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

[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.

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!

You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.

Some models have been off by quite a bit though.

Some have been quite accurate:

Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.

 

[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.

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.

I've given you links to the studies and any information you need. Denying all of them as "not based on any real science" is intellectually lazy. I don't waste time with lazy people..especially the intellectually lazy.

 

[Ubiquitor]

Is the Earth warming or cooling?

Warming. You do understand that because it has been warmer before that doesn't mean we are cooling, right? The current trend is upward not downward.

 

[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!

You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.

Some models have been off by quite a bit though.

Some have been quite accurate:

Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.

And once again the AGW cult posts deunked religious propaganda..

The models are bunk and that is the problem with those that fail to let go of their AGW religious dogma. And proof why the AGW cult is more dangerous than any other religion on the planet..

Does not match any model posted yet by the AGW cult..

 

[Ubiquitor]

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.

Actually, clouds and water vapor are discussed rather extensively in thousands of studies. If you were to read more than just those that fit your preconceived notions then you would know this. However, no correlation or causation has been found with any degree of significance. The only known forcing that's increase correlates with the warming trend is CO2. Some like to think that a more than 40% increase in this greenhouse gas cannot have any effect on climate. They are fooling only themselves.

 

[Kosh]

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.

I've given you links to the studies and any information you need. Denying all of them as "not based on any real science" is intellectually lazy. I don't waste time with lazy people..especially the intellectually lazy.

And yet you can not post the one link that is the basis of the entire AGW religion, the one with datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

I could easily make the correlation that the more the AGW knuckle draggers promote their religion the lower the IQ of the world becomes..

 

[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.

Actually, clouds and water vapor are discussed rather extensively in thousands of studies. If you were to read more than just those that fit your preconceived notions then you would know this. However, no correlation or causation has been found with any degree of significance. The only known forcing that's increase correlates with the warming trend is CO2. Some like to think that a more than 40% increase in this greenhouse gas cannot have any effect on climate. They are fooling only themselves.

Why would I want to read AGW religious scripture that is not based on any real science?

Man made CO2 is such a small percentage so why continue pushing the religious dogma?

 

[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.

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!

You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.

Some models have been off by quite a bit though.

Some have been quite accurate:

Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.

And once again the AGW cult posts deunked religious propaganda..

The models are bunk and that is the problem with those that fail to let go of their AGW religious dogma. And proof why the AGW cult is more dangerous than any other religion on the planet..

Does not match any model posted yet by the AGW cult..

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Rahmstorf_2007%20Sea%20level%20exceeding%20model.pdf

 

[Kosh]

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!

You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.

Some models have been off by quite a bit though.

Some have been quite accurate:

Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.

And once again the AGW cult posts deunked religious propaganda..

The models are bunk and that is the problem with those that fail to let go of their AGW religious dogma. And proof why the AGW cult is more dangerous than any other religion on the planet..

Does not match any model posted yet by the AGW cult..

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate Articles/Rahmstorf_2007 Sea level exceeding model.pdf

And then they post an AGW religious scripture right on cue of how the models do NOT match the observations..

 

[Ubiquitor]

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.

I've given you links to the studies and any information you need. Denying all of them as "not based on any real science" is intellectually lazy. I don't waste time with lazy people..especially the intellectually lazy.

And yet you can not post the one link that is the basis of the entire AGW religion, the one with datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

I could easily make the correlation that the more the AGW knuckle draggers promote their religion the lower the IQ of the world becomes..

There isn't one link. This is based on thousands of scientific studies. You have to really be confused if you think there is "one link that is the basis."

That's an interesting hypothesis. It would be a shame if someone were to test it.

 

[Kosh]

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.

I've given you links to the studies and any information you need. Denying all of them as "not based on any real science" is intellectually lazy. I don't waste time with lazy people..especially the intellectually lazy.

And yet you can not post the one link that is the basis of the entire AGW religion, the one with datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

I could easily make the correlation that the more the AGW knuckle draggers promote their religion the lower the IQ of the world becomes..

There isn't one link. This is based on thousands of scientific studies. You have to really be confused if you think there is "one link that is the basis."

That's an interesting hypothesis. It would be a shame if someone were to test it.

Exactly! The link that proves your religion does not exist, because it can not exist in real science..

Thus proving once again that AGW is a religion not base don any real science..

 

[Ubiquitor]

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!

You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.

Some models have been off by quite a bit though.

Some have been quite accurate:

Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.

And once again the AGW cult posts deunked religious propaganda..

The models are bunk and that is the problem with those that fail to let go of their AGW religious dogma. And proof why the AGW cult is more dangerous than any other religion on the planet..

Does not match any model posted yet by the AGW cult..

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate Articles/Rahmstorf_2007 Sea level exceeding model.pdf

And then they post an AGW religious scripture right on cue of how the models do NOT match the observations..

It's clear I've waded into the waters of irrationality here. I post scientific studies and the uneducated call the "religious scripture." I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.

 

[Ubiquitor]

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.

I've given you links to the studies and any information you need. Denying all of them as "not based on any real science" is intellectually lazy. I don't waste time with lazy people..especially the intellectually lazy.

And yet you can not post the one link that is the basis of the entire AGW religion, the one with datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

I could easily make the correlation that the more the AGW knuckle draggers promote their religion the lower the IQ of the world becomes..

There isn't one link. This is based on thousands of scientific studies. You have to really be confused if you think there is "one link that is the basis."

That's an interesting hypothesis. It would be a shame if someone were to test it.

Exactly! The link that proves your religion does not exist, because it can not exist in real science..

Thus proving once again that AGW is a religion not base don any real science..

Uneducated and confused it is. Good day, sir.

 

[Kosh]

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!

You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.

Some models have been off by quite a bit though.

Some have been quite accurate:

Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.

And once again the AGW cult posts deunked religious propaganda..

The models are bunk and that is the problem with those that fail to let go of their AGW religious dogma. And proof why the AGW cult is more dangerous than any other religion on the planet..

Does not match any model posted yet by the AGW cult..

ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate Articles/Rahmstorf_2007 Sea level exceeding model.pdf

And then they post an AGW religious scripture right on cue of how the models do NOT match the observations..

It's clear I've waded into the waters of irrationality here. I post scientific studies and the uneducated call the "religious scripture." I'm not going to waste anymore time on you.

Because that is what it is, especially if you use anything by that hack (and I have told him to his face) James Hansen.

 

[Kosh]

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.

I've given you links to the studies and any information you need. Denying all of them as "not based on any real science" is intellectually lazy. I don't waste time with lazy people..especially the intellectually lazy.

And yet you can not post the one link that is the basis of the entire AGW religion, the one with datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate.

I could easily make the correlation that the more the AGW knuckle draggers promote their religion the lower the IQ of the world becomes..

There isn't one link. This is based on thousands of scientific studies. You have to really be confused if you think there is "one link that is the basis."

That's an interesting hypothesis. It would be a shame if someone were to test it.

Exactly! The link that proves your religion does not exist, because it can not exist in real science..

Thus proving once again that AGW is a religion not base don any real science..

Uneducated and confused it is. Good day, sir.

Correct that is what the AGW cult is and that is what they want, they do not promote real science..

AS you keep proving!

 

[jc456]

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.

and yet you have no experiment to prove yours!

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

nah, we'd just like to see the experiment. You have it from your trusty sites?

 

[jc456]

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..

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.

so explain the lab work for the experiment Oh wait, you can't, it never was published!!! hahahahaahhaahhahahahahaaha..real science is only when you dream.

 

[jc456]

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.

simply stated, prove it with an experiment. Let's see it. You've been asked and asked and asked and then you have the more stupid hit you and you post crap again. dude, the more stupid is old.

 

[jc456]

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.

where, when your own side says the models are wrong? holy crap, now you even post against your side of the argument. Hmmmmmmm that is really more stupid.