UN climate report basically we're screwed
Posts
Total:
32
-->
@drlebronski
China is the biggest reason for both covid and climate change at the moment.
Who can make them change? Fuck knows.
-->
@RationalMadman
The spread of covid in the united states is largely due to donald trump taking literally no action despite obama and george w bush having a plan specifically for coronaviruses. yes china produces the most amount of greenhouse gasses but we cant just point fingers countries should work together to stop it especially since the US is second in most greenhouse gasses released
lie.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What about it is a lie? do you have any data or evidence disproving the UN climate report?
-->
@drlebronski
ive got loads of data pal, dont worry
-->
@Dr.Franklin
show me it
-->
@drlebronski
lets start with wildfires as that is the first thing i saw in the article
wildfires have been decreasing for a long time now-https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/image-26.png?resize=720%2C255&ssl=1
-->
@drlebronski
You are explaining a reason why when the biological genocidal virus of Covid-19 reached the US, the nation didn't properly contain the spread, you are not even slightly justifying why the fuck China was even designing this in the first place for it to leak from a lab.
-->
@drlebronski
You do understand that in every single department of environmental abuse, China is above and beyond any other nation on the planet, right?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
lol ok i dont care how many wildfires there are please debunk the climate report clearly showing climate is skyrocketing
-->
@drlebronski
ummm, why did you ignore that because that was the main takeaway from the article?
are you confessing that wildfires are NOT impacted by AGW
-->
@RationalMadman
You are explaining a reason why when the biological genocidal virus of Covid-19 reached the US, the nation didn't properly contain the spread, you are not even slightly justifying why the fuck China was even designing this in the first place for it to leak from a lab You do understand that in every single department of environmental abuse, China is above and beyond any other nation on the planet, right?
1. Im just pointing out the virus could have been way more controlled had trump taken action. as for china biologically creating the virus i have no evidence to believe that though i havent researched it
2. lol yes im not trying to defend china in any way.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
did you not read the article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-06/dixie-fire-leaps-another-40-000-acres
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the chart you provided is also super blurry i cant read anything on it
-->
@drlebronski
3rd in history means there were worse ones before and the chart disproves your lcimas
-->
@Dr.Franklin
THIRD IN THE FREAKING WORLD THE FACT THAT ISNT THE BIGGEST DOESNT DISPROVE ANYTHING YOUR LOGIC IS SO FLAWWED
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Burned area has increased across the United States over the past two decades, and 2020 is particularly bad. The West Coast is on track to see more area burned in 2020 than any other year. In California alone, wildfires have already destroyed an area almost the size of the state of Connecticut (3.2 million acres).
-->
@Dr.Franklin
your no longer worth talking to your the one of the dumbest conservatives i have ever met and that says a lot
-->
@drlebronski
-->
@drlebronski
your no longer worth talking to your the one of the dumbest conservatives i have ever met and that says a lot
lol
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal. Saying that "climate change isn't real because there aren't many bushfires" is like saying "climate change isn't real because I've become less hot over the years".
-->
@drlebronski
your no longer worth talking to your the one of the dumbest conservatives i have ever met and that says a lot
Not necessarily that he's dumb (may be part of it, I dunno), it's just he vocalises his view and is completely reluctant in getting his mind changed, to the point where talking to him is like talking to a brick wall. Also, don't try and debate him, he's good at talking the talk but I don't think he has legs to walk. He'll just ignore because that's what walls do.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Maybe your in denial Doc.
@RatMan.
Dodgy history Ratty.
P.R.C. (Previously R.C.) is a relatively young nation......Much younger than the U.S. in fact.
Blaming everything on "China" is a perhaps a tad hypocritical.
It might be argued that industrialization started in the iron age....Or perhaps even before that.
It might therefore also be argued that human influenced climate change was an evolutionary inevitability.
-->
@zedvictor4
waaaa?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Was that a cry for help Doc.
Dr. Franklin's reference in comment #21 is from a website by Zoe Phin.
Here is a review of her work by M A Rodger:
Even though Zoe Phin's credentials are not that of a climatologist, I would suggest her work providing the basis for the 'article' presented (her work is set out here) is so poor, she should approach her college and ask for her money back. Evidently her education has entirely failed.
What Zoe Phin manages to show is no more than "Look!! Lots of numbers with decimal points. So I'm right and AGW is fake!!!" Or in her own baseless words "The greenhouse effect hypothesis is simply incorrect and should be abandoned for the sake of empirical science."
The first table of numbers presented by Zoe Phin are presumably taken from CERES and shows that high, uppermid & lowermid clouds have increased through the period 2003-19 while low cloud shows no statistical trend. However I don't see any use of this data within the analysis provided.
The second and third tables (again presumably from CERES but quite where from CERES is a different matter as this is modelled data not measured data) shows annual global average values for surface upward & downward IR and TAO upward for clear-sky/all-sky and with/without areosols. These numbers are not the sort of thing that can be measured globally and further are a ridiculously good fit with GISS annual global average SAT which shows to anybody with half a brain who thought to examine them that the values are modelled numbers not measured numbers.
The extent of the analysis provided by Zoe Phin is simply to compare the 2003-19 averages of these annual global average IR numbers and declare the upward surface IR do not vary enough between clear-sky/all-sky for clouds to play any role in any greenhouse effect. Thus Zoe declares AGW must be fake.
The averaged clear-sky/all-sky TOA upward IR numbers vary by 25Wm^-2, enough to provide 20% of a theoretical +33ºC greenhouse effect, not a million miles from what would be anticipated. But the analysis dismisses the relevance of TOA IR. We are told "Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating." So what does less energy leaving the planet do? Where does the energy that is now failing to exit planet Earth go? These are the questions Zoe Phin needs to answer before she continues to make a total fool of herself.
-->
@FLRW
LOL