freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:45pm:



That's your trouble petal. Too dumb to dumb down anything. What you need to do is dumb it up from your really low level of understanding. But that is not possible.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2021 at 8:45pm:



Already answered petal. You just didn't like it. Too bad. 

You remember NASA; The climate morons? 

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2021 at 5:43pm:



That would make you even more ignorant than you appear.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2021 at 5:37pm:



Your ignorance is showing again.

The climate models do things in discrete steps. At least 3 -

1. Northern Hemisphere

2. Southern Hemisphere

3. Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ)

So the tropical satellite readings are compared to the models ITCZ prediction. eg.-

"Satellite observations and reanalysis data show a narrowing and strengthening of precipitation in the ITCZ over recent decades in both the Atlantic and Pacific basins, but little change in ITCZ location. Consistent with observations, coupled climate models predict no robust change in the zonal-mean ITCZ location over the twenty-first century. However, the majority of models project a narrowing of the ITCZ and weakening mean ascent. Interestingly, changes in ITCZ width and strength are strongly anti-correlated across models. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30931244/

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2021 at 5:37pm:


Yes petal. I told you about MSU/AMSU's.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 6:13pm:



No we merely have trouble with ignoramuses.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 6:13pm:



The comparison was between predicted global tropical temperatures and measured tropical temperatures.

It's a simple question Lee.

As a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Also, how do satellites measure atmospheric temperature?

Fossil fuels are solar energy. There is no 'magic' evil human eneery importation from outer space into the economy of the Earth's climate.

Fossil fuels are what plants, mostly, captured of the Sun's energy over a long time.

Here's a question for all the 'scientists' here: what was the point/purpose of capturing all that solar energy in the form of coal, oil and gas? What was Mother gaia thinking? Why IS there sso much sun energy stored in fossil fuels? Some evil fantasy game??

Remember - ALL that energy was transported to Earth? Captured, transformed into fossil fuels - why?
Carbon based life form, carbon fuels, vegetation DEPENDS on exhaling CO2 - ie burning fossil fuels, among other things.


There is absolutely NOTHING man-made happening here. Nothing. Man uses the resources of the Earth.

BAAADD!!!!!!



Well, it's nutty like squirrel poo.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 8:08am:


Quite idiotic to compare

1. Measured Temperature in the real world from sophisticated machines like satellites and radiosonde equipment.

with

2. Computer model predicted future temperature outputs, where the information being fed into the computer determines what the outcome will be.

Have you found that hot spot around the equator FD....

Quote:


WOW....Still haven't worked that one out have you then stay in the dark ages where you belong.

You see FD once you establish a trend with real world observations (empirical data) this gives you a good platform to make an estimation for the future.

So satellite data gathered the last 40 odd years suggest that we will warm by 1.07°C by end of 21st century.

So we dont have to spend billions on the stock market buying up carbon credits as a nation to keep the temperature rise to under 2°C.

This will happen all on its own.