Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

[Crick]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

 

[Oddball]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

Pretty three-color charts -especially those which don't even account for anything that occurred prior to 1880 in particular- aren't proof.

You can either show your math or you can't.

 

[Crick]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

Pretty three-color charts -especially those which don't even account for anything that occurred prior to 1880 in particular- aren't proof.

You can either show your math or you can't.

They were put in response to a chart that put bogus temperature data against fifteen years of CO2. And, my last chart covered several thousand years.

 

[Oddball]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

Pretty three-color charts -especially those which don't even account for anything that occurred prior to 1880 in particular- aren't proof.

You can either show your math or you can't.

They were put in response to a chart that put bogus temperature data against fifteen years of CO2. And, my last chart covered several thousand years.

blablablablabla

Show your fucking math or STFU.

 

[Crick]

I've noticed a VERY strong inclination amongst AGW deniers on this board to make responses like Mr Oddball's above. A brief insult, no evidence, no logic, no reasoning. Forgive me if I don't feel anyone out there has yet challenged any of the points I've made on this board. AGW is real. Consensus among active scientists is a valid measure of the validity of the scientific theory. Idiots like you put the human race, my children and their grandchildren for generations to come, in danger. So, don't be surprised if I hold you in great disregard and with significant hostility. Asshole.

 

[ReinyDays]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

May I direct your attention to the first chart ... the period 1940 to 1975 ... it shows increasing CO2 levels and decreasing average temperatures ... technically, that's not correlation, in fact it refutes any correlation ... maybe the laws of nature were different during this time period ... Truman, Kennedy, LBJ ... DemoNazis do shit like that ...

 

[Flash]

The reason why this silly ass fake AGW is a partisan issue is because all these stupid confused uneducated Moon Bats are Ted Kaczynskis at heart who hate technology.

They think it would be groovy for them do nothing more in their pathetic little lives than to sit around Walden's Pond all day long wearing their pink pussy hats, smoking pot and singing Kumbala. They don't have the intelligence to understand the economics of energy production.

If they had more intelligence than a door knob and really thought that man made pollution was creating a global climate change then they would be bitching about Joe Biden's Chicom buddies because they are the big polluters in the world now. Them and Crooked Hillary's Russian buddies. You know, the ones that she gave our uranium to.

 

[ReinyDays]

I've noticed a VERY strong inclination amongst AGW deniers on this board to make responses like Mr Oddball's above. A brief insult, no evidence, no logic, no reasoning. Forgive me if I don't feel anyone out there has yet challenged any of the points I've made on this board. AGW is real. Consensus among active scientists is a valid measure of the validity of the scientific theory. Idiots like you put the human race, my children and their grandchildren for generations to come, in danger. So, don't be surprised if I hold you in great disregard and with significant hostility. Asshole.

No ... you just ignore anyone who suggests other factors are in play ...

What danger is it to your grandchildren that temperatures will be a single degree C higher? ... do you think they'll care that their day-time high will be 11ºC instead of 10ºC? ... for this you'd refuse electric service to the 1.6 billion people who have none today ... condemning them to a hand-to-mouth cooking over an open fire existence forever ...

Absolutely heartless ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And, my last chart covered several thousand years.

Any that cover just the last 2000?

 

[ReinyDays]

And, my last chart covered several thousand years.

Yes ... and see where it shows that 6ºC above today's temperatures are perfectly normal, natural and expected? ... without any man-made contributions ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

View attachment 404351

I kinda hate to admit this ... but this chart puzzles me ... according to the link the chart came from, this says DemoNazis are trying to destroy the United States ... why do you think this says anything else? ... it's pretty clear here how Joe Biden is going to confiscate my mortgage and only pay me pennies on the dollar ... I don't see where this says anything else ...

This is non-standard data set ... like some Russian solder made it up to get folks to vote for The Donald ... bears no resemblance to almost all the actual data we have ... pick any airport in the US and compare ... see, no resemblance ... if you took twenty airports and averaged them, you'll find they far more closely follow the NOAA curve ... you know, math ...

It surprises me when people have difficulty understand this section, it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets, versus the nearly monotonic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no cause/effect relationship between them in the chart, THAT is the point!

"This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months)."

"And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels."

This should have been enough for you to figure out......, but I wonder?

He posted various time frames using the official HC4 temperature data, surely that was obvious?

The data is from hadleycrut4, the CO2 data is from the NOAA CO2 database. It is right at the bottom of the page in the link.

Note: Plots, temperature change and 36-month average calculations done with Excel. Sources: global HadCrut dataset and NOAA's CO2 dataset

Nothing unnatural about the chart set up.

I guess what defies logic is that you trust an ultra-right-wing scab site ... I know they're saying what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it true ...

it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets

No, it's not ... the chart from MET-UK labels the vertical axis as "HC4 Global Temperature Anomaly" ... Russian military agents cleverly change the word "anomaly" to "change" so to imply CO2 concentrations have no correlation to temperature ... when in fact it only shows that the temperature departure from average has no correlation ... nor should any be expected ...

The Chart shows June 1994 as +0.2ºC ... it shows Feb 2001 as -0.2ºC ... and that's with respect to the average temperature in those time periods, which went up +0.4ºC ... meaning the actual temperatures in the UK in June 1994 and Feb 2001 were exactly the same ... still doesn't show a correlation but why post falsehoods when the truth is good enough? ...

Here a clue ... ultra-right-wing scabs sites are an especially poor source for scientific information ... you're better than that ...

Ha ha ha....., you are fabricating a deflection because you don't understand the chart at all. The Temperature data isn't anomaly based at all (obvious if you looked at the chart), it is the raw data, no short term baseline was needed since it was from 1988-2020, just 32 years.

You chose two 12 month points, while you left out the CO2 change effect between those same two points. You also didn't account for the same failure with other time subsets, that also doesn't show any connection between CO2 changes and temperature changes, by the shown time frames.

Your anomaly argument is irrelevant since the chart was set up showing the range of temperature change using various monthly sets. CO2 remains unchanged from the monotonic trend upward. The main point you again missed.

Second time I point this out.

Both charts were made in Excel, using HC4 Temperature data and NOAA CO2 data.

======

NO clear temperature, CO2 connection here during the interglacial period. Warmist/alarmists for many years tell us CO2 change was little to zero through most of the interglacial period until the late 1800's. It hovered around the 260-280 range for thousands of years, while there were large temperature swings that covers hundreds of years.

=====

Temperature after C.R. Scotese Climate History
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III

=====

CO2 changes through out history show little effect on temperature changes.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

Two problems:

They are not scaled together, some are obviously misleading.

No links to the charts provided.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ha ha ha....., you are fabricating a deflection because you don't understand the chart at all.

No links to the charts provided.

You should follow the links in your own chart ... find out what the HC4 people say about their data ... you won't like it, but that doesn't make them wrong ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ha ha ha....., you are fabricating a deflection because you don't understand the chart at all.

No links to the charts provided.

You should follow the links in your own chart ... find out what the HC4 people say about their data ... you won't like it, but that doesn't make them wrong ...

Twice I told you where he got the data.

I have read the HC link, know they have many ways to offer their data, anomaly charts is one of them . You are going nowhere with these silly deflections.

Cheers.

 

[Crick]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

Two problems:

They are not scaled together, some are obviously misleading.

No links to the charts provided.

You've been looking at those charts and dozens like them for several years. They haven't changed. This is just a bullshit attempt at distraction because you apparently have nothing to say in actual refutation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Zero evidence provided, Zero counterpoint to the statement posted for the chart, zero counterpoint to the chart itself.

It is clear that your "ripped to shreds" claim was a hilarious failure, since you didn't even address the central point at all. The CENTRAL point you are not even aware of, even though it is right in front of you!

Here it is again for everyone to see how mamooth BOMBED in his dead on arrival reply:

View attachment 404351


This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

View attachment 404720
View attachment 404721

View attachment 404723

View attachment 404724

View attachment 404725
View attachment 404722

Two problems:

They are not scaled together, some are obviously misleading.

No links to the charts provided.

You've been looking at those charts and dozens like them for several years. They haven't changed. This is just a bullshit attempt at distraction because you apparently have nothing to say in actual refutation.

You haven't posted links for your charts for years either, you had your chance today, but noooo I am the bad guy for bringing it up.

I know they are not properly scaled together, thus the charts are misleading and crap.

Notice you ignored my well sourced chart with links to the data available, but you ignore it to post a frenzy of out of scale unsourced charts.

Epic fail!

 

[ReinyDays]

Notice you ignored my well sourced chart with links to the data available, but you ignore it to post a frenzy of out of scale unsourced charts.

The sources in your chart don't back up your claims ... and so you make nonsense claims ... at least Crick's charts are common in the scientific literature ...

Oh right, the HC4 folks are crazy irrational Alarmists ... can't even interpret their own research ... ultra right wing extremists have the truth, right ...

 

[mamooth]

You gave a different science ... the few papers I did check had nothing to do with the question at hand ... how much does CO2 alone raise temperatures? ... field data reflects all the factors, we want to know what part CO2 plays ...

And I just gave you the answer directly. 3.0C/doubling. Why are you denying something everyone can see? Don't you care how bad that makes you look?

I myself have no problems with model results ... indeed I rely on these for my claim of 2ºC rise in 100 years ... and that little of a rise will not cause any of catastrophic things predicted ... but models produce distribution curves, not predictions ... there's no prophecy programs available yet ... they are what they are, an exceptional useful tool, but it's statistics ... and statistics ≠ physics ...

So, your claim seems to be that since the future can't be predicted perfectly, it's not science. But since you apply that to no science other than climate science, you claim is rejected on the basis of obvious partisan-based hypocrisy.

Changes in CO2 concentrations with respect to changes in CO2 concentrations is unity ... f'(x) = 1.

That's nice, but we were talking about temperature change with respect to CO2 concentration. I have no idea why you tried to steer the converstion into a completely nonsensical direction.

 

[mamooth]

It surprises me when people have difficulty understand this section, it is about the spread of temperature change in various time subsets, versus the nearly monotonic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no cause/effect relationship between them in the chart, THAT is the point!

You clearly don't understand your own graph.

If it was all clustered around zero, you'd have a point. It's not. It's all clustered around 0.2. That means there is a very obvious cause/effect.

You're telling us "Since the car is accelerating around a fixed rate (with some variation) as we very slowly press down on the accelerator, that proves there's no cause/effect between pushing the accelerator and speed". You're claiming the opposite of observed reality, according to your own chart.

"This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months)."

And again, exactly what are "Multiple periodicities of temperature change", and why do they matter? I have never seen that term used before, so it's very curious that you bring it up. The fact that you won't explain it, despite being asked directly, makes me think that you don't know what it means. It's just some technobabble you're flinging around in a failed attempt to sound knowledgable.

 

[mamooth]

May I direct your attention to the first chart ... the period 1940 to 1975 ... it shows increasing CO2 levels and decreasing average temperatures ...

And?

Again, if someone had ever claimed CO2 was the only thing affecting climate, you'd have a point. But as nobody ever said that, you look kinda dumb.

technically, that's not correlation, in fact it refutes any correlation ... maybe the laws of nature were different during this time period ... Truman, Kennedy, LBJ ... DemoNazis do shit like that ...

I see. It's fear of your cult. If you're not acting stupid, you'll stand out from the rest of your authoritarian political cult. Given how violent and unstable your cult is, I can see why you'd want to play stupid along with them. Cults hate apostates far more than they hate non-cultists.