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

[IanC]

how can anyone state "global warming is accelerating, but by how much" when the past decade has been flat, with temps slightly decreasing or increasing depending on the stop and start dates? technically I suppose cooling is just negative acceleration but surely people understand that this is the big problem. climate models have predicted 0.2plus degrees C per decade warming and we havent had it. increasing sea level rise was predicted and it hasnt happened. despite all the rather significant adjustments to the official records and the changes in methodology, all of which are in the direction of CAGW

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's NOT accelerating within the past 14 years...Some of the data shows it has SLOWED since 1998.

 

[wirebender]

It's NOT accelerating within the past 14 years...Some of the data shows it has SLOWED since 1998.

Which altered data set are you referring to? For that matter, which data set remains trustworthy?

 

[bobgnote]

Wienerbitch couldn't read Fatass' graph, about the 400,000-year-CO2 vs. temperature, he wants to know complicated calculations he won't search, and now, it's time to post a link, for Wienerbitch or anyone else to try, if anyone feels like asking a really good question, not just a lot of Wienerbitching:

Dr. Global Change: Topics

Topics
■Global Change Science ■Could global warming worsen ozone depletion?
■How can the average citizen help science document the impact of climate change on wildlife?
■How do human activities affect global climate?
■Why does climate change?
■Atmospheric Chemistry and Composition ■Are ozone depletion and climate change linked?
■Could global warming worsen ozone depletion?

■Climate Variability and Change ■Are ozone depletion and climate change linked?
■Why does climate change?

■Global Carbon Cycle ■Excluding fossil fuel combustion, how else do humans affect the carbon cycle?
■How does respiration by humans and animals affect carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere?

■Global Water Cycle
■Ecosystems ■How can the average citizen help science document the impact of climate change on wildlife?

■Paleoenvironment and Paleoclimate
■Land Use and Land Cover Change
■Human Contributions and Responses ■Excluding fossil fuel combustion, how else do humans affect the carbon cycle?
■How do human activities affect global climate?
■How does respiration by humans and animals affect carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere?

■Observations and Monitoring
■Other

■Global Change: General ■Is Global warming real?
■What is global change?

■Global Change: Other
■Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability ■How can the average citizen help science document the impact of climate change on wildlife?
■Impacts of climate change on agriculture in Taiwan
■Where can I learn about permafrost and climate change?
■Hydrology & Water Resources ■How might climate change affect flooding, especially in North Carolina?

■Ecosystems ■How can the average citizen help science document the impact of climate change on wildlife?
■Where can I learn about permafrost and climate change?

■Coastal Zones
■Agriculture ■Impacts of climate change on agriculture in Taiwan

■Human health
■Human Settlements, Energy and Industry
■Insurance and Other Financial Services
■Regional Impacts ■How might climate change affect flooding, especially in North Carolina?
■Impacts of climate change on agriculture in Taiwan
■Where can I learn about permafrost and climate change?

■Other ■Are ozone depletion and climate change linked?


■Mitigation of Climate Change ■What can individuals do to slow climate change?
■Where is information on U.S. energy demand and related greenhouse gas emissions?
■Ozone-depleting Compounds
■Energy Supply
■Energy End-Use and Infrastructure ■What can individuals do to slow climate change?
■Where is information on U.S. energy demand and related greenhouse gas emissions?

■Food and Agriculture
■Transportation ■What can individuals do to slow climate change?

■Buildings ■What can individuals do to slow climate change?

■Manufacturing
■Forestry
■Greenhouse Gas Capture & Sequestration
■Regional
■Other ■What can individuals do to slow climate change?


■General Earth Sciences ■Climate and Earth's Rotation
■Difference between climate and weather
■Climate (general) ■Climate and Earth's Rotation
■Difference between climate and weather

■Oceans
■Weather

■Ozone Depletion: Mitigation and Impacts ■Impacts of Ozone Depletion ■Are ozone depletion and climate change linked?
■Does water protect aquatic organisms from UV exposure?
■Is UV-B radiation a factor in the decline of frogs and other amphibians?

■Mitigation of Ozone Depletion ■Has the Montreal Protocol been worth it?


■Emissions data and trends ■Excluding fossil fuel combustion, how else do humans affect the carbon cycle?
■International data on fossil fuel use and related emissions
■Where is information on U.S. energy demand and related greenhouse gas emissions?

■Graphics, Video, etc.

------------------------

Cut, paste, and **** you, Wienerbitch!

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's NOT accelerating within the past 14 years...Some of the data shows it has SLOWED since 1998.

Which altered data set are you referring to? For that matter, which data set remains trustworthy?

RISS, UAH, GISS, NOAA all has shown that the rate of warming has slowed greatly. I'd trust UAH(SKEPICS run it) over GISS.

 

[wirebender]

RISS, UAH, GISS, NOAA all has shown that the rate of warming has slowed greatly. I'd trust UAH(SKEPICS run it) over GISS.

UAH is suspect as well. UAH measures temperature a couple of miles above the surface and something like a million radiosondes have failed to note any such warming. oble. When NOAA 14 replaced NOAA 11, both had to be intercalibrated with NOAA 12 which was experiencing its own diurnal drift issues. There have been no assurances since that no signifigant diurnal drift issue still exists.

 

[wirebender]

Dr. Global Change: Topics

Can you point to anything there that even approaches the level of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes anything more than the most etherial connection between the activities of man and the changing global climate?

Of course you can't because no such evidence exists there, or anywhere.

 

[bobgnote]

I guess that part escaped somebody, about the ten hottest years in the instrument-record happened, in the last 12 years. If you aren't as smart as a black person, don't try to shuffle in here with a 'wassup,' and don't expect to avoid getting called trash.

Reference your allegation, of slowing warming, or get called asshole, with the other shitters, Matthew. Who says warming is slowing, how much, and put down links.

 

[bobgnote]

Wienerbitch, Wienerbitch, sitting in a tree, ******* himself for being unable to read a graph:

Hey. Wiener. Psst! See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP? See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water? Preach, if you must, DD+D.

Yeah, I saw the thread. You proved beyond any doubt that you fail to understand the science. And again, neither CO2 nor carbonic acid has any affinity for cold water. Neither CO2 nor carbonic acid seeks out cold water or bypasses warm water in favor of cold water which is what the word affinity suggests. Words have meanings and it always helps to know and understand those meanings if you want to avoid looking like a rube.

OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters. What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time? What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm? Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch! Earth to Wiener . . .

And again I found that you fail to understand the science. The cold water upwelling from the deep ocean has absolutely nothing to do with man and his burning of fossil fuel.

And again, I like the way you show how intimidated you are with your incessant and completely impotent name calling. I note that you can't talk to anyone on the topic without falsely fortifying yourself with a dose of name calling. Mental masturbation is what it is and it only makes you look like the idiot that you clearly are. But do keep it up because it is very entertaining. It is always good to know that one's opponent is intimidated and routine name calling is such a clear psychological tell.

But Wienerbitch, again you are being oppositional, in the face of science, and you assert your own previous oppositionality, and you are like the queers which shot speed and tricked their HIV all the way through full-blown AIDS, to die and kill others, which means you are a selfish shit-piece that gets called "*****."

Ocean acidification - another effect of global warming | Time for change

Marine calcifiers face a second challenge: their calcium carbonate shells dissolve in environments that are too acidic. In fact, some deep, cold ocean waters are naturally too acidic for marine calcifiers to survive, meaning that these organisms only exist above a certain depth known as the "saturation horizon." With ocean acidification, the saturation horizon is expected to shift closer to the surface by 50 to 200 meters relative to its position during the 1800s (Doney, 2006). The Southern and Arctic oceans, which are colder and therefore naturally more acidic, may become entirely inhospitable for organisms with shells made from aragonite--one of the weaker mineral forms of calcium carbonate--by the end of this century (EUR-OCEANS, 2007).

Don't forget to eat lots of your own shit, and swallow it, since you put your foot in your mouth, your head up your asshole, and you don't chew and swallow your own shit or your own foot, but rather, you pull your head out of your ass, for moments, and show people your shit-eating grin. You type shit, for USMB readers. This will prove to be a mistake. Chew and wallow your own shit. Don't pony it over to USMB.

Here is Fatass' swell graph, again, since from thread-to-thread, you keep Wienerbitching around, ignoring Fatass' graph and its implications, which are CO2 flattens out, at 280 ppm, at peak warming, to fall, forcing cooling, which trend is consistent, for 430,000 years, until we get to the present, when CO2 shoots all the way to 400 ppm, today, following the industrial age, when humans multiplied, emitted GHGs, and defoliated, egregiously. And now for telling a *****, just how it is . . .

Fatass' graph is following you around, Wienerbitch. Maybe you should have a look at the ******! Even really stupid people can read graphs, Wiener. Go for it. This one shows what happens, with CO2, without too much methane, CH4. When the methane gets out, up go temperatures. When the cold water wells up, water-creatures get dead. It's rather simple, but you are worse than simple, you are a fucktard.

This site computes global warming, it is scholarly, and it needs to be pasted, here:

Global Warming Prediction

Global Warming Prediction Due to Burning Fossil Fuels and Other Emissions

L. David Roper
L. David Roper Home Page
May 2008

Slide Show for this web page
Mathematics of Global Warming
Global Warming web pages by L. David Roper

Contents
•Data Needed
•Factors Needed
•Emissions Due to Coal, Crude-oil and Natural-gas Burning
•Deforestation and Other Non-fossil-fuels Emissions
•Climate Sensitivity and Climate Response Function
•Predicted Earth Temperature◦Temperature with CO2 Concentration Feedback

•Coal Carbon Sequestration or Coal Moratorium
•Case for Double Coal Extraction
•Case for Double Crude-oil Extraction
•Case for Double Natural-gas Extraction
•Worst Case Global Warming
•Sea Level Versus Temperature
•Conclusion
•Appendix 1: Fossil-fuels Extraction
•Appendix 2: Comparison of Carbon Emitted and Carbon-Dioxide Concentration
•Appendix 3: Arctic Permafrost Release of Carbon
•Appendix 4. Possible Population Reduction

Introduction

Complicated climate models that require supercomputers to calculate them have yielded empirical functions that can be use by less-complicated computer models to study global warming. This article lists the equations used in such a less-complicated computer mode of global warming. Using it enables one to easily test assumptions.

There are many nonlinear relations between variables in climate studies. That makes analytically solving equations for the interactions among the variables impossible; the calculation have to be done numerically. However, if one knows or can surmise some general features of the interaction, one can use nonlinear equations to connect the variables. For example, in this study the hyperbolic-tangent function is often used to approximate the nonlinear connection among variables.

An approximate calculation is done of the carbon-dioxide concentration in the earth's atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels: coal, crude oil and natural gas. Since these are finite resources and the peak date for crude-oil extraction is about now, the peak date for natural-gas extraction will be about a decade from now and the peak date for coal extraction will be about year 2060, then carbon-dioxide atmospheric concentration due to burning fossil fuels will peak about year 2110, delayed about 100 years from the combined fossil-fuels emission peak because of the carbon-dioxide residence-time decay in the atmosphere.

Therefore, carbon emissions due to burning fossil fuels cannot increase indefinitely, which is some good news for future global warming. However, the impending decline of fossil-fuels extraction is not good news for societal stability and some unknown slow or future-triggered positive-feedback mechanisms may increase global warming more than the fossil-fuels emissions, non-fossil-fuels emissions and known fast positive-feedback effects.

 

[wirebender]

But Wienerbitch, again you are being oppositional, in the face of science,

Thus far, you haven't presented any science. For all your cut and paste, you haven't shown anything that even approaches the level of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

Hell, you can't even answer the most simple questions. Here is a rock bottom basic question for you; see if you can give an answer.

Name one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. Think you can manage that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the earth is a few degrees warmer do you know what will happen?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[IanC]

here is the UAH global lower trophosphere temps-

as I have said before, the temps varied around one average until 1998, then the thermostat was adjusted and now they vary around another slightly higher average. this is not the steady increase we should be seeing from CO2-induced heating.

 

[ScienceRocks]

here is the UAH global lower trophosphere temps-

as I have said before, the temps varied around one average until 1998, then the thermostat was adjusted and now they vary around another slightly higher average. this is not the steady increase we should be seeing from CO2-induced heating.

Looks like a 60-80 year global "phase charge" kind of like the PDO, ENSO, but at the globally level. Why? Because 1650-1720, colder, 1750-1800 was a warmer, 1810-1920 colder, 1970-2010 warmer. Seems to me that there is a cycle inside of cycles in this pattern...Some enforcing each other throughout the past 2,000 years.

We're in a warm cycle or the tick for the little ice ages tock. Makes more sense then purely co2 induced climate charge. Would go along with the large cycles of this being our glacials and innerglacial.

 

[bobgnote]

here is the UAH global lower trophosphere temps-

as I have said before, the temps varied around one average until 1998, then the thermostat was adjusted and now they vary around another slightly higher average. this is not the steady increase we should be seeing from CO2-induced heating.

Thanks for the good graph, IanCrapforbrains. And then, all the retards lined their posts up, to chase after science issues, like dogs used to bark at cars, and some of them used to chase cars, but dogs are smarter these days. Cars are now at least as common, as dogs, in many areas of the civilized world.

Can wingpunk fucktards change, as well as dogs have, over time? We'll see. Will wingpunks keep ******* up and gathering, to drive wingshit? Learn from dogs, DDs.

Don't forget, wingpunk retards. More CO2 and a lot of CH4 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly from Arctic regions. So up goes temperature, and then it goes WAY UP THERE, like 4 C or even more, from 2000, to 2050.

 

[bobgnote]

But Wienerbitch, again you are being oppositional, in the face of science

Thus far, you haven't presented any science. For all your cut and paste, you haven't shown anything that even approaches the level of hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a link between the activities of man and the changing global climate.

Hell, you can't even answer the most simple questions. Here is a rock bottom basic question for you; see if you can give an answer.

Name one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. Think you can manage that?

Oh. wow, it's Wienerbitch the failed chemist, who the studied how to get in kids' faces. OK, beeyatch, let's go over some facts:

Kids.Net.Au - Encyclopedia > Laws of physics

A Law of physics is a mathematical relationship between measurable quantities that describe the physical state and properties of bodies. This is a fundamental concept in physics.

Collectively, the laws of physics are those physical theories which have been widely published and tested, and are considered by the scientific community in general to be valid. They also tend to be very general, basic theories: instead of having a large list of laws governing many different phenomena in different circumstances, special cases are arrived at through a generalization of basic ideas. Well-known laws of physics include Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Newton's Laws of Motion, Maxwell's Equations for Electricity and Magnetism, and the theory of Quantum Mechanics.

Interestingly, these so-called "laws" can essentially be viewed as a series of approximations: well-established physical laws are found to be invalid in some special cases, and the new theory created to explain these discrepencies can be said to have generalized the original, rather than superseded it. One well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it described the world accurately in most normal circumstances, such as the movement of the planets around the sun, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to very large masses or very high velocities.

Wienerbitch, at forums like USMB, posters copy and paste and link, to make points, sometimes from scientific sources, like I use, sometimes from awesome sites, like O.R. seems to find, post after post. Posters like YOU put up complete shit, from whatsupwiththat or climategate. Sometimes those sites screw up and post good graphs, so Fatass picks one up. Wingpunks cannot interpret it, so I keep shoving it in your stupid faces.

I suppose I am only imagining, how you guys look at graphs. I don't think you really look at graphs, since wingpunks keep putting up irrelevant shit or uncalibrated shit or even good stuff, which you cannot interpret, since you are wicked stupid. But YOU are some kind of queer, who thinks I should jump up and do your math, for you, after you **** all the way up, at thinking and reading graphs. You don't offer equations. I gave you a site where the equations are. Go suck balls over at climategate. See if they do math, for assholes, like YOU.

YOU think I should be a physicist, at your beck and call, to suddenly calc up a fresh load, for you, instead of throwing your own shit, in your face! Tell you what, beeyatch, when I was in college, I did some things rather well, but they weren't physics, asshole. However, I did go out with a girl, whose dad was a partical physicist, and we got along for quite awhile. I know a thing or two.

One of the things I know about, homosexuals like YOU keep proseletyzing and bullshitting, trying to convert people, to their shove and ***** circus, but I am not having any of that, from you, or from your wingpunks, or your Log Cabin Club, or from anybody. So **** off. As for the answer to your question, ALL the laws of physics support some global warming theory, I suspect. Certainly, common sense and observation support global warming, while YOU try to order people to do math, from undefined equations, for you, queen of the wingpunks.

I don't do calcs, for assholes, and you are a queer asshole. So do your own math, I'll do inference, and I will post up as much copy and paste as I need, to make a point, since I include links, for reference, leading to GOOD WEBSITES, while you look at queer porn and climategate, all day long. Do your own math, or search "Dr.Climate Change," type in a good question, eat shit, and get big and strong, since wingpunks apparently thrive, on eating shit, you persistently stupid *****!

 

[wirebender]

Don't forget, wingpunk retards. More CO2 and a lot of CH4 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly from Arctic regions. So up goes temperature, and then it goes WAY UP THERE, like 4 C or even more, from 2000, to 2050.[/B][/I]

Describe the mechanism by which you believe that happens without violating a law of physics.

 

[wirebender]

I don't do calcs, for assholes, and you are a queer asshole.

It is obvious that you don't do "calcs" at all but then I never asked you to do "calcs". It is more than clear that you don't have the slightest inkling of science at all. As stated, you are a cut and paste drone who doesn't understand what you cut and paste.

I asked you to simply name a physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. If I need math done, I will do it myself as you are clearly not up to such a task. If you have a clue though, you should at least be able to name a physical law that supports and predicts the greenouse theory climate science describes. Off the top of my head, I can name at least 4 that state that such a greenhouse effect is not possible.

Got any words of your own? No? That's ok. None were really expected.

 

[bobgnote]

Don't forget, wingpunk retards. More CO2 and a lot of CH4 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly from Arctic regions. So up goes temperature, and then it goes WAY UP THERE, like 4 C or even more, from 2000, to 2050.[/B][/I]

Describe the mechanism by which you believe that happens without violating a law of physics.

What law of physics do you propose opposes the outcome of runaway warming, from onslaught of GHGs and the tendencies, which are evident, relative to such an onslaught?

Name your four laws, or **** off, Wienerbitch. You are being a mysterious queen.

YOU are the retard, who can't read a graph, yet you make demands. YOU come up with a law of physics, which might be violated, queen of wingpunks. Don't forget to offer theory.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We're not all gonna die

The earth will not be destroyed

There's no need to panic.

 

[bobgnote]

We're not all gonna die The earth will not be destroyed There's no need to panic.

The human habitat will be marginalized, and then humans will retreat, from uninhabitable areas, and then, other habitats will fail, and humans will die, until our numbers consist of persons, who can stand the heat.

The oceans will fail, as a source of food. Jellyfish will become the dominant species, in one scenario. By 2050, most of the people at this forum, today will be dead.

But if the survivors don't get their shit together, numbers will be cut. That will happen, out of control, thanks to all the fine planning, we can see.