No. Asian Steppe countries are tiny comparitive populations.
They aren't higher elevation. Is there metropolis on mountain in Asia. There is in the Andies. Oh look at Ethopia. But where is Kathmandu or it's town at base of Everest? Wrong answer. Mexico City, capital is way up there and more of its other density. High. Same in other places of Europe. Like Andorra tiny population, and Switzerland far more but smaller comparisons to South America or Ethopia. But we're talking population for the argument of it. We never spoke, you never asked. You called me what. I am not.
It's the way you speak. You're not clever.
You don't count three countries, so dumb, bad monkey, when we're specifically talking about a country with the highest significant population above existential sea level rise.
They aren't higher elevation. Is there metropolis on mountain in Asia.
Sure.
But we're talking population for the argument of it.
We’re literally not.
We never spoke, you never asked.
Right.
It's the way you speak. You're not clever.
Irony.
You don't count three countries
Nope.
we're specifically talking about a country with the highest significant population above existential sea level rise.
We’re literally not. None of this matters in any way, shape, or form. Humans are not altering the climate. AGW does not exist. You were blown the fuck out long ago. Stop posting, admitted paid shill.
Wtf. No there isn't by highest capital comparisons and density. Not by the same populations.
You also named 3 countries previously, probably counting them all as China. Hell Tehran is higher, Kabul is higher, Yemen, big city higher, then your bullshit. You never named Bhutan either. It is way up there.
We are again for elevation's sake suggesting total population evelated above significant existenial sea level rise for the sake of elevation. It provides us with as a claim of the highest elevation. Not summit. Because it has the most people residing at elevation. Providing us with an argument. No it's not the closest point to the stars.
The closest point to the stars is the summit in Ecuador, not Everest. It is densely elevated as a country. But the highest point in the World at elevation is Bolivia as the populated area, and as the majority of its country. But does it have as much population elevated? No. Where is this? But it is no wonder these people worshipped what they did. Why did those Incas chase the stars. They put their temples on the highest peaks. Many suffered climate changes in their attempts at the divine.
Yes the Steppes of Asia is massively elevated but those populations are all quite small. Africa has far more countries with cities at higher elevation. Bhutan very high has a relatively tiny population. Nepal isn't as high up as its summits of Everest and K2. Again it has a relatively small population by other comparisons. Even India has higher claims or areas of population in those peaks, but it isn't the vast majority of its population
Yawn you're so tedious.
What are you babbling about the NWO for?
We were talking about glacial melt. Before you opened your dumb mouth. How Ethiopia is no longer Frozen, and it has specks of snow on its tallest peaks, these in the past were frozen, glaciers, the source of the Nile. And would you look at Switzerland today, those glaciers are faster retreating. It has significantly warmed. Because go on. The Sun. It was shining long before people escaped the Romans.
If all you’re going to do is repeat the same schizophrenic nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, then we’re done.
Land “readings” are diverging from satellite data (which NASA itself says is more accurate and should be the standard instead) because over 40% of land “readings” are estimates made for places without recording equipment. To illustratively do something that the psychopaths love to do, I’ll cherrypick the last 20 years to show that there has been no warming there, despite CO2 continuing to rise. Even using just the satellite record, the world isn’t warming. If we refer back to one of the hottest years in recorded history, we see the difference. Never mind that there have only been ecological benefits to rising CO2.
It has been rising for 13,000 years. In that time, it has never risen more slowly than right now. Were our ancestors belching out CO2 faster than we were? Maybe they were farting a lot more. It’s rising more slowly than at any time in that history, and it’s also rising more slowly than any claim made public by any outlet. Here’s the source data for that chart. It’s an FTP link, so it should automatically download the raw file (which you don’t need to worry about, as it’s a bunch of undifferentiated numbers). Turns out that NOAA marks the average as 0.63 mm per year. Not 3.3. Not 2.8. Certainly not a foot per year, which is needed for the most modern public “predictions” about this bullshit.
“Okay, not ice caps, but what about the glaciers?”
They’ve been melting since at least the 1780s when we started measuring them. I also have information for the Alps and other areas. Was our pre-industrial civilization responsible for “greenhouse gases” too? There were no glaciers in Europe in the Middle Ages. That’s called the Medieval Warm Period, something your “scientists” have been trying to erase from the record for decades (ironically, since, 1984) because it goes against their narrative. Gee, we must have had even more factories then than we do now… right?
“But but but but but but but but muh consensus! They agree! Because I say they do! That makes what they say true!”
Because there is no other record of meaningful scientific value anywhere. Only the United States (and parts of Japan) has a temperature record that has been around long enough for climatological statements can be based on it. The GHCND set of stations has slowly been closed down… and what’s this! The stations being closed down ARE FAR FROM THE EQUATOR. What does that mean? The average latitude of GHCND stations IS FIFTEEN FUCKING DEGREES CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR than it used to be. Do you imagine that might raise temperatures? If you answer no, don’t bother answering in the first place.
The United States has a network of 1200+ USHCN stations with data going back to 1895 and earlier. The raw USHCN temperature record shows that there has been a slight cooling since 1920 (see above). USHCN is a subset of GHCND (Global Historical Climatology Network Daily.) Cooling doesn’t suit the needs of your masters, so they cherrypicked a small subset of GHCND stations (which show a large amount of warming since 1920) for use in the global GSN temperature record.
So let’s stop this madness, right? What happens when we take data from SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOURCES? That is, 1. stations active for a long time and 2. stations that don’t move (meaning keeping the same latitude). We see what I said above. NO. FUCKING. WARMING.
And yet there has been zero warming SINCE THEN, too, so you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Funny how sea level is identical to 1870 and 1901, huh? (La Jolla and La Jolla; Sydney and Sydney, respectively)? Funny how all the gauges show a 0.63mm/yr rise (which, again, is smaller than at any time in the last 11,000 years). Not 3.3. Not 2.6. Not 1.4. Certainly not “a meter by 2050.”
“But weather is becoming more extreme!”
Nah, less. Universally. What’s more, do you imagine? Not fires. Ha! Not floods.
USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.
Your world is. I am not repeating anything except facts. Somehow you keep linking shit to me. It isn't factual. I will not click on stupid links either. I don't know what you're even saying. I would if I read it. But it is moronic. Why the hell should I. I claimed something else.
The temperature has massively warmed recently. Only somehow you're telling me it hasn't. When it has. No debate. I provided an example, even a two year old would grasp, iceream go on how does it melt, no seriously, but somehow can't even understand that.
Next you bombard bullshit to me. I didn't claim any of that. You did. It wasn't my argument. It's your bullshit.
I claimed humans cause climate change. They factually do. I provided specific examples of it. Facts. Not your bullshit.
We are done you are fucking stupid. It's like you don't understand the meaning of words and concepts used, or have even studied basic geography and how weather and ecosystems work. Importantly you don't know how to communicate either.
Instead you pull bullshit out your asshole. I didn't claim any of that shit.
You live in a world your actions don't affect it. I pity you. You're selfish stupid and morally wrong. That's what you have told everybody. Your actions don't affect anything. Humans cannot cause climate change. They can on huge scales. We did that. But in your stupidity you've claimed your shit don't stink. Go peddle it to somebody else. You vile disgusting piece of shit. It's literally how stupid you are, you'd shit on street, and claim go on, read it. It doesn't affect the World. Where does your shit go. But oh no, shit on the street, it won't affect it. Basically it's the extent of your argument. Your actions do not affect anything. Humans cannot climate change. It's okay folks, shit on the street. If everybody shat on the street it wouldn't affect the weather. It actually would. It would stink for a start. What else would it cause?
Pathetic down vote. The temperature on your graphs has been rising. After the warm event that led to the dust bowl and great depression. Steadily. Where was the bar at. You admitted it's only average. Not specific states. Hurricanes have also increased. I am not downloading crap links. Or reading bullshit press like no glaciers in the Dark ages. Factually wrong. Hannibal lost how many elephants in the frozen Alps. Forgetting the two years of darkness. The mini ice-age from Vesuvius. There was also a warm period of extreme heat droughts slightly later. Another of extreme winters in Europe about 200 years ago. I never claimed rising oceans. I think population is actually causing a worse affect to any rise, drinking it quicker.
The rest of your bullshit is tedious. Cannot verify those sources either. Spurious.
No. Asian Steppe countries are tiny comparitive populations.
They aren't higher elevation. Is there metropolis on mountain in Asia. There is in the Andies. Oh look at Ethopia. But where is Kathmandu or it's town at base of Everest? Wrong answer. Mexico City, capital is way up there and more of its other density. High. Same in other places of Europe. Like Andorra tiny population, and Switzerland far more but smaller comparisons to South America or Ethopia. But we're talking population for the argument of it. We never spoke, you never asked. You called me what. I am not.
It's the way you speak. You're not clever.
You don't count three countries, so dumb, bad monkey, when we're specifically talking about a country with the highest significant population above existential sea level rise.
Cool. I wasn’t talking about those.
Sure.
We’re literally not.
Right.
Irony.
Nope.
We’re literally not. None of this matters in any way, shape, or form. Humans are not altering the climate. AGW does not exist. You were blown the fuck out long ago. Stop posting, admitted paid shill.
Wtf. No there isn't by highest capital comparisons and density. Not by the same populations.
You also named 3 countries previously, probably counting them all as China. Hell Tehran is higher, Kabul is higher, Yemen, big city higher, then your bullshit. You never named Bhutan either. It is way up there.
We are again for elevation's sake suggesting total population evelated above significant existenial sea level rise for the sake of elevation. It provides us with as a claim of the highest elevation. Not summit. Because it has the most people residing at elevation. Providing us with an argument. No it's not the closest point to the stars.
The closest point to the stars is the summit in Ecuador, not Everest. It is densely elevated as a country. But the highest point in the World at elevation is Bolivia as the populated area, and as the majority of its country. But does it have as much population elevated? No. Where is this? But it is no wonder these people worshipped what they did. Why did those Incas chase the stars. They put their temples on the highest peaks. Many suffered climate changes in their attempts at the divine.
Yes the Steppes of Asia is massively elevated but those populations are all quite small. Africa has far more countries with cities at higher elevation. Bhutan very high has a relatively tiny population. Nepal isn't as high up as its summits of Everest and K2. Again it has a relatively small population by other comparisons. Even India has higher claims or areas of population in those peaks, but it isn't the vast majority of its population
Yawn you're so tedious.
What are you babbling about the NWO for?
We were talking about glacial melt. Before you opened your dumb mouth. How Ethiopia is no longer Frozen, and it has specks of snow on its tallest peaks, these in the past were frozen, glaciers, the source of the Nile. And would you look at Switzerland today, those glaciers are faster retreating. It has significantly warmed. Because go on. The Sun. It was shining long before people escaped the Romans.
If all you’re going to do is repeat the same schizophrenic nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic, then we’re done.
Land “readings” are diverging from satellite data (which NASA itself says is more accurate and should be the standard instead) because over 40% of land “readings” are estimates made for places without recording equipment. To illustratively do something that the psychopaths love to do, I’ll cherrypick the last 20 years to show that there has been no warming there, despite CO2 continuing to rise. Even using just the satellite record, the world isn’t warming. If we refer back to one of the hottest years in recorded history, we see the difference. Never mind that there have only been ecological benefits to rising CO2.
They’re not melting. They go through cycles. 1974 had less ice than today. Oh, and don’t listen to what scientists say, whatever you do. Nowhere is melting out of turn, not even Greenland (where it has been growing for something like 30 years). Oh, and the ice cores themselves? They show that the past was hotter.
It has been rising for 13,000 years. In that time, it has never risen more slowly than right now. Were our ancestors belching out CO2 faster than we were? Maybe they were farting a lot more. It’s rising more slowly than at any time in that history, and it’s also rising more slowly than any claim made public by any outlet. Here’s the source data for that chart. It’s an FTP link, so it should automatically download the raw file (which you don’t need to worry about, as it’s a bunch of undifferentiated numbers). Turns out that NOAA marks the average as 0.63 mm per year. Not 3.3. Not 2.8. Certainly not a foot per year, which is needed for the most modern public “predictions” about this bullshit.
Guess what? It’s also cyclical.
They’ve been melting since at least the 1780s when we started measuring them. I also have information for the Alps and other areas. Was our pre-industrial civilization responsible for “greenhouse gases” too? There were no glaciers in Europe in the Middle Ages. That’s called the Medieval Warm Period, something your “scientists” have been trying to erase from the record for decades (ironically, since, 1984) because it goes against their narrative. Gee, we must have had even more factories then than we do now… right?
Sorry, there never was any consensus.
Because they do (and because papers often aren’t published because the publishing groups are owned by AGW liars).
The purposeful destruction of the economy and infrastructure of the Western world and only the Western world.
None of the data supports the existence of AGW.
Because there is no other record of meaningful scientific value anywhere. Only the United States (and parts of Japan) has a temperature record that has been around long enough for climatological statements can be based on it. The GHCND set of stations has slowly been closed down… and what’s this! The stations being closed down ARE FAR FROM THE EQUATOR. What does that mean? The average latitude of GHCND stations IS FIFTEEN FUCKING DEGREES CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR than it used to be. Do you imagine that might raise temperatures? If you answer no, don’t bother answering in the first place.
The United States has a network of 1200+ USHCN stations with data going back to 1895 and earlier. The raw USHCN temperature record shows that there has been a slight cooling since 1920 (see above). USHCN is a subset of GHCND (Global Historical Climatology Network Daily.) Cooling doesn’t suit the needs of your masters, so they cherrypicked a small subset of GHCND stations (which show a large amount of warming since 1920) for use in the global GSN temperature record.
So let’s stop this madness, right? What happens when we take data from SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOURCES? That is, 1. stations active for a long time and 2. stations that don’t move (meaning keeping the same latitude). We see what I said above. NO. FUCKING. WARMING.
At the very best (for your delusions), you (meaning your own authorities) can say that there has been zero change since modern recordings began. Your bastard king himself, James Hansen, ADMITTED TO THIS.
And yet there has been zero warming SINCE THEN, too, so you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Funny how sea level is identical to 1870 and 1901, huh? (La Jolla and La Jolla; Sydney and Sydney, respectively)? Funny how all the gauges show a 0.63mm/yr rise (which, again, is smaller than at any time in the last 11,000 years). Not 3.3. Not 2.6. Not 1.4. Certainly not “a meter by 2050.”
Nah, less. Universally. What’s more, do you imagine? Not fires. Ha! Not floods.
Not tornadoes. Five (nearly six now) consecutive years of below average events. Not hurricanes. Every single indicator shows they’re not only becoming less frequent, but also less powerful. Not even drought. Hilarious! So what is it? What’s worse? Tell us. Is it anything at all? Anywhere? At any time? No. Of course, this has been known for a while. It’s global cooling’s fault, after all! Oh, wait… NOAA wouldn’t want you to hear this now, would they?
Your entire world is a hoax.
Your world is. I am not repeating anything except facts. Somehow you keep linking shit to me. It isn't factual. I will not click on stupid links either. I don't know what you're even saying. I would if I read it. But it is moronic. Why the hell should I. I claimed something else.
The temperature has massively warmed recently. Only somehow you're telling me it hasn't. When it has. No debate. I provided an example, even a two year old would grasp, iceream go on how does it melt, no seriously, but somehow can't even understand that.
Next you bombard bullshit to me. I didn't claim any of that. You did. It wasn't my argument. It's your bullshit.
I claimed humans cause climate change. They factually do. I provided specific examples of it. Facts. Not your bullshit.
We are done you are fucking stupid. It's like you don't understand the meaning of words and concepts used, or have even studied basic geography and how weather and ecosystems work. Importantly you don't know how to communicate either.
Instead you pull bullshit out your asshole. I didn't claim any of that shit.
You live in a world your actions don't affect it. I pity you. You're selfish stupid and morally wrong. That's what you have told everybody. Your actions don't affect anything. Humans cannot cause climate change. They can on huge scales. We did that. But in your stupidity you've claimed your shit don't stink. Go peddle it to somebody else. You vile disgusting piece of shit. It's literally how stupid you are, you'd shit on street, and claim go on, read it. It doesn't affect the World. Where does your shit go. But oh no, shit on the street, it won't affect it. Basically it's the extent of your argument. Your actions do not affect anything. Humans cannot climate change. It's okay folks, shit on the street. If everybody shat on the street it wouldn't affect the weather. It actually would. It would stink for a start. What else would it cause?
Pathetic down vote. The temperature on your graphs has been rising. After the warm event that led to the dust bowl and great depression. Steadily. Where was the bar at. You admitted it's only average. Not specific states. Hurricanes have also increased. I am not downloading crap links. Or reading bullshit press like no glaciers in the Dark ages. Factually wrong. Hannibal lost how many elephants in the frozen Alps. Forgetting the two years of darkness. The mini ice-age from Vesuvius. There was also a warm period of extreme heat droughts slightly later. Another of extreme winters in Europe about 200 years ago. I never claimed rising oceans. I think population is actually causing a worse affect to any rise, drinking it quicker.
The rest of your bullshit is tedious. Cannot verify those sources either. Spurious.