Global warming is accelerating, but how much? NCDC data in OP:

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Oddball, Jun 9, 2012.

  1. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPL7nN99jno]Gloom, Despair and Agony on Me - YouTube[/ame]
     
  2. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Take a look at this very simple (even you should be able to understand it) graph describing the temperature history of the earth then tell me exactly what it is about the present climate that you find troubling, or unusual, or unprecedented.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    Bitch, your graph is modestly interesting, since it shows what a piece of shit you are, which could stink for millions of years, but your latest load is of no practical use. It isn't anything but an unreferenced piece of shit, which you loaded, without explanation of the plots or the calibration of the lines, and it is on its side, which is typical of a wingpunk-fucktard, like you, who is full of shit, so we all have to know about it.

    What could be gayer, than you are? You left off the Holocene, and you are too queer, to notice Anthrocene. Eat ancient shit; it'll make you big, strong, and queer as a three-dollar-bill, punk.

    You didn't even load something, with both measurements listed. You may have found a double plot of CO2 and temperature, but you don't load all the rap, from your site or a link, since you are a stupid, punkass Wienerbitch. Try this shit at your Log Cabin buddies.

    Baffle 'em with bullshit, and get laid, with your own kind, asshole.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    [​IMG]

    this is exactly the type of graph that really pisses me off. it is a non sequitor with two images on the same graph with the y axis and origins manipulated to give a false impression that the two things under discussion are connected
     
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    [​IMG]

    yet another fraud perpetrated by the IPCC. different models were used for the two graphs. if the same models were used with only different values for CO2 inputted that would suggest that CO2 was important or that the models were insufficient in accounting for all the necessary variables. as it stands this graph is comparing apples to oranges
     
  6. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +916
    All this^ to remind me I need to get my Air Conditioner up, and running... Thanks.
     
  7. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    [​IMG]

    tidal gauges ha shown a 2mm/yr rise over the history of measurement. satellites have shown a 3mm/yr rise since they came on line in the '90s. if you believe that the rate jumped 50% exactly at the same time as we started using satellites then you are credulous. there has been a documented history of 'pushing' the results in the 'right' direction every time a new satellite comes on line and needs to be calibrated. and when the sea levels were actually dropping two years ago, they added an adjustment for earth crust rebound that leads to ridiculous results if you run it backwards into the past instead of just 'starting' it when it was necessary to prop up the declining numbers.
     
  8. bobgnote
    Offline

    bobgnote BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,258
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +38
    I don't think the US Government scientists or other reputable scientists are lying or failing, unless they screwed up, by failing to study acidification, which will kill all the shellfish, without the oceans even becoming caustic, as they will become.

    Then the seas will go up and over, on major coastal cities. We could lose a lot of Florida and big parts of NOLA and other US cities, by 2050, if this goes as fast as it could. Too bad anybody with Crapforbrains won't prepare.
     
  9. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120


    No answer? How completely unsurprising. Can't you stand to look at data that shows that your hand waving hysterics are pointless as the earth has spent most of its history at a temperature that was so high that no ice was to be found....anywhere? Tell me, can you read the graph well enough to state what the mean temperature of the earth was before it entered the ice age that we are presently climbing out of?


    Typical. Of course I wouldn't bother posting anything that was unsourced and clearly you are far to impolite and angry over your suppressed homosexuality to ask. The graph is from the paleomap project. Hansen himself wouldn't question this source as it is one of the most respected compliations of paleohistory on the internet. And if you can't look at that graph and determine what it says, then you are even more stupid than I first supposed.

    Home Page

    You of course.

    And in case I might have actually been wondering, you actually are more stupid than I first thought. The holocene, goober, began at the end of the Pleistocene about 12K (K=1000 in case you didn't know) and continues to the present. See the little block at the end of the graph labled "today"? That is the period of the Pleistocene.

    Geez guy, this isn't even the difficult stuff and you are as lost as a little lamb.

    I purposely didn't give you a graph with CO2 on it as well. Clearly, you aren't able to handle a simple temperature graph. Adding CO2 will surely put the whole thing so far over your head that you will never be able to understand. But if you would like to see a graph with CO2, here:

    [​IMG][/IMG]

    Sorry that you were unable to understand such a simple graph. Seems that everything baffles you.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Do you have any idea what the atmospheric CO2 levels were when most modern day shellfish evolved? Just checking.

    Here is a clue. Most of them evolved during a period that begins with T and ends with riassic. And what did the atmospheric CO2 concentration look like back then? And you are seriously worried that atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400ppm or 500ppm, or 1000ppm is going to cause them a problem?
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012

Share This Page