You might want to review a recent study from Finland and Japan that refutes your claims.

          https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/amp/

        • spike55 says:

          MWP was a period of warming in basically EVERY part of the globe.

          Your childish DENIALISM is quite hilarious.

          Make it up as you go along, anything to HIDE your mind from reality.

          ZERO EVIDENCE, just mindless cackling.

          You are a headless chook. !!

    • Disillusioned says:

      Shark boldly claimed: “Number one climate forcing is CO2.<”

      Just stop already. Stop it.

  13. spike55 says:

    This article should do a good job of making the snark/leach regurgitate even more of its delusional AGW flatulence. ;-)

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice

  14. SHARK says:

    A forcing is an imposed perturbation of earth’s energy balance, and “water vapor is not typically considered a forcing.” —Energy Education, University of Calgary

    Considering that, the strongest forcing components, as measured in watts per square meter, are C02 (1.7); halocarbons (1); tropospheric ozone (.4); solar irradiance
    —Energy Education, University of Calgary

    • Gator says:

      So the opinion of one man? Where is the proof that he is correct? Can he…

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      If he cannot do this, his opinion is irrelevant, and there is zero evidence that CO2 is altering the climate.

      Quit giving us opinions and outright lies Snark.

      • SHARK says:

        The number one climate forcing is C02. Water vapor and the sun’s normal output are not considered forcings because they’re part of the ordinary climate system. You posers have given yourself away with this one subject alone. Look it up. Pseudoscientific Wattsupwiththat and Heller don’t count as reliable information sources, by the way. Which you have proven.

        I’m off now to harrass the trained clapping seals who give thumbs-up to Heller’s hilarious Arctic ice delusion video. Always good for a laugh. You guys are just too predictable.

        • Gator says:

          Snark, I don’t have to look anything up. I was a climatology student before you could spell. A forcing is anything that influences climate. You are a moron.

          Now answer my questions.

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying about forcings and CO2)

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying about forcings and CO2)

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

          • SHARK says:

            Actually, you’re wrong. A forcing is not ordinary, everyday climate events, but that which is above and beyond normal baseline, as in a solar max, or below, as in volcanic eruptions. Again, look it up. Also, since I’ve had white hair for over 35 years, I’m pretty sure I outrank you in the AARP department. Just so you know you’re not talking to a freshman.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Gator,

            The white-haired Ms Shark considers herself the final authority on climate forcings but repeatedly declined to list, order and quantify them.

            I am still trying to figure out why that may be.

          • Gator says:

            She is now conflating climate with weather. Too funny!

            Still waiting in her to answer my questions…

          • neal s says:

            For someone who supposedly is old enough to have lived through the global cooling scare, I find it amazing that they can deny that there WAS a global cooling scare, especially when there is so much evidence that there really was such a scare then. I lived through it and I remember it as have many others who post here.

            Just because someone has white hair does not guarantee that they are actually that old. They could have bleached or colored their hair white, or there may have been some other situations that can have caused them to have premature white hair.

            And even if someone is actually older, they may not remember things well or accurately, or they may be incapable of critical thinking or thinking clearly. Someone here is demonstrating some combination or all of these inabilities.

            Since the USA is relatively small land area it is claimed that the USA doesn’t count for much, except when invoking the cessation of sulfate aerosols due to the Clean Air Act which only affected the USA. Then the effect of reducing these over the insignificant USA land area is remarkably enhanced. The fact that China and India are now producing more than the USA ever did supposedly just doesn’t count.

            It has been claimed falsely that it is warmer now than during the MWP. I have yet to hear an explanation of why crops grew readily in Greenland during the MWP, yet without a greenhouse you cannot grow crops there now.

          • spike55 says:

            “Also, since I’ve had white hair for over 35 years, “

            Onset of senile dementia is obvious. !

            Must be hard for you knowing your mind has regressed back to junior high level.. although I doubt it ever got past that stage anyway.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Her new friends also deny there was a global cooling scare …

          • Disillusioned says:

            neal s: Just because someone has white hair does not guarantee that they are actually that old.

            Because someone has white hair does not mean they are wise enough to discern that they have fallen for really, really bad science. I suspect at least a few of the ten cardinals who sat in judgment of Galileo had white or graying hair.

    • spike55 says:

      Funny to see a RABID non-scientist produce such GARBAGE science.

      Swallow hard, little leach. !

      STILL WAITING for that paper that shows empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

      Waiting, Waiting

      • SHARK says:

        I’m sorry you’re so woefully unaware of the empirical evidence of warming by C02. By making such a statement, you admit that you know nothing of the bodies of work by Joseph Fourier, Svante Arrhenius (Nobel Prize Winner), G.S. Calendar, CD Keeling, and many others. Perhaps you should hit the books, Spike, or go back to school and pick up what you have so obviously missed.

        • spike55 says:

          Waiting, Waiting….

          Watching you squirm around in manic avoidance.

          Very SLIMY.

          YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2.

          If there was, you could produce some.

          BUT YOU CAN’T !!

          You are EVIDENCE FREE.

          I bet you don’t even know what “empirical” means.

          FACT is, that warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on this carbon based planet of ours.

          A bunch of names you read about in the literature IS NOT EVIDENCE.

          You obviously have ZERO clue what their science was actually about.

          You are scientific IGORAMOUS at best.

          A headless chook would know more about real science that you are ever capable of comprehending.

          • SHARK says:

            Too much reading for you, Spike, to read actual bodies of works? And you want me to supply the Dr. Seuss versions?

          • spike55 says:

            Poor leach

            Been there , read them..

            But it is obvious that YOU HAVEN’T, otherwise you would know what they were about.

            There is ZERO EVIDENCE in them of warming by atmospheric CO2.. They show that CO2 is a radiative gas, like H2O is.

            It has become obvious that you live in the bottom of a glass bottle, but most of us live in the real world.

            You obviously have ZERO CLUE how the atmosphere actually works, or anything to do with any actual science or physic whatsoever.

            You are just a mindless regurgitator, who can’t even get its regurgitated non-facts correct. No mind of your own.

            Now, where that paper with empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            You are an EMPTY SAD-SACK, with obviously zero comprehension of any reality or any basis of science.

    • spike55 says:

      “perturbation of earth’s energy balance”

      There is NO “perturbation of earth’s energy balance”

      You are just a LIAR and an IGNORANT FOOL incapable of comprehending actual MEASURED DATA.

      You have less scientific understanding than a single-celled amoeba !!

  15. SHARK says:

    Water vapor is a feedback mechanism, Rah, not a forcing. Try to go a little further in your reading. THEY’RE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS AND YOU’RE CLEARLY CONFLATING THEM.

    • spike55 says:

      Your IGNORANCE and lack of any actual science knowledge, is making you look like the most gullible of idiots.

      You bring a bad name even to the scum of the AGW cult.

      You very obviously have absolutely ZERO knowledge of anything to do with real science and are just regurgitating a garbled load of what you have heard from your cult leaders.

      Basically EVERYTHING you have said is WRONG, and you are too DUMB to realise it.

      You obviously have ZERO understanding of any action of any molecule in the atmosphere.

      You are basically IGNORANT TO THE CORE. !!

      Water vapour acts to REGULATE the Earths surface.. PERIOD.

      It acts mostly as a COOLANT. That is its feedback mechanism to warming.

      And there is NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2.

      If there was, you would be able to produce some actual EVIDENCE, but you are totally incapable of doing so.

      You are in fact TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing any real evidence of ANYTHING your have regurgitated.

      We are still waiting for some empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
      It is a MYTH, a LIE that you have been told and that you JUST BELIEVED because you have zero scientific education.

      You are the epitome of DUMB and IGNORANT.

    • rah says:

      NOAA explanation of Forcing:” Climate Forcing
      Energy from the Sun Interacts with Land, Water, and Air

      WATER. Get that? WATER! WV, as a forcing. WV is the #1 ” green house” gas fool! https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

      Now go argue with NOAA! I’m done.

      • SHARK says:

        No, it’s not considered a forcing. And that’s definitely not NOAA’s definition. Better read a little further what they say, in depth. Water vapor is generally not considered a forcing, because it’s part of the normal, everyday climate system. Forcings are anything above and beyond normal or below normal, not everyday climate components. —NOAA

        • Gator says:

          So the IPCC, my climatology professors, and all working climate scientists are wrong, and Ms Snark is right.

          Got it, again! LOL

          You would think someone as knowledgeable as Ms Snark would be leading the IPCC, and also be able to answer my simple questions.

        • spike55 says:

          “because it’s part of the normal, everyday climate system”

          IDIOT alert.

          So is CO2, bozo, and often at much higher levels that current.

          The level of atmospheric CO2 is WELL BELOW NORMAL at the moment.

          We are actually only just above minimum level of CO2 necessary for life on Earth.

          But you are too DUMB and IGNORANT to comprehend that.

          And of course, as you keep proving, there is no empirical evidence of warming by that tiny, barely sufficient, amount of atmospheric CO2

        • spike55 says:

          You poor zero-knowledge leach.

          Even a slight fraction of a change in atmospheric water vapour is WAY more than is needed to COUNTERACT any MYTHICAL warming by the barely sufficient amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

          As you have shown by your ABJECT INCOMPETENCE in producing it, there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          The only warming in the last 50 or so years, since the depths of the “global cooling” scare (by the same people, I might add), the ONLY warming has come from ocean events.

          That means it is SOLAR forced warming.

          This so-called back-radiation form CO2, which incidentally only happens above 11km altitude as shown below, is long wave radiation, and cannot heat water from above, EVER.

          You have been force fed a load of anti-science GARBAGE by your AGW masters, and like a uneducated child, you have swallowed it without question.

    • Gator says:

      Little Ms Snark apparently believes that the IPCC is committing fraud. The IPCC lists water vapor among over a dozen different climate forcings. They also list solar! OMG, the IPCC is nothing but a bunch of know-nothing liars who need a science lesson from little Ms Snark.

      Quick Ms Snark, teach the IPCC how to read.

      • SHARK says:

        More misunderstanding. With every post, Gator, you give yourself away. Water vapor is not a forcing, it’s a feedback. Baseline water vapor does not cause global warming. C02 that traps heat and raises temperature allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture, which causes warming. The driver or FORCING is the C02. The water vapor does not increase on its own without perturbations. And that’s what a “forcing” is: a pertubation in the normal climate system. Water vapor that’s already there is not a perturbation.

        Water vapor would be considered a forcing is it came about in a way unnatural to the everyday system, which would include oxidation of methane. THAT is a forcing. NATURAL vapor, no. Water vapor produced by a rise in temperature is a FEEDBACK, not a forcing. Everybody got that?

        • Gator says:

          So the IPCC is wrong, all my climatology professors were wrong, and all climate scientists today are wrong.

          Got it! LOL

          • SHARK says:

            Read the complete IPCC report of forcings. I know it’s a lot of reading for you, but you clearly need more information on this subject. The IPCC does not consider normal water vapor as a forcing. Water vapor that is increased due to C02 trapping of heat? Yes, THAT is a forcing.

          • spike55 says:

            The politically motivated GARBAGE out of the IPCC.

            ROFLMAO.. So funny to see someone so dumb, GULLIBLE and ignorant.

            You do know they don’t do any actual science don’t you, bozo !

            Also, you do know that there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2, don’t you?

            (still waiting for you to produce some, but you choose to run around like a headless chook in evasion.)

            Poor thing, you are destined to remain living in your little bowl of regurgitate AGW spew for the rest of your ignorant , worthless existence.

          • spike55 says:

            “due to C02 trapping of heat?”

            WRONG again

            You cannot provide any evidence of “trapping of heat ” by atmospheric CO2

            You have been shown that heat is NOT trapped, you just don’t have the scientific comprehension to grasp anything except the AGW tripe you have been force fed in junior high.

            Pity you that you never managed to educate yourself past that lowest of levels.

          • Gator says:

            Wrong again Snark. Increased water vapor from increased CO2 is a modeling input, and not found in nature.

            Water vapor and CO2 overlap in the absorption spectrum. You cannot claim one is a forcing and not the other.

            You forget, I actually studied this as part of my university education. You are out of your league, as well as out of your mind.

            Now Ms Smarty Know-it-all, answer the questions, or admit you have been lying along.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying by saying that you have)
            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

        • spike55 says:

          WRONG

          You prove yet again that all you have is wonky twisted illogical anti-science regurgitation of AGW fallacies.

          You STILL can’t produce any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

          CO2 DOES NOT TRAP HEAT, you have ZERO EVIDENCE of that.

          You are basically just a LIAR.

          EMPTY cackling is all you have.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Shark is very sure in believing so much in a hyped-pothesis which has never been proven (but which has been shoved down everyone’s throats as if it were), and is dogged-determined to accept only that, in spite of all the dissenting data that wrecks it.

      “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

      “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” – George Carlin

  16. SHARK says:

    UNDERSTANDING FORCING AND FEEDBACK
    “Water vapor itself cannot force changes in the climate, due to its short atmospheric lifetime, but atmospheric water vapor concentration respond to and amplify temperature changes.”
    —Yale Climate Connections

    WATER VAPOR: FEEDBACK OR FORCING
    “Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing…These distinctions are not clear to many.”
    —Real Climate
    Google the above at Real Climate for a full explanation.

    • Gator says:

      So the opinion of two climate propaganda sites are all you have? LOL

      From the American Chemical Society…

      Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.”

      Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”

      https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

      The IPCC acknowledges water vapor as forcing, but idiots like Snark have been hoodwinked…

      Another deception was creating the illusion that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. The IPCC acknowledges H2O is the most important, but that is not what the public understands.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

      Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere…

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

      Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth.[1] In order, the most abundant[clarification needed] greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are:

      -Water vapor (H2O)
      -Carbon dioxide (CO2)
      -Methane (CH4)
      -Nitrous oxide (N2O)
      -Ozone (O3)
      -Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
      -Hydrofluorocarbons (includes HCFCs and HFCs)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

      Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

      https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

      Yes Snark, there are grantologists who claim that water vapor is a feedback, but that would suggest that no water vapor existed and that no water vapor greenhouse effect occurred before man’s miniscule contribution to the CO2 budget, and that is pure fantasy.

      And because nobody has ever proved that any of this warming is from man, nobody can claim that increased water vapor is a feedback from AGW.

      But here is your chance to shine!

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Quit dithering!

    • Gator says:

      So the opinion of two climate propaganda sites are all you have? LOL
      From the American Chemical Society…

      Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.”
      Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”

      https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

      The IPCC acknowledges water vapor as forcing, but idiots like Snark have been hoodwinked…

      Another deception was creating the illusion that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. The IPCC acknowledges H2O is the most important, but that is not what the public understands.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

      Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere…
      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php?section=watervapor

      Greenhouse gases are those that absorb and emit infrared radiation in the wavelength range emitted by Earth.[1] In order, the most abundant[clarification needed] greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are:

      -Water vapor (H2O)
      -Carbon dioxide (CO2)
      -Methane (CH4)
      -Nitrous oxide (N2O)
      -Ozone (O3)
      -Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
      -Hydrofluorocarbons (includes HCFCs and HFCs)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

      Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

      https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
      Yes Snark, there are grantologists who claim that water vapor is a feedback, but that would suggest that no water vapor existed and that no water vapor greenhouse effect occurred before man’s miniscule contribution to the CO2 budget, and that is pure fantasy.

      And because nobody has ever proved that any of this warming is from man, nobody can claim that increased water vapor is a feedback from AGW.
      But here is your chance to shine!

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Quit dithering!

  17. rah says:

    Sigh!
    So in the fictional weather/climate world of the Dog Fish, any precipitation is a feedback and should build upon it’s self and in turn cause more precipitation, cloud formation should beget more cloud formation, etc……………

    • SHARK says:

      Remaining ignorant, Rah, is your choice. It’s a free country. :)

      This has become boring, so I’m leaving you with the pleasure of having the last insult here. Enjoy.

      • Gator says:

        Snark doesn’t realize that water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases. Or does he think that the vast majority of greenhouse gases is just a feedback? LOL

      • spike55 says:

        You haven’t insulted anyone except YOURSELF.

        You still haven’t produced anything except regurgitated garbage, because is all you have to offer.

        Not one little bit of real science has been seen in any of your troll-like waste-of-space comments

        Glad to see that you finally recognise that you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of relevance or of any scientific worth to add to the discussion.

        Now run away with your balls tucked-in between your legs, your natural position.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Guppy, you talked about being for and concerned about science. You have proven yourself no scientist. Instead, you are an apologist.

        Only you can turn that around.

  18. DaveM says:

    What I would like to know is what is the IPCC going to do about termites. Apparently termites emit 10 times the amount of CO2 emitted by the whole of humanity. I think the answer may be to add them to our menus. If they became a delicacy then we might solve the problem.

Leave a Reply to Shark Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.