Keanehan Pada Setiap Agen Judi Bola Online Saat Ini – Di kesempatan berikut kami akan membicarakan perihal Artikel Agen Judi Bandar Bola Online yg dapat jadi topic ulasan yg serius menarik, tentunya untuk sejumlah pencinta judi semua tak asing dengan ulasan bandar bola pasti langsung akan terpikirkan perihal bandar darat yg seharusnya yakni bandar judi yg mewah dan kaya. Jadi seorang bandar darat pula sesungguhnya tak enteng, bukan sekedar mesti siaga kepada pihak berwajib karena perjudian yakni perihal yg ilegal mereka harus siaga dengan pemain. Yah benar sekali dengan pemain, karena kini banyak berjalan problem bila sejumlah pemain biasanya tidak bisa membayar hutang lalu melarikan diri bahkan ada juga yg bertindak bunuh diri.
Selepas sejumlah pemain amblas atau meninggal dunia tentu saja hutang konsisten ditanggung jawabkan pihak bandar karena biasanya seorang bandar tak membuka market sendiri, tentu saja ada pihak ke 3 jadi pembiayaan dana atau sumber dana seterusnya bila hutang jadi tanggung jawab bandar lantaran itu pihak bandarlah yg butuh membayar.
Keanehan Yang Muncul Pada Setiap Agen Judi
Bola Online
Tentunya jadi seorang bandarpun punyai ketakutan dan kecemasan yg besar mengenai hal demikian meski banyak pihak bandar jadi pihak yg menakali pemain sampai banyak kelanjutannnya sejumlah pemain jadi trauma dalam membicarakan judi baik yg kemenangannya tak dibayar sampai pihak bandar kabur tentunya membuat stigma perjudian jadi tak bagus. Ditambahkan semenjak munculnya Situs Agen Bandar Bola Online yg kelanjutannnya dapat memainkan permainan bola melalui tak langsung atau cuman melalui satu situs yg dapat dimainkan dengan streaming, sampai tentunya akan tingkatkan ketakutan khusus dalam mainkan perihal perjudian di indonesia ini tentunya untuk buat kepercayaan pada sejumlah agen bandar bola tentunya sedikit sulit karena kerap berlangsungnya berbagai hal yg menyentuh perihal kepercayaan tentunya sulit dihilangkan.
Untuk ketaksamaan dari agen bandar yg terpercaya dan nakal akan tampak pada sejumlah ketaksamaan sebagai berikut ini :
– Agen Bandar judi bola terpercaya biasanya memiliki nama domain yg tentunya demikian jelas dan ringan diingat dan untuk agen yg nakal biasanya memiliki nama domain yg kurang masuk akal.
– Agen Taruhan Bola terpercaya biasanya memiliki staff pembeli service yg siap 24 jam dalam melayani pertanyaan anggota, untuk agen yg nakal biasanya akan membalas pertanyaan livechat dengan waktu yg tak cepat
– Agen Judi Bola terpercaya tentu saja memiliki staff operasional yg udah ketahui perihal apa yg mereka tawarkan dan untuk agen yg nakal biasanya tak ketahui apapun.
– Agen Judi Bola terpercaya biasanya memiliki kerja sama dengan sejumlah top bank local yg ada di indonesia tengah untuk agen yg nakal biasanya cuman akan memiliki satu saja rekening yg dipakai untuk transaksi.
Demikian udah tuntas pertemuan kita pada materi kesempatan berikut, moga-moga lebih kurang artikel kami ini dapat membantu anda mencetak kemenangan. Optimis anda konsisten main pada Agen Judi Taruhan Bola Online.
Don’t tell me there is yet another compressive report showing that the Warmists have got it all wrong!!
Sorry for needing to “parrot” again, but …
… that is a strange argument. Are you seriously suggesting that identical effects are always caused by the same cause?
There is no logic in that assumption.
DNFTT
If a cause A implies a consequence B, then the absence the consequence B implies the absence of the cause A. The hypothesis which says that higher CO2 concentrations imply less sea ice seems seems really questionable.
Basically ZERO correlation over anything but a TINY window of time.
Absolutely ZERO scientific causality.
Its a NON-hypothesis. !
First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend. That is an indirect effect of increased overall heat content.
Next, if the amount of money in your bank account increases, then there is no single cause for that. It could be your wage, you won the lottery or someone just gifted you the money.
If the sea ice extent decreases that is probably caused by an increase in temperature and that can have many causes, too.
So, what Kenneth says is a pretty strange argument. It’s the same as saying that you are wrong in that you said your account balance increased because of a win in the lottery, because that wasn’t the case in the past, there it was always the wage. See the problem?
No, a bank account and causal mechanisms for polar sea ice are not “the same”.
But considering you believe it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current decline, what’s the cause of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice increasing for the last 37 years? Arctic sea ice concentration grew between the 1940s and 1980s, with pronounced spikes in the 1960s. The Canadian Arctic hasn’t even warmed in the last 150 years (“Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.” – Fortin and Gajewski, 2016).
Considering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other? If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere. Please use scientific papers to support your positions.
Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?
—
Ding et al., 2014
“Here we show that the recent warming in this region [northeastern Canada and Greenland] is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. … This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”
—
Ohashi and Tanaka, 2010
“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic [cooling, then warming] can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO [Arctic Oscillation] not by the external response due to the human activity.”
If you read carefully, you’ll find that I don’t say that they are. Don’t make up stuff nobody ever said and then go around an accuse me that I would do such a thing, please.
Saying A can not be the cause of B, because in the past C caused B is a fallacy and is called – i had to google it – “Denying the antecedent”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
But considering you believe it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current decline, what’s the cause of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice increasing for the last 37 years? Arctic sea ice concentration grew between the 1940s and 1980s, with pronounced spikes in the 1960s. The Canadian Arctic hasn’t even warmed in the last 150 years (“Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.” – Fortin and Gajewski, 2016).
Considering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other? If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere. Please use scientific papers to support your positions.
Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?
—
Ding et al., 2014
“Here we show that the recent warming in this region [northeastern Canada and Greenland] is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. … This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”
—
Ohashi and Tanaka, 2010
“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic [cooling, then warming] can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO [Arctic Oscillation] not by the external response due to the human activity.”
Read carefully and you’ll see that what I called strange is your argument (a logical fallacy), not “not accepting that humans are the cause of the current decline”.
I also find it strange that you feel the need to repeat this
Maybe you haven’t seen that this comment of mine is part of a thread where you already posted this? Or is this another attempt of you constructing a situation where you can claim that I would evade your questions?
Remember, I just pointed out that your logic is flawed. Correct it, ignore it, I don’t care. But don’t derail the thread the way you always do … please. Thank you 😉
P.S.: How humans influence climate is well documented. The difference in hemispheres (namely the polar regions) is also well documented. You don’t need me to repeat it to you in my own words if you haven’t understood this until now. And yes, I disagree with scientists, as apparently you do too. What was your point again? Mine was that your quoted argument (see first comment in this thread) is not logical.
Please specify the “logic” that is flawed here.
So by writing about the lack of a link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and polar sea ice trends in the comment thread of an article about, wait for it, the lack of a link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and polar sea ice trends…I am being accused of “derailing” the thread? It would appear to me that you would just prefer not to have to respond to the weakness and inconsistencies of your own beliefs about human control of polar sea ice in recent decades.
Considering the Northern Hemisphere’s sea ice grew from the 1940s to the 1980s due to cooling temperatures, and the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice grew from the 1980s to present due to cooling temperatures, in what way is there an identifiable causal link between the rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions during the multi-decade sea ice expansion for both hemispheres? Please support your answer with real scientific documentation…since, as you say, this is “well documented”.
Sebastian the Troll ignoring all those published science papers.
Pathetic.
” I just pointed out that your logic is flawed.”
ROFLMAO.. you wouldn’t know what logic was if it slapped you in the face.
Poor non-rational seb… now continually vying to see if he can out-idiot himself.
You wrote:
“Considering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice, these long-term trends strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.”
That is the flawed logic. And I repeat myself:
“Saying A can not be the cause of B, because in the past C caused B is a fallacy and is called – i had to google it – “Denying the antecedent”.”
Denying the antecedent?
And I replied to this “challenge” previously by writing this:
You’ve stated that it’s “strange” to not accept that humans are the cause of the current decline in Arctic sea ice. So if I were to accept that humans caused the Arctic sea ice decline, I’m left with some troubling inconsistencies…
SebastianH, what’s the mechanistic cause of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice increasing for the last 37 years?
Arctic sea ice concentration grew between the 1940s and 1980s, with pronounced spikes in the 1960s.
The Canadian Arctic hasn’t even warmed in the last 150 years (“Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time.” – Fortin and Gajewski, 2016).
Considering these trends, does this anthropogenic causal mechanism you speak of only work in certain decades, or in one hemisphere and not the other? If so, explain how causal mechanisms turn on and off, depending on the decade and hemisphere. Please use scientific papers to support your positions.
Can we assume you don’t agree with scientists who find that natural variability can explain the warming in the Arctic in recent decades?
—
Ding et al., 2014
“Here we show that the recent warming in this region [northeastern Canada and Greenland] is strongly associated with a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation, which is a response to anomalous Rossby wave-train activity [planetary waves related to the Earth’s rotation] originating in the tropical Pacific. … This suggests that a substantial portion of recent warming in the northeastern Canada and Greenland sector of the Arctic arises from unforced natural variability.”
—
Ohashi and Tanaka, 2010
“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic [cooling, then warming] can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO [Arctic Oscillation] not by the external response due to the human activity.”
Looks to me like Kenneth is saying
Logical Form of denying the antecedent is…
“If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.”
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/77/Denying-the-Antecedent
Correct me if I’m wrong, Kenneth, but it looks to me like you are saying the opposite.
“If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.”
I prefer to just repeat what I actually wrote…
“Considering climate models are predicated on the presumption that the higher the CO2 concentration, the greater the loss of sea ice, these long-term trends [sea ice both declining and rising without any significant change in CO2 concentration] strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.”
Sea ice growth occurs concurrently with CO2 concentrations rising…or staying the same. Sea ice decline occurs concurrently with CO2 rising…or staying the same. This lack of correlation strongly suggests that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of sea ice growth or decline they are claimed to be.
Where the Ps and Qs fit into the above is convoluted. SebastianH is just attempting to hurl a baseless accusation that the above observationally-based statement is illogical. He’s grasping at straws. He cannot explain why the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice has been increasing since 1979 while consistently maintaining that increases in CO2 concentration are currently what causes sea ice to decline. So that’s why he refuses to address this inconsistency and just repeats this baseless accusation of a logical fallacy.
That’s what’s going on here.
P = CO2 concentration is high
Q = sea ice is melting
That’s this part.
This is “No P, but Q”. With the result that Kenneth claims it can’t be P that causes Q, which is flawed logic.
Nope.
You are. You are making a simple observation about your way to argue, about me not answering a non-related question. This thread was about the flawed (or strange) logic you employ.
Not baseless and I am refusing to answer unrelated questions (that have been answered by others, I don’t know why you think this is inconsistent).
these long-term trends [sea ice both declining and rising without any significant change in CO2 concentration] strongly suggest that CO2 concentration changes are not the modulators of polar sea ice changes they are claimed to be.
As I’ve now specified both in the article and in my comment, it can’t be a “No P, but Q” thing because, as I have pointed out, both increases and decreases in sea ice concentrations are coincident with both increases in CO2 concentrations and no-change in CO2 concentrations. In other words, there is no consistent long-term correlation or connection between variabilities in sea ice concentration and changes in CO2 concentration. Arctic sea ice declines while CO2 increases. Antarctic sea ice grows while CO2 increases. Since there is no obvious if-then directionality to the connection between CO2 and sea ice, then there can be no axiomatic statement about the if-then consequences of increasing CO2 concentrations. This is not consistent with IPCC claims, as they do claim there is a clear if-then connection and direction with CO2 and sea ice. Scientific observations do not support the IPCC’s claims about a clear if-then connection and direction. The article spells this out rather clearly.
Once again, this is just another example of SebastianH trying to concoct a straw man argument.
I fail to understand why the Southern Hemisphere increase in sea ice, or the more rapid decline in Arctic sea ice when CO2 concentrations were lower…is unrelated to an article about….increases and decreases in sea ice concentrations having no obvious connection to CO2 concentrations both in the short term or long term. But I do understand why you have made up another weak excuse for failing to respond to the question.
One more time, when you say that A can not cause B because B changes even when A doesn’t change, then your logic is flawed. That’s all this thread (at least my part) was about …
It’s like saying winning the lottery won’t change your bank account balance because the balance changed all the time from other things before, when there was no lottery win. Deeply flawed logic.
Also, I don’t see where anyone made the claim that a CO2 increase directly causes ice to melt. Increasing temperatures melt ice. An increase in CO2 concentration causes warming, but not uniformly everywhere. But still, ice mass in Antartica is decreasing as far as the data shows.
It’s unrelated to me pointing out a flawed logic.
Lol? Do you feel this strategy of yours is effective? Asking an opponent unrelated questions and then demanding those questions to be answered in following replies or else? Why does it always have to be about homework assignments with you?
Please don’t make me repeat why your logic is flawed another time by explaining how ice extent changes without corresponding CO2 concentration changes and claiming that this doesn’t support IPCC claims.
One more time, I DID NOT WRITE THAT A CAN NOT CAUSE B. One more time, I instead wrote that there is no consistent directional connection from CO2 concentration to sea ice. Sea ice grows when CO2 increases (see 1950s to 1980s in the NH, 1979-present in the SH). Sea ice declines when CO2 increases (see 1920s to 1950s and 1980s to present in the NH, and 1950s to 1980s in the SH). Sea ice declines when CO2 is constant (see the Medieval Warm Period). Sea ice grows when CO2 is constant (see the Little Ice Age). So, for the __th time now, I did not write what you falsely claim I did. I pointed out that the more CO2–>less sea ice conceptualization espoused by the IPCC is not consistent with the compilation of evidence. Your “denying the antecedent” charge is made up and nonsensical given what I actually wrote. No doubt, you will keep on making these false claims anyway. It’s all you have. Anything to avoid answering questions as to why sea ice trends don’t match well with CO2 trends.
That is “A can’t be the cause of B”.
I’ll cite myself, since you likely just ignored this passage:
Also, I don’t see where anyone made the claim that a CO2 increase directly causes ice to melt. Increasing temperatures melt ice. An increase in CO2 concentration causes warming, but not uniformly everywhere. But still, ice mass in Antartica is decreasing as far as the data shows.
@Kenneth,
My point was that Slippery Seb’s “logic” makes no sense.
Actually I didn’t state it correctly, myself. But I’ll fix that here.
Drawing a “Truth Table” …
https://www.mathbootcamps.com/truth-tables-conditional-biconditional-implies-iff/
…would better illustrate why you made no logical error, but that Slippery Sideshow Seb is, as usual, wrong.
P = high CO2
Q = melting ice
If both are “true” then P=>Q is “true.”
BUT…
If P is “true” and Q is “false,” as you are pointing out it sometimes is, then P=>Q is “false.”
Note that for you to have committed the logical fallacy that he is accusing you of, you would have to be saying that growing ice proved that P was “false,” I.e., that CO2 wasn’t elevated. You are clearly not saying that, nor would you.
I hope that’s a bit clearer.
“An increase in CO2 concentration causes warming,”
ROFLMAO..
The same old scientifically unsupportable BS from seb.
Its a religious mantra/chant, that is all.
But that is watt his work has reduced him too.. mindlessly yapping religious fallacies.
If Antarctic ice mass is decreasing, (GRACE is totally unreliable over active volcanic regions), it is NOT from raised temperatures.
https://s19.postimg.org/yubej7oyr/ant-ta-monthly-1979-2016-11-01.gif
https://s19.postimg.org/mar5i83sj/UAH_SoPol_All.png
@Kenneth
As has been pointed out in the past, the paleo record falsifies warmism in the same way, because there is no correlation between rising/falling [CO2] and rising/falling temps.
The chatbot knows that. I repeat, he is only here to waste our time responding to his inane drippings. He isn’t stupid, so his carelessness with facts has to be deliberate.
https://tenant–lawyers-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w1000/s/tenant-lawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pigeonschool.jpg
I’m with B&T on this – DNFTT
“First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend.”
First of all, CO2 DOES NOT effect any temperatures, in any way what-so-ever.
CERTAINLY NOT oceans,
CERTAINLY NOT the atmosphere…
NO PROOF it can warm ANYTHING.
If you have empirical proof otherwise…
THEN PRODUCE IT..
Or remain an empty sack.
Have you managed to answer my question about the work a chair performs to hold you up? How much work for 1h of sitting on the chair? How much work for 2h? I don’t remember you answering that.
“First of all the CO2 GHE does not directly influence sea ice extend.”
I note that these climate models incorporate a direct link between CO2 and sea ice loss —
MPI-ESM-LR
CSIRO Mk3.6.0
BCC_CSM1.1
IPSL-CM5A-LR
CCSM4
HadGEM2-ES
CNRM-CM5
GISS-E2-H
GISS-E2-R
GFDL CM3
MIROC-ESM
MIROC-ESM-CHEM
Probably all climate models have such a relationship baked into their code.
ROFLMAO, seb
Your IGNORANCE astounds even me.
I’ll give you the hint again,
The units for “Strain Energy” are already in the units for “work”
Are you REALLY that mathematically ILLITERATE that you cannot grasp a simple concept ???????
Its apparent that you MOST DEFINITELY ARE.
You don’t even realise, from the hint, that your question is a NONSENSE question.
What SI units is “work X time”, seb?
TOTALLY HILARIOUS. 🙂
Dear AndyG55,
it’s good that you seem to be able to understand that the unit of work is not Joule, but Watt. To warm something up however, you need to add Joules and you do that by performing work for a time X. Sitting down on a chair makes to chair perform work exactly once, there is no continuous output of X Watt that could add to the heat content of anything.
That’s why I am asking you how much work a chair is performing in 1h vs. 2h. There is no difference. And I don’t think you are getting that. This means whatever heating happens when you sit on the chair, it’s not going to last.
Back to the atmosphere: your claim is that a continous compression is responsible for the incoming side of the heat content (unit Joule) equation, not the radiative properties of the atmosphere (“CO2 DOES NOT effect any temperatures, in any way what-so-ever”). For this to happen the compression would have to perform work (unit Watt) continously over time to provide Joules (work X time) for the heat content. But that is not the case. Otherwise you could demonstrate to us that there is a difference in the work output between sitting on a chair for 1h vs. 2h.
In case you are not trolling and really mean that sitting down on a chair is a one time thing, but the warming from that event causes a constant temperature increase, please explain why the Joules added by this one time event don’t radiate/convect/evaporate away the same way all other Joules added to the heat content do?
Or are you trolling us? Since you seem to also believe that one time warming events like an El Nino could cause step jumps in temperatures …
ROFLMAO……Poor seb,
You have PROVEN to EVERYONE that you are TOTALLY CLUELESS.
“perform work (unit Watt)” BS !!!!
ANYONE can look up anywhere and find out that the unit of work is JOULE.
A Watt is a unit of power (Joules/second)
Strain energy is in Joules
and there is NO SUCH UNIT as Joules X Time
You really are one IGNORANT, MENTALLY and MATHEMATICALLY CONFUSED, little headless chook.
No wonder you “believe” in fantasies like CO2 warming, and don’t comprehend basic physics such as auto compression of air raising it to and maintaining it at a certain temperature.
Concepts of basic structural mechanics are WAY BEYOND YOU, because you can’t let go of your base level ignorance from the AGW scam.
“Back to the atmosphere:”
You still haven’t got the intelligence to grasp basic physics of structures, how are you going to comprehend basic physics of gasses?
The increase in lower atmosphere temperatures comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.
The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus higher kinetic energy is registered, thus increased temperature.
The units of kinetic energy are.. guess what, seb….
…. JOULES, same as the work done by “strain energy”
All this is very obviously WAY BEYOND YOU.
No wonder you are SO GULLIBLE as to believe the fallacy of CO2 warming despite the TOTAL LACK of any sort of evidence.
“it’s good that you seem to be able to understand that the unit of work is not Joule, but Watt.”
ROFLMAO… !!!
Since you are so NIL-educated in physics…
…maybe you should check basic units first…
save embarrassing yourself.
http://tutor4physics.com/unitsofwork.htm
You really are looking like a NON-educated, D-Class IDIOT, today, seb. .. so..
… No change from yesterday, or any day before that..
@Andy
Evasive Activist Chatbot Sideshow Seb…
http://worldwide-web.com/JeffreyBabad/Simpsons/SideshowBob/bob.gif
…still making excuses for why he can’t produce the non-existent data to back up the “CO2 causes warming” assertion. Never a straight answer. Always with the distractions.
Oh there was a reply, but still no answer to the question.
Guess what, the released energy from a detonation also has the unit Joules. Do those Joules cause an increase in temperature that lasts? No. Why?
Compression of a gas to a certain point is also a one time event. The gas gets warmer during the compression and then the heat dissipates. There is no ongoing compression that causes a higher than expected surface temperature. Or can you forecast the date when sea level pressure will not be 1015 mb, but 1500 mb?
Poor seb, STILL running away from simple answers.
STILL showing he has ZERO comprehension passed junior high level.
Your understanding of atmospheric processes is basically anti-reality.
The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself.
The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.
That energy from compression is STORED as kinetic energy, just as the strain energy is stored in the chair you are sitting on.
They are both measured in Joules, just like work done during that compression
“It’s the same as saying… blaaaahhhhh !!!”
OMG, yet another totally illogical, totally IRRELEVANT, anti-science, fantasy anomaly from seb !!
FFS, stick to science..
oops.. you CAN’T…. you have NONE.
I like the bank account analogy, because it reminds me of the comment here that energy in the climate system cannot exceed 340 W per m squared. That’s like telling me I can never have more money in my bank account than my monthly wage! No wonder I’ m always skint!
You left out the part about expenses. If your expenditures exceed your income, of course you’ll be “skint.”
If you’re referring to what I think you are, the warmists show a vast excess in places where it doesn’t belong. I.e., their “balance” doesn’t.
I am suggesting warmists have acute logical fallacyitis.
That is on top of their other ‘acute bloated ego syndrome’ causing them to believe that CO2 is anything other than a non toxic gas beneficial to the greening to the planet.
We are not talking about identical effects.
“In The Canadian Arctic, Temperatures May Have Reached 6°C Warmer Than Now, With 4 Months More Open Water (No Ice) Than Present”
The OPPORTUNITIES for this open Arctic would be enormous. !!
As opposed to the Arctic Ocean being a “no travel” zone for large proportions of the year.
Unfortunately, the RECOVERY from the EXTREME extents of the late 1970s seems to have come to an end, and with the AMO turning, Arctic sea ice is likely to start increasing again.
SO MUCH ARCTIC SEA ICE !!
We are VERY MUCH in a COOLER period of the current interglacial, a minor bump above THE COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years.
All those time there was low Arctic ice.
Oh horror of horrors, how did the Polar Bears survive?
“how did the Polar Bears survive?”
Well, obviously they couldn’t have.
Polar bears are a thing of the past… like snow 😉
Bob Carter dealt with that in a video of his. While looking for that I found this and decided to make a different point. Specifically, Carter shows how they distort the data (lie) to sell their socialist program. Now, my point is, once you catch them lying to you, why on earth would you EVER trust them on anything ever again?! And yes, that includes activist chatbot shills for utter nonsense.
Enjoy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PxKek_MO_8w
I don’t have time to look this up again because I have laundry to fold, but could someone look up the article showing clearly where climate change fanatics erased parts of graphs so it wouldn’t show previous warming periods?
From the bottom of this article we see how the data “adjustments” made 0.5 C of warming disappear.
Graph of global temperatures in 1987: +0.5 C warming between 1880 and 1950
Graph of global temperatures in 2014: 0.0 C warming between 1880 and 1950
Lost another here, Pierre.
Indeed I have a mere 8cm of snow via the time machine just outside my window, and it ain’t going anywhere quick as it had a glaze of freezing rain cover overnight.
The maverick gardening neighbors are very upset as took all the ‘climate authorities’ at their word and over the last few years planted drought resistant Mediterranean and subtropical plants — oh dear palm trees, citrus, and the like do not like freezing rain!
The rock garden has survived. 🙂
“Throughout Much Of The Holocene, The Arctic Ocean Periodically Became Ice Free…”
My guess is that they know the cyclical nature of climate, and we’re expecting temps to go up and ice to melt. If that had had happened they could claim their theory predicted it, and if they had been successful at putting their fascist policies in place, they could have claimed they had averted a catastrophe of global proportions wh n the cycle reversed. Sadly for them, but fortunately for us, many experts have been able to use the net to expose their scam.
I hope the political (economic) agenda will become more obvious. How old is Al Gore? Maybe. . .
This bunch signed a paper by James Hansen
A paper that specifically linked CO2 levels to global ice loss.
Makiko Sato—NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute.
Pushker Kharecha – NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, NY
David Beerling—Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Berner—Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
Valerie Masson-Delmotte – Universite de Versailles
Mark Pagani—Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University
Maureen Raymo—Department of Earth Sciences, Boston University
Dana L. Royer—Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University
James C. Zachos —Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz
and of course endorsed by weepy Bill McKibben and loony Dr. Joe Romm.
The only ‘tipping point’ that actually happened was how much expensive liquor these numpties tipped before writing this nonsense.
Read the summary of this pre-fossilized coprolite if you can find it, or go to here for a long précis of it.
Also see more modeled nonsense at http://www.ncaor.gov.in/files/Science_News/Arctic%20news-0811-16.pdf
From this 2016 stupidity comes —
“…pre-fossilized coprolite…”
lololol
Looks like 0bunko’s outreach to irrelevance was successful.
And of course from https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/26/new-paper-defying-models-there-has-been-no-long-term-linear-decline-in-arctic-sea-ice/
Many question that may be asked (again) have already been answered.
Not an answered question the chatbots won’t stop asking.
[…] by K. Richard, March 1st, 2018 in NoTricksZone […]
World UAH drops slightly for February.
COOLER than, from least cool to more cool, for February…
2016, 1998, 2010,2017, 2002, 2003, 2004.
Drop is greatest in NH.
@ AndyG55
What a non-suprise.
[…] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]
Meanwhile down south where it’s not even winter yet
“Mission to giant A-68 berg thwarted by sea-ice”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43257289
Previous story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43008058
@mwhite
You say it’s still summertime down below the equator? Well, that explains it. They don’t want to be bothered by academic subjects, like science. Warmists just want to have fun.
Woo Hoo – Party Time!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xeNAgBFmJpM
(Warmunistas are just dropouts from reality.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43250744
1.5 million penguins hidden away