2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

So we've got hundreds of thousands of scientists (at least) all around the world who, on the basis of overwhelming evidence from many fields of science and many kinds of measurements, have concluded that the Earth is warming due to the elevated CO2 levels. Then, on the other side, we have some ideologically motivated rightwingnuts like SSooooDDuuumb who cherry-pick data sets, like just the satellite record of a portion of the atmosphere, and often limited time frames, like from 1998 to present, to foolishly deny the warming of our planet that has become completely obvious to most people and almost all scientists.

Here's the complete temperature graph...

had4_v2_giss.png
where are the sites that are used?
What do you imagine you're talking about?
The sensors that the temperature readings come from. Where are they?
Your already debunked denier cult myths, about the accuracy of the world temperature records, are worthless garbage based on conspiracy theory ideation and are therefore of no interest to me. Your mental masturbation over sound science that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending has no significance, except to the other crackpot denier cult devotees. Go play with yourself.
And, factual!!!!!

And like I thought, you have no knowledge of where the sensors are at. You are a parrot!!!!! Does Polly want a cracker. Oh, you are already a cracker.
Stupid drivel! As I said, your denier cult myths about the temperature record are retarded anti-science garbage.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatue Study
About the Data Set

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives. Whenever possible, we have used raw data rather than previously homogenized or edited data. After eliminating duplicate records, the current archive contains over 39,000 unique stations. This is roughly five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies. The GHCN-M is limited by strict requirements for record length, completeness, and the need for nearly complete reference intervals used to define baselines. We have developed new algorithms that reduce the need to impose these requirements (see methodology), and as such we have intentionally created a more expansive data set.

Summary of Findings
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years. Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.
 
where are the sites that are used?
What do you imagine you're talking about?
The sensors that the temperature readings come from. Where are they?
Your already debunked denier cult myths, about the accuracy of the world temperature records, are worthless garbage based on conspiracy theory ideation and are therefore of no interest to me. Your mental masturbation over sound science that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending has no significance, except to the other crackpot denier cult devotees. Go play with yourself.
And, factual!!!!!

And like I thought, you have no knowledge of where the sensors are at. You are a parrot!!!!! Does Polly want a cracker. Oh, you are already a cracker.
Stupid drivel! As I said, your denier cult myths about the temperature record are retarded anti-science garbage.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatue Study
About the Data Set

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives. Whenever possible, we have used raw data rather than previously homogenized or edited data. After eliminating duplicate records, the current archive contains over 39,000 unique stations. This is roughly five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies. The GHCN-M is limited by strict requirements for record length, completeness, and the need for nearly complete reference intervals used to define baselines. We have developed new algorithms that reduce the need to impose these requirements (see methodology), and as such we have intentionally created a more expansive data set.

Summary of Findings
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years. Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.
you post this silliness every post for all I care, however, it is useless. It is all manipulated data. How many more times do you think you need me to write that out for you? I don't care!!!!!!! You and your links are BS and you all know it. Now that is more of an issue than anything for me. you know you're lying. But, everytime you post this, I will post that it is manipulated data and inaccurate. so want to try again?
 
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
 

And another gullible retard pops up with more demented nonsense.

A link to some rightwingnut's blog, quoting a fossil fuel industry propaganda outlet called the 'Heartland Institute', who claim that from January through May 7th of this year, JUST the USA, not the whole world, supposedly experienced it coldest year in record.

Let's see what the actual experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have to say.

Climate Highlights — year-to-date (January – May)
  • The year-to-date average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 43.2°F, 0.1°F below the 20th century average, ranking near the middle value in the 120-year period of record. This was the coldest first five months of any year since 1996.
    .
  • During the first five months of 2014, above-average temperatureswere widespread in the West. Five states had one of their 10 warmest starts to the year. California's January-May temperature of 55.2°F was 5.0°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest such period for the state. This bested the previous record, set in 1934, by 0.1°F.
    .
  • Below-average January-May temperatures were widespread east of the Rockies. Thirteen states, from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf Coast, had year-to-date temperatures that ranked among the 10 coldest on record. The largest departures from average occurred across the Great Lakes region. No state had five-month temperatures that were record cold.
(source - NOAA National Overview - May 2014)
 
Last edited:
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That
 
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
 
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
 
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
 
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying
 
Just Crazy, old girl, you are getting shrill. No evidence for your silly shit. No links to back up your idiocy. Go ahead and post anything you want, including the pink pig that just flew past your window. Without a link to a credible source, it is just another lie.
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying

How about you try to explain "the work" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.
 
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying

How about you try to explain "the work" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.
Why, you don't believe it and challenge it, you prove it wrong!!

Let's see your experts data for 120 PPM of CO2 against temperature!!! LOL
 
LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying

How about you try to explain "the work" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.
Why, you don't believe it and challenge it, you prove it wrong!!

Let's see your experts data for 120 PPM of CO2 against temperature!!!
So, as I figured, you can't explain "the work" you claimed he had done (in 2011) or what it means to the worldwide scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. All of his stuff is bogus pseudo-science anyway, but if you can't even explain what he was saying in that article you cited, I'm not bothering to debunk it, you lying troll.
 
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying

How about you try to explain "the work" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.
Why, you don't believe it and challenge it, you prove it wrong!!

Let's see your experts data for 120 PPM of CO2 against temperature!!!
So, as I figured, you can't explain "the work" you claimed he had done (in 2011) or what it means to the worldwide scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. All of his stuff is bogus pseudo-science anyway, but if you can't even explain what he was saying in that article you cited, I'm not bothering to debunk it, you lying troll.
It isn't my work, why do i need to explain it. I expect you to counter the argument with your own data. you ain't got any so you melt to the floor with the expectation that you can get me. Nope, I don't fall for those tactics. You choose to be here, supply the counter argument that opposes the data and supports your side. Hint, you won't be able to, since your own link validates One of mine. Adding 120PPm of CO2 will not affect temperatures.
 
You all crack me up. I love it when facts don't line up for your side. here again, info posted on WUWT that just proves my point:

link...David Archibald on Climate and Energy Security Watts Up With That

LOLOL.....you are soooo gullible......you actually imagine that WattsUpMyButt is a valid source of information rather than the propaganda outlet for the fossil fuel industry that it is....so pathetic....

the Climate Denier List
a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths

David Archibald
March 14, 2012

David Archibald, Geology BA [so technically a scientist] Australia. Geologist with Summa Development Limited. Associated with Australia’s Lavoisier Group, which was established specifically to be skeptical of climate change. The group receives funding from the coal and oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf
There are no deleterious consequences of higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are wholly beneficial,” he added. “Anthropogenic Global Warming is so miniscule that the effect cannot be measured from year to year, and even from generation to generation

Believes the ‘sun wot dun it’- has written papers that cite each other- “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006 , considered to be the worst paper in scientific history [link] uses a few temperature locations and in one case just one that just happen to correlate to solar variance and then uses this as proof that the world is cooling.

Energy and Environment Journal is supposedly a peer reviewed science journal yet is not rated internationally and the publication of choice for sceptics who can’t find a proper journal to publish their work. see here
dude, I read up on the guy, you don't have to republish his credentials. I see you're one of those that if you didn't play the sport, you can't comment on the sport. hahahahahahahahhaha so unrealistic blunderball.
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying

How about you try to explain "the work" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.

3GreenhouseGasPotential_lg.jpg


People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Then again I have asked the AGW cult to post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Not one has been able to do that..
 
The dufus you cited HAS NO CREDENTIALS in climate science. He is one of the paid off liars for the fossil fuel industry.
He doesn't have to Isaac. he did the work. disprove his work. Come on now, let's see what you have!!!!!

BTW, that will mean you will need that experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. Just saying

How about you try to explain "the work" he supposedly did, OK little retard? You cited it so presumably you think you understand it. If you can do that, I will show how phony this dude's BS actually is.
Why, you don't believe it and challenge it, you prove it wrong!!

Let's see your experts data for 120 PPM of CO2 against temperature!!!
So, as I figured, you can't explain "the work" you claimed he had done (in 2011) or what it means to the worldwide scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of AGW/CC. All of his stuff is bogus pseudo-science anyway, but if you can't even explain what he was saying in that article you cited, I'm not bothering to debunk it, you lying troll.
It isn't my work, why do i need to explain it.
You cited it as if it meant something but you are obviously unable to explain what it supposedly meant, but you imagine that I have to debunk something that you don't understand to begin with. Try defending your post instead of wimping out in defeat.
 
ROFL this OP is such a retard.
The OP is scientifically accurate and references its sources.

I'm afraid it is you that is the ignorant brainwashed "retard".

The first nine months of 2014 (January–September) tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest calendar year on record. The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average. This breaks the previous record of +0.68°C (+1.22°F) set for the periods September 1997–August 1998, August 2009–July 2010; and September 2013–August 2014.
(source - NOAA - Global Analysis - 2014)
 
Last edited:
ROFL this OP is such a retard.
The OP is scientifically accurate and references its sources.

I'm afraid it is you that is the ignorant brainwashed "retard".

The first nine months of 2014 (January–September) tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record, with a combined global land and ocean average surface temperature 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest calendar year on record. The past 12 months—October 2013–September 2014—was the warmest 12-month period among all months since records began in 1880, at 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average. This breaks the previous record of +0.68°C (+1.22°F) set for the periods September 1997–August 1998, August 2009–July 2010; and September 2013–August 2014.
(source - NOAA - Global Analysis - 2014)
citing predictions from POS liars is not the same as citing scientific evidence... Besides warmer is better, dumb ass.
 
Predictions? What predictions? Those are temperature observations BrownEye.
 

Forum List

Back
Top