Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

[itfitzme]

Maybe that's why he doesn't understand global warming, it's political.

Well, no. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not political. What is political is the politics surrounding the science of climate change.

The absorption spectrum of CO2 is not political. The mean global temperature is not political. The conversion of hydrocarbon chains into CO2, H2O and other molecules is not political. The carbon cycle isn't political. There is a reason that "science" and "politics" are different words that are not synonymous.

Some people seem to not understand the difference, making political such banal subjects as the equation of exchange. It seems that a defining characteristic of folks that are unable to separate the politics from the science is they are unable to separate the subjective from the objective. They are typically f****** idiots.

Except what you just posted is complete bullshit. co2 does not cause global warming it follows it.

Except CO2 does cause global warming. You obviously don't get that in feedback loops, external variables can drive on or the other of two the two feedback mechanisms which then drives the other.

Currently, in this recent history, particularly since about 1970, CO2 has been driven by the burning of fossil fuels. The increases CO2 then has resulted in more warming.

Warming did not cause more fossil fuel burning.

And none of that has anything to do with the fact that science and politics are two different terms because they are not the same things.

Sure, for you everything is "political".

 

[HenryBHough]

Each year, at the end of the snow season, I buy a new snow shovel while they're on sale. One shovel is enough for a full season. I did that last spring and today I have to buy another new one 'cause the newest one is already worn out. Yeah. THAT much additional snow this that we're already feet ahead of last year's total with a couple more months to go.

Now sing me to sleep with your Global Warming chants......and damn well hope I get to sleep before i pick up that shovel and ram it up your......

 

[itfitzme]

Each year, at the end of the snow season, I buy a new snow shovel while they're on sale. One shovel is enough for a full season. I did that last spring and today I have to buy another new one 'cause the newest one is already worn out. Yeah. THAT much additional snow this that we're already feet ahead of last year's total with a couple more months to go.

Now sing me to sleep with your Global Warming chants......and damn well hope I get to sleep before i pick up that shovel and ram it up your......

Yeah.... personal anecdotes don't change the fact of increasing global mean temperature any more than increasing ice extent in the Antarctic.

I do see that you relying on emotions to make things seem more important than they are.

 

[HenryBHough]

Bend over.

This may hurt a little because the length of the shovel decreased but the width didn't.

 

[Kosh]

Only a f****** idiot thinks this is not about politics

tapatalk post

Maybe that's why he doesn't understand global warming, it's political.

Well, no. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not political. What is political is the politics surrounding the science of climate change.

The absorption spectrum of CO2 is not political. The mean global temperature is not political. The conversion of hydrocarbon chains into CO2, H2O and other molecules is not political. The carbon cycle isn't political. There is a reason that "science" and "politics" are different words that are not synonymous.

Some people seem to not understand the difference, making political such banal subjects as the equation of exchange. It seems that a defining characteristic of folks that are unable to separate the politics from the science is they are unable to separate the subjective from the objective. They are typically f****** idiots.

The so called father of the AGW (James Hansen the hack) movement did so based on his social political ideals, so yes AGW is political and religious dogma.

Only a blind AGW cultist would not see that and continue to spout the non-science of AGW based on what the scribes tell them to spout.

How the mean temperature came about was based on 150 years of records and not the entire history of the earth. So yes it political. AGW is not science never has been.

Global Warming is a natural process that happens.

Climate Change is a natural process that happens.

AGW is a man-made religion.

 

[Kosh]

Each year, at the end of the snow season, I buy a new snow shovel while they're on sale. One shovel is enough for a full season. I did that last spring and today I have to buy another new one 'cause the newest one is already worn out. Yeah. THAT much additional snow this that we're already feet ahead of last year's total with a couple more months to go.

Now sing me to sleep with your Global Warming chants......and damn well hope I get to sleep before i pick up that shovel and ram it up your......

Yeah.... personal anecdotes don't change the fact of increasing global mean temperature any more than increasing ice extent in the Antarctic.

I do see that you relying on emotions to make things seem more important than they are.

The irony of that post from an AGW cultist.

 

[SwimExpert]

The mean global temperature is

A crock of shit.

 

[itfitzme]

Maybe that's why he doesn't understand global warming, it's political.

Well, no. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not political. What is political is the politics surrounding the science of climate change.

The absorption spectrum of CO2 is not political. The mean global temperature is not political. The conversion of hydrocarbon chains into CO2, H2O and other molecules is not political. The carbon cycle isn't political. There is a reason that "science" and "politics" are different words that are not synonymous.

Some people seem to not understand the difference, making political such banal subjects as the equation of exchange. It seems that a defining characteristic of folks that are unable to separate the politics from the science is they are unable to separate the subjective from the objective. They are typically f****** idiots.

The so called father of the AGW (James Hansen the hack) movement did so based on his social political ideals, so yes AGW is political and religious dogma.

Only a blind AGW cultist would not see that and continue to spout the non-science of AGW based on what the scribes tell them to spout.

How the mean temperature came about was based on 150 years of records and not the entire history of the earth. So yes it political. AGW is not science never has been.

Global Warming is a natural process that happens.

Climate Change is a natural process that happens.

AGW is a man-made religion.

All you've done is demonstrate that you have no objective perception and alot of unfounded opinions.

It is simple enough to demonstrate that 1) CO2 causes increasing temperature due to absorption of IR and 2) that the 74% of the increase in global mean temperature since 1880 is accounted for by the increase in CO2.

Basing the analysis of global mean temperature increase since 1880 is entirely appropriate because the changes that occurred in 10,000 BC are not relevant to the changes that occurred in 1880 A.D.

Your saying that "AGW is not science never has been." is meaningless opinion.

Every thing that society has relied on for advancing technology is based on some natural process or another. This doesn't change that when caused by human beings, it isn't natural. In nature, electricity can be found in the form of lightning, a natural process. Never the less, the electricity that runs my TV isn't natural.

Saying "blind AGW cultists" simply demonstrates that you have no objective sense.

 

[itfitzme]

The mean global temperature is

A crock of shit.

Well, there you go, no objective information to work with.

 

[Kosh]

Well, no. Anthropogenic Global Warming is not political. What is political is the politics surrounding the science of climate change.

The absorption spectrum of CO2 is not political. The mean global temperature is not political. The conversion of hydrocarbon chains into CO2, H2O and other molecules is not political. The carbon cycle isn't political. There is a reason that "science" and "politics" are different words that are not synonymous.

Some people seem to not understand the difference, making political such banal subjects as the equation of exchange. It seems that a defining characteristic of folks that are unable to separate the politics from the science is they are unable to separate the subjective from the objective. They are typically f****** idiots.

The so called father of the AGW (James Hansen the hack) movement did so based on his social political ideals, so yes AGW is political and religious dogma.

Only a blind AGW cultist would not see that and continue to spout the non-science of AGW based on what the scribes tell them to spout.

How the mean temperature came about was based on 150 years of records and not the entire history of the earth. So yes it political. AGW is not science never has been.

Global Warming is a natural process that happens.

Climate Change is a natural process that happens.

AGW is a man-made religion.

All you've done is demonstrate that you have no objective perception and alot of unfounded opinions.

It is simple enough to demonstrate that 1) CO2 causes increasing temperature due to absorption of IR and 2) that the 74% of the increase in global mean temperature since 1880 is accounted for by the increase in CO2.

Basing the analysis of global mean temperature increase since 1880 is entirely appropriate because the changes that occurred in 10,000 BC are not relevant to the changes that occurred in 1880 A.D.

Your saying that "AGW is not science never has been." is meaningless opinion.

Every thing that society has relied on for advancing technology is based on some natural process or another. This doesn't change that when caused by human beings, it isn't natural. In nature, electricity can be found in the form of lightning, a natural process. Never the less, the electricity that runs my TV isn't natural.

Saying "blind AGW cultists" simply demonstrates that you have no objective sense.

Basing the analysis of global mean temperature increase since 1880 is entirely appropriate because the changes that occurred in 10,000 BC are not relevant to the changes that occurred in 1880 A.D.

And this show that AGW is bunk and the church and it's scribes tell one what is and is not relevant in regards to AGW.

This one section of comments shows the AGW cultists believe in a religion and not science.

All my comments are true and so far the AGW cultists can not dispute them no matter how much AGW propaganda they post.

 

[Kosh]

The mean global temperature is

A crock of shit.

Well, there you go, no objective information to work with.

The irony of those comments from an AGW cultist.

 

[itfitzme]

A crock of shit.

Well, there you go, no objective information to work with.

The irony of those comments from an AGW cultist.

Except you present no objective info, just the typical behavior seen on grammar school playgrounds. You are no more intelligent than a 4th grader, running around saying, "you're gay"... or an inner city preschooler saying "Yo mama is gay."

I've done the analysis. The correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature is higher than that of TSI and global mean temperature. Between the two, TSI and CO2, nearly all increase in accounted for. The only thing left is the cyclical component of AMO.

 

[itfitzme]

In fact, here is the correlation between CO2 and temperature;



Can you tell us what that R^2 of 0.797 means?

 

[itfitzme]

This is the fit for AMO, TSI and CO2.



Without CO2, it looks like



So, yep, CO2 causes mean global temperature increase.

See how that works? No CO2, less temp increase. With CO2, more temp increase.

 

[SwimExpert]

The mean global temperature is

A crock of shit.

Well, there you go, no objective information to work with.

You're right. It doesn't yield any meaningful information.