Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[Cardinal Carminative]

Just a simple Yes or No, and you just cant answer. Are you related to the new Supreme Court Jester?

Sorry but this thread is about CLIMATE CHANGE. I know you COnservatives are literally OBSESSED with bathrooms and who has what genitalia but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Go hang around more bathrooms. That's apparently your thing.

 

[Flash]

That's probably because CO2 wasn't providing sufficient positive forcing to overcome the forcings due to position of the continents and ocean currents at the time.



The MWP may not have been global in extent. Researchers think it was limited to northern hemisphere and mostly Europe and north Atlantic.



It is a greenhouse gas at ALL levels. Please read some basic science. It's because the C=O bonds absorb IR effectively.



Wrong.



And you know exactly what about any of that?



I love it when people say that. It means that in YOUR PROFESSION there must be mostly people who will lie for money.

If you think that is how scientists behave it must mean that that is how YOU behave. Tsk tsk tsk.



You are so wrong it's not even funny.



Interesting. You are an environmental engineer? How could you be so uninformed on the basic science? Honestly, as an environmental engineer I KNOW you had to take an intro chemistry class. How could you miss the part about CO2 exsolving from water AND the part about CO2 absorbing IR?



So you don't know anything about the models? OK.



Sounds like you do. But the problem is you seem to have skipped a LOT of basic science classes. Not sure how you got your BS but I am willing to guess you spent most of your enviro engineering time sitting a drill rig and collecting bailer samples and not a lot else.

The problem that I found when doing the research to teach is that most of the data that is used comes from either fabricated or cherry picked sources.

If this AGW bullshit was real then there would be no need to lie about the data. The Principle Scientists have been caught red handed lying about it not once but many times. They have even admitted they do it. Government agencies like NOAA, NASA and the UN have been caught fabricating data.

The data that "supports" the AGW crap is mostly fabricated and none of the dire predictions that are made ever happens. Total bullshit.

Climate change is real. Except for the Boring Billions that has pretty much been the history of the earth. However, AGW is bullshit and a scam and only uneducated low information gullible Moon Bats believe that crap.

Moon Bats don't know any more about Climate Science than they know about History, Economics, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The problem that I found when doing the research to teach is that most of the data that is used comes from either fabricated or cherry picked sources.

That's wrong. Fractally so.

If this AGW bullshit was real then there would be no need to lie about the data.

You have no proof to back up that claim.

The Principle Scientists have been caught red handed lying about it not once but many times.

Wrong.

They have even admitted they do it.

WRong.

Government agencies like NOAA, NASA and the UN have been caught fabricating data.

Wrong.

Moon Bats don't know any more about Climate Science than they know about History, Economics, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

You shouldn't denigrate your education. I'm sure it was as fine for some applications. Not science, but something. I'm sure of it.

 

[abu afak]

The problem that I found when doing the research to teach is that most of the data that is used comes from either fabricated or cherry picked sources.
If this AGW bullshit was real then there would be no need to lie about the data. The Principle Scientists have been caught red handed lying about it not once but many times. They have even admitted they do it. Government agencies like NOAA, NASA and the UN have been caught fabricating data. The data that "supports" the AGW crap is mostly fabricated and none of the dire predictions that are made ever happens. Total bullshit.

Climate change is real. Except for the Boring Billions that has pretty much been the history of the earth. However, AGW is bullshit and a scam and only uneducated low information gullible Moon Bats believe that crap.

Moon Bats don't know any more about Climate Science than they know about History, Economics, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

That's pure conspiracy theory. Even nonsensical.
You're welcome to post the 'real numbers' with your sources for them.... or your evidence for this Giant Conspiracy.
No one is fabricating CO2 PPM (or CH4 concentration) either, or our giant increase of production GHGs, or all the other EFFECTS of Global warming we can observe.
Because as it stands NOAA and NASA are very reliable.
(This should be good!!!)
`

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Sorry but this thread is about CLIMATE CHANGE. I know you COnservatives are literally OBSESSED with bathrooms and who has what genitalia but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Go hang around more bathrooms. That's apparently your thing.

So you admit that you cannot say if a man with tits is a woman or not. Is it because you are a science denier?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

That's pure conspiracy theory. Even nonsensical.
You're welcome to post the 'real numbers' with your sources for them.... or your evidence for this Giant Conspiracy.
No one is fabricating CO2 PPM (or CH4 concentration) either, or our giant increase of production GHGs, or all the other EFFECTS of Global warming we can observe.
Because as it stands NOAA and NASA are very reliable.
(This should be good!!!)
`

How can it be 10 years ago that one day on earth near me was 15 degrees hotter than it is now? If CO2 is increasing every year and the Earth is warming year after year, you should have record temperatures for that area, year after year. Damn you morons have no clue about science.

 

[mamooth]

How can it be 10 years ago that one day on earth near me was 15 degrees hotter than it is now?

It's called weather. Have an adult explain it to you.

The other deniers here would like you to stop embarrassing them.

 

[mamooth]

During "Snowball Earth" the CO2 levels were about 4000 PPM.

And the sun was 5% dimmer. That's why it's impossible to explain how the earth thawed out without invoking the greenhouse gas powers of CO2.

Again, learn the basics. You're so uninformed, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[mamooth]

Focus. What caused all of those warming trends? That's the point of the data.

None of them are even remotely as strong as the current fast warming trend, so what's the point?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So you admit that you cannot say if a man with tits is a woman or not. Is it because you are a science denier?

Ah hahahahahahaha.

Hey, George Michael, isn't there a bathroom somewhere you need to be investigating?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ah hahahahahahaha.

Hey, George Michael, isn't there a bathroom somewhere you need to be investigating?

Still avoiding that question i see. Are you sure you arent the Supreme Jester?

 

[Sunsettommy]

And the sun was 5% dimmer. That's why it's impossible to explain how the earth thawed out without invoking the greenhouse gas powers of CO2.

Again, learn the basics. You're so uninformed, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Ha ha ha you can't read it was a Snowball Earth while CO2 was around the 4,000-ppm level that is what he wrote which you never contradicted at all.



Oh, you can't think just like PV can't either.

Your basics is to show your stupidity and you do that very well.

 

[ding]

None of them are even remotely as strong as the current fast warming trend, so what's the point?

You'd be hard pressed to prove that with actual data. Besides, D-O events say otherwise.

 

[ding]

From what I understand these changes may have been related to any number of things, including

1. Overall cooling from coming down from the peak of an interglacial
2. Cooling pulses from volcanic events (as noted in the citation I posted earlier)

The key is that the warming since 1970 cannot be explained by natural forcings alone.

The citation I made earlier notes that, indeed, natural forcings alone cannot explain this. But human-forcings make the data make sense.

We KNOW CO2 can and does cause warming. It is not the only reason the planet warms, but it is a positive climate forcing. In fact it is part of the reason why the surface of the earth is as warm as it normally is (even just naturally!)

Greenhouse gases operate by being able to absorb IR photon. The nature of the C=O bonds allows them to be able to do this. While symmetrical molecules like O=O and N=N have limited to no function in this ability.

It's odd that you don't mention solar irradiance and albedo which would seem to be the leading reasons for short wavelength fluctuations of decadal scales.

 

[ding]

I will go with the actual direct measurement of UHIE which results in a clear statistical analysis of the data directly and explicit in regards to UHIE.

Why do you doubt Peterson?

Because measurements from urban stations are warmer than rural station readings. Use some common sense as to why.

And... because the high variability solar output provides a better explanation for past warming trends that are on timescales too short to be caused by orbital forcing. In other words, it's a more accurate dataset for history matching prior to the industrial revolution.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because measurements from urban stations are warmer than rural station readings. Use some common sense as to why.

So you didn't read the Peterson paper. If you did you'd see WHY it isn't just "common sense".

And... because the high variability solar output provides a better explanation

Except that most climate scientists do NOT believe that to be the case. Which is why almost all the papers you are going to find about solar-induced warming as an explanation for the current warming will be written by Willie Soon.

for past warming trends

The key here is PAST WARMING TRENDS. Everyone knows that the sun DOES have an impact. But the solar cycles are NOT in such a way right now to explain it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's odd that you don't mention solar irradiance and albedo which would seem to be the leading reasons for short wavelength fluctuations of decadal scales.

Because of this:

SOURCE

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Because of this:

SOURCE

In high school , i learned how to graph also. Just put a few dots down and draw a line between the dots. Of course if i was paid millions of dollars i could make a graph look like anything the government would pay me, but i am not a slime ball progressive and cant be bought.

 

[ding]

So you didn't read the Peterson paper. If you did you'd see WHY it isn't just "common sense".



Except that most climate scientists do NOT believe that to be the case. Which is why almost all the papers you are going to find about solar-induced warming as an explanation for the current warming will be written by Willie Soon.



The key here is PAST WARMING TRENDS. Everyone knows that the sun DOES have an impact. But the solar cycles are NOT in such a way right now to explain it.

What part of of urban stations record warmer temperatures than rural stations did you not understand?

You want to make this about Willie Soon rather than the IPCC using the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability solar output dataset that the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites uses. The problem is once you do that you eliminate the sun as the reason for every temperature fluctuation prior to the industrial revolution. You can't have it both ways.

 

[ding]

Because of this:

SOURCE

You'd have to remove the UHI effect first. Like these guys did.