Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your problem is that things seem to be just staying the same. No Ice Age, no Cooked Earth.
Your HolyIceAge never arrives, and the fast warming continues inexorably, but that doesn't diminish your religious zeal. As is the case with every doomsday cult, whenever your frozen doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more.
I am doing cold hard calculations
I am doing cold hard calculations
Where?
Making unsupported claims is not "doing cold hard calculations".
Remember, you're talking to the reality-based community here. We require evidence, and you only supply emotion.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it fucking IS.
You are fucking idiot if you think an increase of 130 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 is responsible for any of that.Major desertification in Texas. Flooding and shorter growing seasons (other types of climate change) in other areas. AGW ain't no panacea.. no actual box of chocolates for anyone.
You need to move away from thinking your emotional hunches have ANYTHING to do with valid science. They don't. And you need to brush up your numbers. Pre-industrial CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level is 420 ppm. 420-280 = 140, not 130. And then, perhaps you should think about like this: 140*100/280 = a 50% increase. Now doesn't that SOUND more dramatic? Good, Because it fucking IS.
This graph includes temperature data from where YOU live as well as where ALL the "NORMAL" people live. This is NOT "just staying the same"Your problem is that things seem to be just staying the same. No Ice Age, no Cooked Earth.
Your HolyIceAge never arrives, and the fast warming continues inexorably, but that doesn't diminish your religious zeal. As is the case with every doomsday cult, whenever your frozen doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more.
I notice that the Global Warming fanatics always choose something to point at that nobody normal can see, like icebergs, or glaciers, or polar bears, to pretend that the World Is Coming to An End unless we raise taxes and put in a whole lot of gross inconveniences --- they never say anything about changes everyone could easily SEE ---- because there aren't any.
What a pile of nothing.
Try using microdegrees instead of tenths --- I bet you could get a great hockeystick graph going straight up. It wouldn't mean anything, just like this one, but you global warming types don't care, as long as you can propagandize.This graph includes temperature data from where YOU live as well as where ALL the "NORMAL" people live. This is NOT "just staying the same"Your problem is that things seem to be just staying the same. No Ice Age, no Cooked Earth.
Your HolyIceAge never arrives, and the fast warming continues inexorably, but that doesn't diminish your religious zeal. As is the case with every doomsday cult, whenever your frozen doomsday fails to arrive, you just push the date back some more.
I notice that the Global Warming fanatics always choose something to point at that nobody normal can see, like icebergs, or glaciers, or polar bears, to pretend that the World Is Coming to An End unless we raise taxes and put in a whole lot of gross inconveniences --- they never say anything about changes everyone could easily SEE ---- because there aren't any.
What a pile of nothing.
View attachment 490248
Okay, time to watch the dingbat eat crow again..1.6269 C deg
A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.
Why would I need to eat crow. You got it a little closer but you are still 0.4 C below the predicted associated temperature and that's without the so called positive feedback. So where is the missing 0.4 C.
Of course... if you were wondering what they call the zero temperature reference, it kind of destroys your argument cause the actual gain is less than 1C. You cherry pickers crack me up.
Okay, time to watch the dingbat eat crow again..1.6269 C deg
Hint, hint:
A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.
So you want to use an 1880 reference and pick the lowest temperature from the decade of 1880? You are still 0.4C short, dummy. And that's without any of the predicted positive feedbacks.Oop, climate scientist poser still off the rails.. try actual Climate Change for a change, son!
Stay tuned for likely more episodes of "As The Dingbat Squirms" or "Watch Shameless Deniers Deny The Bleeding Obvious"
No idea why you imagine your one stupid calculation could demonstrate a damned thing, but at least you're on record now admitting that the bulk of the anomalous warming indicated in the charts is likely due to human activity (AGW). No returning to blanket denials for you, son.Why would I need to eat crow. You got it a little closer but you are still 0.4 C below the predicted associated temperature and that's without the so called positive feedback. So where is the missing 0.4 C.
The linked source is Wikipedia which provides its sources in turn. You, otoh, are not a source. But even a glance at one of your shared charts shows that 1880 is neither the beginning of the Industrial Revolution nor the lowest temperature they could have chosen. Read the linked article if you really wish to know why they chose to start that one chart in 1880, jackass.So you want to use an 1880 reference and pick the lowest temperature from the decade of 1880?