Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.
Impressive.
I am sorry that you cant seem to do anything but ride around the cul-de-sac saying the same things over and over again. when you have a new thought, look me up
Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally? If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation. Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.
konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.
Ian. Very simple physics.
There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained.
The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.
The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us.
Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.
So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing.
But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride.
Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.
got those answers for my 4 questions yet? Ole Crocks and Trolling Blunder are disqualified on account of insufficient sentience. How bout you?Wow. 9th warmest since we've put weather satellites into orbit.
Impressive.
Quite so, as the skeptics keep telling us we're supposed to be heading towards an Ice Age.
konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.
Ian. Very simple physics.
There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained.
The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.
The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us.
Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.
So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing.
But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride.
Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.
you are entitled to your own opinions. I think you and konradv are too simplistic in your linear thinking that CO2 increases temps with a linear effect. personally I think there are very many factors that change in a nonlinear fashion according to, and in response to, differences in all of them. you see catastrophy around every corner and I see the globe as a stable system that can (and has many times in the past) deal with disturbances in the conditions.
much of the evidence is equivical, and there are thousands of explanations for it, and even more possible conclusions. you have picked out the one that suits you and now your worldview adapts anything you here to support your supposition. you are simply restating Pascual's Wager as a religion of climate change instead of a belief in God. and just as Pascual was wrong because there are an infinite number of possible religions, you are wrong because there are an infinite number of outcomes in climate. it is indeed possible that your catastrophes could happen but it is much, much more likely that they will not. you want to cripple economies and revert to a preindustrialized state where people will suffer and die because you dont want people to suffer and die. in all actuality you probably just want to call for changes that you know wont and cant happen so that you will be able to say it wasnt Old Rock's fault. will you give up 3/4 of your lifestyle for changes that will be unlikely to make any difference?
Isn't that because it's the factor that's changing non-naturally? If you don't think it's coming from man, the skeptic/denier side is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation. Other factors come and go, but seem to get most of the attention, while my question never gets answered.
konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.
Ian. Very simple physics.
There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained.
The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.
The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us.
Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.
So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing.
But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride.
Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.
Ian. Very simple physics.
There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained.
The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.
The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us.
Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.
So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing.
But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride.
Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.
you are entitled to your own opinions. I think you and konradv are too simplistic in your linear thinking that CO2 increases temps with a linear effect. personally I think there are very many factors that change in a nonlinear fashion according to, and in response to, differences in all of them. you see catastrophy around every corner and I see the globe as a stable system that can (and has many times in the past) deal with disturbances in the conditions.
much of the evidence is equivical, and there are thousands of explanations for it, and even more possible conclusions. you have picked out the one that suits you and now your worldview adapts anything you here to support your supposition. you are simply restating Pascual's Wager as a religion of climate change instead of a belief in God. and just as Pascual was wrong because there are an infinite number of possible religions, you are wrong because there are an infinite number of outcomes in climate. it is indeed possible that your catastrophes could happen but it is much, much more likely that they will not. you want to cripple economies and revert to a preindustrialized state where people will suffer and die because you dont want people to suffer and die. in all actuality you probably just want to call for changes that you know wont and cant happen so that you will be able to say it wasnt Old Rock's fault. will you give up 3/4 of your lifestyle for changes that will be unlikely to make any difference?
Five times in the past there have been major extinctions because of disturbances in the system. Today, because of the multiple strains we are putting on the natural world, we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. The path we are on will inevitably lead to many of our own specie dying from the effects of the damage we are doing in so many spheres.
You know, Ian, I have not tried to put words into your mouth. Don't try it with me. I expect that of numb nuts like Fritzy and Franky boy. Up till now, you have not indulged in this. Don't start now.
No, I do not desire to go back to pre-industrial living. I have actually lived like that for a few months. I have repeatedly pointed out that we have the technology to replace the fossil fuel generation plants with non-polluting generation, wind, solar, geo-thermal, slow current, and wave. Yes, it will be expensive, just as replacing our present antiquated grid is going to be expensive. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be on all fronts. At present, the energy companies pass on the downsteam costs of their coal generation, water pollution, destruction of woodlands and prairie, to the public. To say nothing of the costs of asthma.
)
Once again the same old lie. We are responsible for about 40% of the present 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have records of the amount of coal and petroleum that we have burned in the last 150 years.
In the course of the Milankovic Cycles, yes, as the warming starts with the Southern Oceans, the oceans emit CO2, and that feedback then is the primary driver for the interglacial. The evidence for this has been posted several times. But you keep up the same old yap yap.
konradv- it makes no sense to hector me over CO2. I have already done more than you to support the physics of CO2 as a factor. I just dont believe it is a main factor because I think it is mediated by other pathways in the climate system. you see it as a singular mechanism unaffected by other factors whereas I see it as a small factor that is lost in the myriad of other factors controlling temps and climate. just because it is partially manmade doesnt give it special status in the real world.
Ian. Very simple physics.
There are only two basic factors in the heat of the surface of the earth. One, the amount of energy from the sun. Two, the amount of energy that is retained.
The amount of energy from the sun has been in a very minute decline for nearly fifty years. The amount of energy that the atmosphere retains has been increasing because of a very significant increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. The primary GHG in the atmosphere is CO2, even though H2O vapor has a bigger effect. But H2O vapor has a residence time of less than 10 days, CO2, decades to centuries. So H2O is a feedback, CO2 is a driver.
The cause of the 40% increase in CO2 is us. The cause of the increase in CH4, from a bit over 700 ppb to well over 1800 ppb is us.
Now CH4 is a very potent GHG in the short run. A CO2 equivelence of 60 to 160. Even the lower figure puts the CO2 equivelence figure at present over 450 ppm, without counting the very potent industrial GHGs, many of which have equivelency figures in the thousands, some, tens of thousands.
So we are close to having doubled the amount of GHG heating in the atmosphere right now. All that has kept us from seeing really major effects prior to now is the amount of heat that the oceans are absorbing.
But that sword has a double edge. For by warming the oceans, we are already seeing the outgassing of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And it won't take much of that before we are simply along for the ride.
Then you can truly say that it is nature, not man. Kind of like triggering a landslide, then stating that it is gravity, the dynamite had nothing to do with it.
How do you know that the CO2 increase is solely due to man? Ice core data shows that CO2 levels lag warmth, we have been warming since the end of the LIA so it is completely consistent that the current rise in CO2 is tied to that. It is a certainty that man contributes (around 4% of the total CO2 budget of the planet) but there is little evidence that man is the sole cause. And if CO2 were the driver it would increase long before warming commenced. That is proven to not be true.
Once again the same old lie. We are responsible for about 40% of the present 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have records of the amount of coal and petroleum that we have burned in the last 150 years.
In the course of the Milankovic Cycles, yes, as the warming starts with the Southern Oceans, the oceans emit CO2, and that feedback then is the primary driver for the interglacial. The evidence for this has been posted several times. But you keep up the same old yap yap.
Prove it.
you are entitled to your own opinions. I think you and konradv are too simplistic in your linear thinking that CO2 increases temps with a linear effect. personally I think there are very many factors that change in a nonlinear fashion according to, and in response to, differences in all of them. you see catastrophy around every corner and I see the globe as a stable system that can (and has many times in the past) deal with disturbances in the conditions.
much of the evidence is equivical, and there are thousands of explanations for it, and even more possible conclusions. you have picked out the one that suits you and now your worldview adapts anything you here to support your supposition. you are simply restating Pascual's Wager as a religion of climate change instead of a belief in God. and just as Pascual was wrong because there are an infinite number of possible religions, you are wrong because there are an infinite number of outcomes in climate. it is indeed possible that your catastrophes could happen but it is much, much more likely that they will not. you want to cripple economies and revert to a preindustrialized state where people will suffer and die because you dont want people to suffer and die. in all actuality you probably just want to call for changes that you know wont and cant happen so that you will be able to say it wasnt Old Rock's fault. will you give up 3/4 of your lifestyle for changes that will be unlikely to make any difference?
Five times in the past there have been major extinctions because of disturbances in the system. Today, because of the multiple strains we are putting on the natural world, we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. The path we are on will inevitably lead to many of our own specie dying from the effects of the damage we are doing in so many spheres.
You know, Ian, I have not tried to put words into your mouth. Don't try it with me. I expect that of numb nuts like Fritzy and Franky boy. Up till now, you have not indulged in this. Don't start now.
No, I do not desire to go back to pre-industrial living. I have actually lived like that for a few months. I have repeatedly pointed out that we have the technology to replace the fossil fuel generation plants with non-polluting generation, wind, solar, geo-thermal, slow current, and wave. Yes, it will be expensive, just as replacing our present antiquated grid is going to be expensive. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be on all fronts. At present, the energy companies pass on the downsteam costs of their coal generation, water pollution, destruction of woodlands and prairie, to the public. To say nothing of the costs of asthma.
No one KNOWS what caused the mass extinctions. It is an automatic PhD for the first person to figure out what caused them. Even Alvarez' asteroid impact theory while certainly the "consensus" view is not the end all, we still argue the merits and demerits of other theories (unlike some other "science" that actively tries to limit discussion
The Earth is rarely stable. This last 10,000 years is probably the most stable we know of.
The last 2000 years even more so. The warming and cooling cycles within those 2000 years are amazingly consistent no matter how hard Mann tried to erase them.
Now it's "satellite record" instead of thermometer readings. Anybody notice that the Ice Age isn't referred to as "the Ice Age"? They call it the "last" Ice Age which means (even to the narrow minded greenie) that it's an ongoing phenomena of our solar system. The bottom line is that we ain't got time to disprove this pseudo global warming science. We need to burn fossil fuels for the next hundred years and we need to become independent of foreign oil before we all freeze to death in the winter and have to take bicycles to work because the price of energy is so high and the US has become a 3rd world country.
Once again the same old lie. We are responsible for about 40% of the present 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We have records of the amount of coal and petroleum that we have burned in the last 150 years.
In the course of the Milankovic Cycles, yes, as the warming starts with the Southern Oceans, the oceans emit CO2, and that feedback then is the primary driver for the interglacial. The evidence for this has been posted several times. But you keep up the same old yap yap.
Prove it.
At present we are putting about 7.1 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere yearly. The isotope distribuition in that carbon is differant than that of the carbon in the normal cycle. And that is the signiture we see proportionally to the amount we have added to the atmosphere.
Five times in the past there have been major extinctions because of disturbances in the system. Today, because of the multiple strains we are putting on the natural world, we are in the midst of the sixth great extinction. The path we are on will inevitably lead to many of our own specie dying from the effects of the damage we are doing in so many spheres.
You know, Ian, I have not tried to put words into your mouth. Don't try it with me. I expect that of numb nuts like Fritzy and Franky boy. Up till now, you have not indulged in this. Don't start now.
No, I do not desire to go back to pre-industrial living. I have actually lived like that for a few months. I have repeatedly pointed out that we have the technology to replace the fossil fuel generation plants with non-polluting generation, wind, solar, geo-thermal, slow current, and wave. Yes, it will be expensive, just as replacing our present antiquated grid is going to be expensive. And the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be on all fronts. At present, the energy companies pass on the downsteam costs of their coal generation, water pollution, destruction of woodlands and prairie, to the public. To say nothing of the costs of asthma.
No one KNOWS what caused the mass extinctions. It is an automatic PhD for the first person to figure out what caused them. Even Alvarez' asteroid impact theory while certainly the "consensus" view is not the end all, we still argue the merits and demerits of other theories (unlike some other "science" that actively tries to limit discussion
The Earth is rarely stable. This last 10,000 years is probably the most stable we know of.
The last 2000 years even more so. The warming and cooling cycles within those 2000 years are amazingly consistent no matter how hard Mann tried to erase them.
Really? Seems like there is much research that has pretty well narrowed it down to rapid warming for at least three of the extinctions. And rapid cooling in at least one of the very old, Archean, extinctions. All four related to GHGs, rapidly increasing or decreasing.
Some informaton on the Permian extinction;
AGW Observer
Very good article on this subject.
http://pangea.stanford.edu/~jlpayne/Knoll et al 2007 EPSL Permian Triassic paleophysiology.pdf
Frontiers
Paleophysiology and end-Permian mass extinction
Andrew H. Knoll a,⁎, Richard K. Bambach b, Jonathan L. Payne c,
Sara Pruss a, Woodward W. Fischer d
a Department of Organimsic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
b Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560, USA
c Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305, USA
d Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, USA
Received 13 October 2006; received in revised form 17 January 2007; accepted 6 February 2007
Editor: A.N. Halliday
Available online 11 February 2007
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......very revealing, Iamnuts. Since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're rather ignorant about science and would thus have no ability whatsoever to understand raw "data", what you're really saying is that you'd rather believe the lies and distortions coming from the non-scientists who are pushing the fossil fuel industry's propaganda line because they tell you what you want to hear. It isn't "some of the 'professional climate scientists'" (or, in other words, the top experts in this field) whose conclusions you reject, numbnuts, it is virtually all of them and their conclusions are based on the laws of physics and the mountains of observations and data collected from many sources by scientists from all around the world. Your idiotic notion that the "conclusions" that the world scientific community have reached are "exaggerated and distorted" is itself an artifact of the propaganda campaign that has you so bamboozled and confused.Ah yes, the moldy old denier cult myths - "warming stopped in 1998' & 'temperatures flat for last decade'.what is more important, the actual average temp of any particular year or the change from the proceeding year? the 90's saw a lot of increase but the 00's were stagnant at a high average. which measurement carries more information, the actual temperature or the rate of change?
Global warming greatest in past decade
PhysOrg.com
September 1, 2008
(excerpts)
Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.
"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record." The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings. "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously," says Mann.
What has global warming done since 1998?
Last updated on 18 December 2011
(excerpts)
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.
A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.
In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.
CO2 is definitely more important than either one of those in the long term. CO2 levels can keep increasing indefinitely and the greenhouse effects will get greater. Cloud cover can both reflect sunlight away from the Earth and trap heat energy underneath them (clear winter nights are much colder than cloud covered winter nights) and the ENSO variations just move the heat around between the atmosphere and the oceans. Rising CO2 levels will inevitably trap even more heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
I'm more interested in what the professional climate scientists "think" than what some confused and deluded random bystander like yourself "thinks". That you are in fact a deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry is clearly revealed by your use of the idiotic and meaningless denier cult phrase: "CO2 cul-de-sac". The fact that you deny the scientifically established physics of greenhouse gases shows you to be just another anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe.I don't think we have peeled away enough onion skin to know yet but I think we should keep measuring everything we can. the answer is down the road and we will find it. even after this disasterous(sic) detour into the CO2 cul-de-sac we have taken.
I am more interested in what the data say than in the exaggerated and distorted thoughts and conclusions of some of the 'professional climate scientists'.
I don't really care if you are "interested" or not, you poor deluded fool. Those phrases are valid descriptions of you and your absurd anti-science positions on this topic so I will continue to use them to point out the truth about your pretensions about 'arguing the science'.I am even less interested in your ad homs like "deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry" and "anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe". but if that is your style and it makes you happy, go right ahead.
No, Iamnuts, I know you are duped and deluded. I, on the other hand, accept the testimony of the world's science community and the experts in the fields of climate science which overwhelmingly supports the reality of AGW. I understand and accept the enormous body of evidence collected by the world scientific community over the last half century that indicates the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. It is you denier cult nutjobs who "credulously believe" the biased anti-science drivel spewed by propagandists like Watts, while simultaneously rejecting the testimony of the vast majority of the real climate scientists.you think I am being duped and deluded but you never consider that you are at risk of the same thing by credulously believing everything as presented to you, especially when you get it via SkepticalScience.
What an absolutely idiotic question. The graph used scientific measurements of the increase in the heat content of the atmosphere and oceans measured in Joules. It is your fervent beliefs in your denier cult fantasies that are "emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions".
ie- is this graph reasonable or is it emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions?
Rather than making really stupid claims, dufus, how about presenting some evidence that the heat content of the oceans hasn't increased by the amounts shown in that graph. Oh, that's right, you can't, 'cause you're just blowing smoke out your ass.you have to examine the labelling of the x and y axis and the positioning of the origin. if the intent was to show that the heat content of the atmosphere is miniscule compared to the oceans then it is alright. but if it is trying to show the relative increase of heat content of the oceans it is wildly deceiving.
