2014 WAS ONE OF THE 3% COLDEST YEARS IN THE LAST 10,000

[Billy_Bob]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Too funny... Your charts are perfectly aligned when a LOG function should not be due to its rate of diminishing return. So you out your self a liar and a fool all in one fail swoop....

Trying to shovel a pile of crap over on the public when simple science shows the lie..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

No its not. Using failed models and calling their outputs 'empirical evidence' is not only a lie its deceptive to boot.. You must have attended the Michale Mann school of climastrology..

I also noted that you cut off your graph when the earth was cooling and CO2 was rising naturally. How disingenuous can you get. The snippet view is the primary scare tactic of all climatastrologers.. So tell me, Actually, show me the empirical evidence, to include the math used, all data accessible, and the methods used to ascertain how CO2 is magically doing this to our atmosphere... which defies LOG function and Linear function diversion..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Source: University of Southampton

Summary:
Research has identified, for the first time, how global warming is related to the amount of carbon emitted. A team of researchers has derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions since the late 1800s when human-made carbon emissions began. The results are in accord with previous data from climate models.

Too funny;

The models these climastrolgers used OVER ESTIMATE warming by 600%..... what a load of crap.. these same models state all warming is not natural but man made.. How did you stop natural variation? This is one I gotta hear! Because if true, you can manipulate the earths total climate and global warming is no longer a problem...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"DENIERS!!!!!"

(i.e., those who deny the alarmist bullshit of the AGW Faithers)

 

[Billy_Bob]

With the CAGW faithful no lie is to big and science is just a nuisance item.. They truly are the deniers...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Classic MORON, left wit, fools drivel.....

Dr Phil Goodwin, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, said: "Our analysis highlights the nearly irreversible nature of carbon emissions for global warming. Once carbon has been emitted into the atmosphere the warming effect will last many centuries, even after much of the carbon has been absorbed by the ocean."

"We cannot wait until after significant anthropogenic warming has occurred to reduce carbon emissions and hope the climate goes back to normal by itself, it won't."

First he has no proof that the earth can not return to normal as it did when the earth was at or above 7,000ppm. to say it cant is shear lunacy and propaganda as the earth has done it before, without MAN.

There is so much unsupported supposition and obvious left wing propaganda that the paper is worthless. To think that several PHD's were writers of this Piece Of Shit.. Looks to me like there are some folks who are about to loose their jobs and will do anything, including lying to retain them.

Sad that this is what passes PEER REVIEW... Shoddy at best work and lots of speculation - supposition purported to be fact.

My God! Its an IPCC lie validation paper... that explains it!!!

"These findings potentially address the most important finding from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report last year, which is how global warming increases with how much carbon we emit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Powerline"? Really?? Let's move along.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Kosh, you have the scientific literacy of a third grader. There were major extinctions where CO2 and CH4 did indeed control the climate. Such as the P-T event, and the events that created the snowball earth conditions a couple of times in our planets history. CO2 is not the only control on the climate, but it is the big control knob.

 

[Kosh]

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Kosh, you have the scientific literacy of a third grader. There were major extinctions where CO2 and CH4 did indeed control the climate. Such as the P-T event, and the events that created the snowball earth conditions a couple of times in our planets history. CO2 is not the only control on the climate, but it is the big control knob.

Once again the irony impaired AGW cult is pushing their religious dogma and claiming that AGW killed the dinosaurs.

CO2 does not control climate, never has..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Kosh, you have the scientific literacy of a third grader. There were major extinctions where CO2 and CH4 did indeed control the climate. Such as the P-T event, and the events that created the snowball earth conditions a couple of times in our planets history. CO2 is not the only control on the climate, but it is the big control knob.

Richard Alley? Really? you quoted a fool?

Have you tried to replicate his math? I have, and its wrong! His equations forget major areas of water vapor and clouds along with variances in solar output. Thus he is working on the assumption that water vapor is stable and unchanging. He even admits they can not quantify the rate of change to and fro so quickly of water vapor. This makes his modeling useless and his assumptions invalid. Do you have even a basic understanding of science?

The basic premise of AGW is that CO2 drives water vapor increase. But if they can not quantify its change positive and negative and use a static number then all they are doing is witch doctoring as they haven't got a dam clue what is happening.

 

[Ubiquitor]

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

AGW is not science and anyone supporting it as science is a AGW religious hack.

Climate science has been hindered by the AGW religious nuts, thus no real science is being done and trying to equate AGW and Climate science shows what a true AGW religious cult member you are.

If you sided with science then you would know that AGW is bunk.

Thank you for your very rational and well thought out response, but I'm going to continue to read the science and let it answer the questions.

 

[Ubiquitor]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Too funny... Your charts are perfectly aligned when a LOG function should not be due to its rate of diminishing return. So you out your self a liar and a fool all in one fail swoop....

Trying to shovel a pile of crap over on the public when simple science shows the lie..

I have to admit that you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about. The broken English didn't help though.

 

[Kosh]

Proof that the AGW cult will promote their religious propaganda over real science..

By posting links to "real science"? I've found that when you post the "real science" the contrarians always respond with either a personal attack, a deflection, or an opinion. It's their white flag.

AGW is not real science, it is religious dogma..

Thus proving you are a hack!

Zero real scientific evidence exists to prove that CO2 controls climate.

Thus proving that you are promoting the AGW scriptures without question or hesitation.

CO2 has NEVER controlled climate..

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

AGW is not science and anyone supporting it as science is a AGW religious hack.

Climate science has been hindered by the AGW religious nuts, thus no real science is being done and trying to equate AGW and Climate science shows what a true AGW religious cult member you are.

If you sided with science then you would know that AGW is bunk.

Thank you for your very rational and well thought out response, but I'm going to continue to read the science and let it answer the questions.

Yes the AGW cult are the true deniers of science.

Ever going to post those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

 

[Kosh]

What! Everything I've been reading screams about hot 2014 was the WARMEST in centuries.


So, who's right? The ever-present graphs are there to prove it but I won't be surprised when we see hundreds of other graphs saying this is wrong.


Read more @ 2014 Was One of the 3 Coldest Years in the Last 10 000 Power Line

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Too funny... Your charts are perfectly aligned when a LOG function should not be due to its rate of diminishing return. So you out your self a liar and a fool all in one fail swoop....

Trying to shovel a pile of crap over on the public when simple science shows the lie..

I have to admit that you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about. The broken English didn't help though.

Then you have never read hand written "scientist" notes, which goes to show that you have nothing on your plate but AGW cult propaganda..

 

[Ubiquitor]

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

No its not. Using failed models and calling their outputs 'empirical evidence' is not only a lie its deceptive to boot.. You must have attended the Michale Mann school of climastrology..

I also noted that you cut off your graph when the earth was cooling and CO2 was rising naturally. How disingenuous can you get. The snippet view is the primary scare tactic of all climatastrologers.. So tell me, Actually, show me the empirical evidence, to include the math used, all data accessible, and the methods used to ascertain how CO2 is magically doing this to our atmosphere... which defies LOG function and Linear function diversion..

Of course it is. The models are part of the scientific method and most of them have proven to be quite accurate. They are constantly being modified as we learn more about climate, which makes them more and more accurate.

I didn't cut off any graph. That's how it came and the timeframe is sufficient. The Earth's warming and cooling, while important, do not disprove man's involvement in the current 130+ year warming trend. Study after study shows the primary forcing behind the current warming trend is CO2 being increased in the atmosphere due to man's activities. I've provided links to studies already. I could sit here and provide links to hundreds more, but it's clear that would be a waste of time as you've made up your mind. I find this a lot with people that have no formal education in science.

 

[Kosh]

Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.

No its not. Using failed models and calling their outputs 'empirical evidence' is not only a lie its deceptive to boot.. You must have attended the Michale Mann school of climastrology..

I also noted that you cut off your graph when the earth was cooling and CO2 was rising naturally. How disingenuous can you get. The snippet view is the primary scare tactic of all climatastrologers.. So tell me, Actually, show me the empirical evidence, to include the math used, all data accessible, and the methods used to ascertain how CO2 is magically doing this to our atmosphere... which defies LOG function and Linear function diversion..

Of course it is. The models are part of the scientific method and most of them have proven to be quite accurate. They are constantly being modified as we learn more about climate, which makes them more and more accurate.

I didn't cut off any graph. That's how it came and the timeframe is sufficient. The Earth's warming and cooling, while important, do not disprove man's involvement in the current 130+ year warming trend. Study after study shows the primary forcing behind the current warming trend is CO2 being increased in the atmosphere due to man's activities. I've provided links to studies already. I could sit here and provide links to hundreds more, but it's clear that would be a waste of time as you've made up your mind. I find this a lot with people that have no formal education in science.

And thus proving you are a AGW hack and could care less about real science. The AGW religious dogma is what you believe without hesitation or question.

Next this cult member will be backing the Hockey stick!

 

[Ubiquitor]

Where did you read it was the warmest in centuries?
It was the warmest in 134 years though. You know, since the trend upward began and accurate global temperatures have been reported.
It's not an either or scenario. The planet has been warmer before. That doesn't mean the latest upward trend no longer has man's fingerprints all over it.

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Too funny... Your charts are perfectly aligned when a LOG function should not be due to its rate of diminishing return. So you out your self a liar and a fool all in one fail swoop....

Trying to shovel a pile of crap over on the public when simple science shows the lie..

I have to admit that you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about. The broken English didn't help though.

Then you have never read hand written "scientist" notes, which goes to show that you have nothing on your plate but AGW cult propaganda..

I have and I have even written them, but that has nothing to do with anything.

You want links to studies? Here, I'll oblige:
Here are 522k of them. I look forward to your report on each one.
co2 global warming - Google Scholar

Remember, that ~97% of these studies that state a position for or against man's involvement are for it.

 

[Kosh]

Is the Earth warming or cooling?

 

[Kosh]

Well lets see if a newbie can figure it out.. Old Fraud and few others still cant figure it out... lets throw empirical evidence on your little alarmist parade..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So please show me where man has his finger prints on it...

Interesting charts. I have one, too.

As you can see the trends follow each other almost perfectly. Of course, both of our charts only address surface temps and everyone knows the oceans are a major part of this problem.

Here's a peer-reviewed and published study that confirms the link between carbon emissions and global warming:
Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions -- ScienceDaily

That's a great site if you're one that enjoys science. I'm not getting the impression you do though.

Isotope analysis has proven it's man. If you doubt that too then here's a link with links to many different studies that support that.
10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

Now back to this claim that someone it's saying it was the warmest in centuries. Let's just drop the pretense and acknowledge that was made up. With that out of the way, let's address the idea that because the planet has been warmer before man and before his greenhouse gas emissions that somehow proves he can't be involved in the current warming trend. It's faulty logic and we all know it.

Too funny... Your charts are perfectly aligned when a LOG function should not be due to its rate of diminishing return. So you out your self a liar and a fool all in one fail swoop....

Trying to shovel a pile of crap over on the public when simple science shows the lie..

I have to admit that you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about. The broken English didn't help though.

Then you have never read hand written "scientist" notes, which goes to show that you have nothing on your plate but AGW cult propaganda..

I have and I have even written them, but that has nothing to do with anything.

You want links to studies? Here, I'll oblige:
Here are 522k of them. I look forward to your report on each one.
co2 global warming - Google Scholar

Remember, that ~97% of these studies that state a position for or against man's involvement are for it.

Yes and all of which are not based on any real science. You deflection is noted..

So please post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

 

[Kosh]

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.