The planet is no longer warming

[Sunsettommy]

Oh dear, even you got befuddled........

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there, try reading it next time, here is the very next paragraph after my post quote of the article:

"Logarithm" is the correct and succinct term here ... I'm sorry you don't like using it but it is a Law of Nature ... I already hate myself for agreeing with mamooth, but he's right this time ... (what are the odds of THAT happening) ... I understand you're writing for children, but there's a few adults about here and you'll just have to excuse us trying to clarify something you failed to include ...

Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ...

I going to suggest that you're making the same mistake Alarmists make ... using temperature as a proxy for energy ... that's wrong, so your argument fails ...

I have correctly predicted that warmists would be befuddled by it, and apparently you are befuddled too. Your logarithmic argument is totally a red herring since it doesn't even start to acknowledge what the article is about. Why do you keep doing this line of bogus argument?

"Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ..."

Your statement proves you didn't read the the link, since it was a SCIENTIST who wrote the article and made the charts, even posted the links to them. Heck I KNOW you didn't read the link because of what you clearly missed about the temperature data later in the link with a chart I haven't posted from.

Now you made the same mistake claiming data is underwhelming, when the date is sufficient to make the case made by the author of the article, but since you didn't read it, you don't know where you screwed up so badly.

This is why I posted the article in the first place, to expose people like you and Mamooth, who are tooo lazy to read the link and ponder the comments in the thread there.

Now lets see if you drop the stupid logarithmic argument and get on what Javier talks about:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 6:33 pm Edit

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that."

LINK

Javier is using the same time frame from 1959 to now for temperature and CO2 data. It is a valid argument he is making about.

You finally understand why you are looking foolish here?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Mamooth trying hard to show how clueless he is, doesn't even stick with the paradigm of the article at all:

He writes,

"And that's the problem. The logarithmic response of climate to CO2 concentration means that the current rate of temperature rise should be rather steady, due to the exponential-type rate of CO2 rise. By not taking that into account, everything afterwards was wrong."

The article doesn't talk about Logarithmic function of CO2 at all.

Gets into the galaxy level of stupidity when he writes this bald faced lie,

"As AGW theory predicts.

Do you even know what a logarithm is? Do you understand that climate sensitivity being stated as "degrees per doubling of CO2" indicates a logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 concentration?"

He had replied to this:

The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing.

Again you feebleminded moron! that article doesn't talk about Logarithmic functions at all. It is about the changing RATE of temperature change over time. The IPCC projected a per decade warming rate to meet their CO2 emission scenarios into the future, which is at least .20C warming rate per decade, that means NO COOLING trend in any decade time frame in the future is allowed!

Here is that chart you are blind to, the one with ZERO CO2 data in it:

This chart has NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2 Logarithmic effect at all. It is about the RATE of temperature change, 100% based on Hadley Crut temperature data, nothing to do with CO2 data at all.

mamooth again post more unsubstantiated drivel:

"False, as that's based on dishonest cherrypicking, but that's a secondary error compared to your primary blunder."

The data range is 60 years, the same length of time that CO2 has been officially measured at Mauna Loa, again more evidence that you didn't read the article. You have posted ZERO evidence to back up your assertions, ZERO!

The chart YOU posted has nothing to do with what Javier, the AUTHOR of the article you never read, was talking about, He centers his presentation on the RATE of temperature change, nothing else.

Your chart didn't do a dam thing for your red herring argument.

 

[Politicallyinsane]

The planet is clearly warming! This is from the UAH and shows a clear warming trend over the past 40 years. 40 years ago it was near -.1 on the y axis while 2019 it is near .4c. That is warming of half a degree c

 

[MaryL]

My water and Public service bills aren't getting cheaper. Summer cooling coupled with landscaping costs tell me a different story. Over say, thirty years, so I am not some johnny come lately. I am no scientist, but anecdotally, I know the value of observation. And yes, its warming on average. But when my heating bill go UP and I get credits for NOT consuming so much water, I will fill you in.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The planet is clearly warming! This is from the UAH and shows a clear warming trend over the past 40 years. 40 years ago it was near -.1 on the y axis while 2019 it is near .4c. That is warming of half a degree c

View attachment 294070

Sigh, it is clear you don't understand the article either......

The article is about the RATE of Temperature Change over time, you posted a standard monthly based temperature chart, with a 13 month running mean in it. Not the same thing at all.

Go read the article in post one.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there,

And that's the problem. The logarithmic response of climate to CO2 concentration means that the current rate of temperature rise should be rather steady, due to the exponential-type rate of CO2 rise. By not taking that into account, everything afterwards was wrong.

The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing.

As AGW theory predicts.

Do you even know what a logarithm is? Do you understand that climate sensitivity being stated as "degrees per doubling of CO2" indicates a logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 concentration?

Rate of temperature change on the DECLINE since 1994,

False, as that's based on dishonest cherrypicking, but that's a secondary error compared to your primary blunder.

while the rate of CO2 yearly emission still on the increase, which is in the total contradiction to the IPCC projection.

Here are the IPCC projections from AR4. For all scenarios, they show a linear increase for the near future.

The lesson you should learn? The cranks on WUWT always lie. Yet after each humiliation, you always run back to the them. It's as if you crave the humiliation.

You are totally clueless...

 

[ReinyDays]

Oh dear, even you got befuddled........

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there, try reading it next time, here is the very next paragraph after my post quote of the article:

"Logarithm" is the correct and succinct term here ... I'm sorry you don't like using it but it is a Law of Nature ... I already hate myself for agreeing with mamooth, but he's right this time ... (what are the odds of THAT happening) ... I understand you're writing for children, but there's a few adults about here and you'll just have to excuse us trying to clarify something you failed to include ...

Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ...

I going to suggest that you're making the same mistake Alarmists make ... using temperature as a proxy for energy ... that's wrong, so your argument fails ...

I have correctly predicted that warmists would be befuddled by it, and apparently you are befuddled too. Your logarithmic argument is totally a red herring since it doesn't even start to acknowledge what the article is about. Why do you keep doing this line of bogus argument?

"Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ..."

Your statement proves you didn't read the the link, since it was a SCIENTIST who wrote the article and made the charts, even posted the links to them. Heck I KNOW you didn't read the link because of what you clearly missed about the temperature data later in the link with a chart I haven't posted from.

Now you made the same mistake claiming data is underwhelming, when the date is sufficient to make the case made by the author of the article, but since you didn't read it, you don't know where you screwed up so badly.

This is why I posted the article in the first place, to expose people like you and Mamooth, who are tooo lazy to read the link and ponder the comments in the thread there.

Now lets see if you drop the stupid logarithmic argument and get on what Javier talks about:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 6:33 pm Edit

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that."

LINK

Javier is using the same time frame from 1959 to now for temperature and CO2 data. It is a valid argument he is making about.

You finally understand why you are looking foolish here?

So ... you think because I disagree with you ... I don't understand? ... that's very highly of you ... let science speak for itself, you do a poor job of it ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Oh dear, even you got befuddled........

No, Logarithmic function argument isn't even in the article or in the threads comment there, try reading it next time, here is the very next paragraph after my post quote of the article:

"Logarithm" is the correct and succinct term here ... I'm sorry you don't like using it but it is a Law of Nature ... I already hate myself for agreeing with mamooth, but he's right this time ... (what are the odds of THAT happening) ... I understand you're writing for children, but there's a few adults about here and you'll just have to excuse us trying to clarify something you failed to include ...

Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ...

I going to suggest that you're making the same mistake Alarmists make ... using temperature as a proxy for energy ... that's wrong, so your argument fails ...

I have correctly predicted that warmists would be befuddled by it, and apparently you are befuddled too. Your logarithmic argument is totally a red herring since it doesn't even start to acknowledge what the article is about. Why do you keep doing this line of bogus argument?

"Your data is completely underwhelming ... you have to cherry pick a specific portion of the data to make your case ... if we use all the data, then your claim collapses ... the problem is you're using far too short a time interval, the data you're using is completely corrupted by the on-going dynamics ... let SSDD post all the pretty pictures for the children, he's very good at it ..."

Your statement proves you didn't read the the link, since it was a SCIENTIST who wrote the article and made the charts, even posted the links to them. Heck I KNOW you didn't read the link because of what you clearly missed about the temperature data later in the link with a chart I haven't posted from.

Now you made the same mistake claiming data is underwhelming, when the date is sufficient to make the case made by the author of the article, but since you didn't read it, you don't know where you screwed up so badly.

This is why I posted the article in the first place, to expose people like you and Mamooth, who are tooo lazy to read the link and ponder the comments in the thread there.

Now lets see if you drop the stupid logarithmic argument and get on what Javier talks about:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 6:33 pm Edit

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that."

LINK

Javier is using the same time frame from 1959 to now for temperature and CO2 data. It is a valid argument he is making about.

You finally understand why you are looking foolish here?

So ... you think because I disagree with you ... I don't understand? ... that's very highly of you ... let science speak for itself, you do a poor job of it ...

Translation:

I don't have no case at all to make, thus throw in a Red Herring reply and now brilliant Strawman reply to make myself feel better.

Congratulations!

 

[SSDD]

The planet is clearly warming! This is from the UAH and shows a clear warming trend over the past 40 years. 40 years ago it was near -.1 on the y axis while 2019 it is near .4c. That is warming of half a degree c

View attachment 294070

The only place the "planet" is warming is in the heavily manipulated global record...If you look at the various regions of the globe, you see that a few are warming, a few are cooling, but not much is happening in either direction. The "globe" isn't warming..

 

[SSDD]

My water and Public service bills aren't getting cheaper. Summer cooling coupled with landscaping costs tell me a different story. Over say, thirty years, so I am not some johnny come lately. I am no scientist, but anecdotally, I know the value of observation. And yes, its warming on average. But when my heating bill go UP and I get credits for NOT consuming so much water, I will fill you in.

You have already been shown the temperature history of your area...your anecdotal memory was proven to be incorrect... your utilities cost you more in large part because of taxes imposed due to the global warming scam...

 

[mamooth]

Your statement proves you didn't read the the link, since it was a SCIENTIST who wrote the article and made the charts,

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're actually calling Craig Idso a scientist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

You can't make this stuff up.

Poor Tommy. He doesn't even understand what a logarithm is. He literally doesn't have the brainpower to understand what the adults are talking about. All he knows is that his masters told him something, so that settles it for him.

Now lets see if you drop the stupid logarithmic argument and get on what Javier talks about:

Dropping the logarithmic argument would be deliberate lying-by-omission. Not being a pathological liar, I am incapable of such dishonesty. Clearly you're not. I mean, I showed you that the actual IPCC predictions were linear, yet you're still lying to everyone's facing and saying the predictions were exponential.

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

That's the point, dumbass. That's exactly why you don't cherrypick tiny little portions of the data.

Holy shit, you're stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Mamooth STUPIDITY is on a roll, when he writes this:

"AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You're actually calling Craig Idso a scientist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

You can't make this stuff up."

Just more evidence that this brainless simpleton didn't visit the link, or even read post one with your pust filled eyes, from POST ONE:

"Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier"

Dr. Isdo was never in the article at all.



Mamooth goes on with more unsupported bullcrap:

"Poor Tommy. He doesn't even understand what a logarithm is. He literally doesn't have the brainpower to understand what the adults are talking about. All he knows is that his masters told him something, so that settles it for him."

Again you have yet to show this mythical Logarithm stuff anywhere in the guest post written by a long standing scientist (Not Dr. Isdo), all you offer is unsubstantiated bluster, it appears you have no idea what it is, or you would have posted it already. That it even pertains to the subject that you have completely ignored, the rate of temperature change.

Then he goes with his inability to remember the many times he was shown that the IPCC does in every report of at least .20C per decade warming trend, that in connection to the CO2 emission scenarios they conjure up. This is why your argument died on arrival, when the IPCC stated this for over 25 years now, how can you keep overlooking this specific prediction/projection they keep making?

He writes:

"Dropping the logarithmic argument would be deliberate lying-by-omission. Not being a pathological liar, I am incapable of such dishonesty. Clearly you're not. I mean, I showed you that the actual IPCC predictions were linear, yet you're still lying to everyone's facing and saying the predictions were exponential."

You are the one who keeps promoting an argument that doesn't exist in post one, no mention of logarithmic function at all in the link, not only that you never show there is one either, thus all this stupid bluster is what you bring in its place. It is clear you are just trolling and being stupid as usual.

Then the dishonest boy write this to something I wrote:

"That's the point, dumbass. That's exactly why you don't cherrypick tiny little portions of the data."

to this I have quoted written by Javier, in the comment section:

"What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends."

Here is what dishonest child leaves out:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 6:33 pm Edit

What a discovery, Nick. The trend is affected by when it starts and ends.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

Any way you look at it your thesis is a failure and picking dates won’t change that."

Some how Mamooth believes it is a cherry pick when the temperature data is from 1959 to 2019, that is in line with CO2 data from 1959-2019. He also showed more evidence that he doesn't read the link in post one, as he never read this comment written by Javier (the Scientist who wrote the article):

"CO2 data goes only back to 1959 unless one is prepared to accept a lot of assumptions about how CO2 is recorded in ice cores.
Temperature records are increasingly unreliable as we go back in time. I would not trust any global temperature data prior to 1900, and global temperature data prior to 1950 has a great uncertainty."

You also missed this in the link:

We define “warming” as a positive rate of temperature change over time. According to the main hypothesis, warming since 1951 has been due almost exclusively to the increase in GHGs (greenhouse gases), of which CO2 is the most important one. The IPCC does not find anything else that has contributed to the observed warming.

This means no room for a cherrypick at all.

Let us count the ways YOU have failed to make an argument that sticks:

1) Never shows the Logarithmic argument in the article, never quotes the Author (Javier it is, NOT Sr. Isdo) in talking about Logarithmic functions of CO2.
2) Ignores the main point of the article:

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate.

3) The idiot thinks the "Scientist" is Dr. Isdo, who was never mentioned anywhere in the short article, it was Javier who wrote it, yes he is a scientist.

4) Never backs up his claim of a cherry pick at all, the 60 years which is ALL of the Muana Loa CO2 data, which is why he started the Temperature data from 1959 to match up with the CO2 data years starting point.

The stupid child thinks 60 years of hadCRUT temperature data, CO2 muana loa data (Which is ALL of it), is "tiny little portions of the data", as he stated:

"That's the point, dumbass. That's exactly why you don't cherrypick tiny little portions of the data."

Holy shit, you are stupid!

It appears that Reinydays suddenly realized he had no case and stopped, good for you!

But Mamooth never disappoints, as he goes on and on with a barrage of unsupported blather, even makes a hilarious error in thinking that the Author and Scientist Javier is Dr. Isdo the scientist. They are two different people.....

Ha ha ha ha.......

 

[mamooth]

Again you have yet to show this mythical Logarithm stuff anywhere in the guest post written by a long standing scientist (Not Dr. Isdo),

You're just not very bright. I keep trying to dumb it down, but it doesn't seem possible to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

The topic was the response of temperature to CO2.

That response is logarithmic. Therefore, if you talk about the response of temperature to CO2, you have to mention it's logarithmic. Just like if you talk about the color of the sky, you have to mention that it's blue.

Your kook author failed to do that, so your kook author got it completely wrong. Your kook author assumed that AGW theory said an exponential increase in CO2 would lead to an exponential increase in temperature. It doesn't. An exponential increase in CO2 leads to a linear increase in temperature, due to the logarithmic relationship.

Then he goes with his inability to remember the many times he was shown that the IPCC does in every report of at least .20C per decade warming trend,

So you admit the IPCC predicted a linear trend, right after you've been screaming the IPCC predicted an exponential trend.

Free advice: If you don't repeat lies, you won't get all twisted up in the lies.

that in connection to the CO2 emission scenarios they conjure up. This is why your argument died on arrival, when the IPCC stated this for over 25 years now, how can you keep overlooking this specific prediction/projection they keep making?

We don't ignore them. We brag about how accurate they were. The prediction was 0.20C/decade, and observed reality was 0.19C/decade. Within 5% is stellar.

In stark contrast, your side was over 100% wrong, being how you couldn't even get the direction of the change right. The funny thing is you expect not to be laughed at.

The problem for you is that since the quadratic fit identifies 1994 as the peak, we can run a linear trend from 1994 to better identify when it cuts the X axis and the warming turns into cooling. With the linear trend since 1994 the planet is cooling since early 2016.

No competent statistician uses quadratic fits, as it relies on the unwarranted assumption that the data matches a quadratic function, which is almost never the case.

And it's still a very dishonest cherrypick.

Some how Mamooth believes it is a cherry pick

Because you're focusing on the last couple years and ignoring the trend. That's kind of the definition of cherrypicking. It's the same fraud you used to make up "the pause".

My best guess is that you're just too dim to understand what a cherrypick is. Ironic, since you depend entirely on cherrypicking. You're just not qualified to be discussing things with the adults. Notice how you can't even get other deniers to jump up on this bandwagon of stupid with you? That should tell you something.

The rest of your rant was just weepy butthurt. I imagine you're in a state of hysterical shock from recent political events. I suggest you just put down the bottle and sleep it off.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As the global temp falls ice at the poles will increase and glaciers will expand as they are down south today..

I'm guessing this like those past years when you made up stories of Rocky Mountain glaciers advancing fast. You made crazy claims about 20 feet of new snow on the ground in June, and so I pointed out the Snotel sensor in that spot said "0 feet". Good times, those were. So specifically, what's your new fraudulent claim here?

How much "additional heat" is created when CO2 increases from 280 to 400ppm? .00001F, 6F? What, no answer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much "additional heat" is created when CO2 increases from 280 to 400ppm? .00001F, 6F? What, no answer?

Kindly go eat a bag of salted dicks, little troll.

Thanks for the scientific answer

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now it has become apparent no warmists will ever post a cogent counter to the posted article, what is the next step for these lost souls?

Their confusion is apparent when they spend their time making bogus arguments against it, while completely missing the obvious and well supported conclusion that the warming RATE should be going up over time, when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising upward over the years, at least to support the well known, many times reported .20C per decade warming trend by the IPCC. But it never has done so for the last 28+ years, since it has NEVER reached the .20C minimum as predicted/projected.

From the link, warmists continually ignores:

"If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate."

The obvious conclusion is that CO2 isn't the driving cause of the small warming trend, and for several reasons not explored in the link. I see that POST 6 revelations was unsurprisingly misunderstood by warmists since it actually supported the main thrust of the article written by Javier (A scientist NOT named Dr. Isdo)

Billy Bob, writes for the char below:

"What I find interesting is the heat climb stopped in 1997 and has plateaued and is now in the negative slope while the temperature climb has briefly continued, as all buffered systems do. It is just about time for ocean heat reserves to deplete and rapid cooling to set in as the rate of positive climb is now negative."

and from the article,

"But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations. The HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year) is no longer increasing. In fact, it stopped increasing ~1994 and has been decreasing since. Global warming has been decelerating for over 20 years despite CO2 levels increasing at the same rapid rate."

Figure 3. HadCRUT 4 rate of temperature change (°C/year). Thin line, 12-month rate of change. Thick line, gaussian smoothing. Red line, 2nd order polynomial least-squares fit to the yearly increase.

We have it both ways now in these two charts, one based on temperature anomaly the other on actual temperature data by the year.

Javier (a Scientist NOT named Dr, Isdo) made this concluding statement:

"The global warming deceleration since 1994, and cooling since 2017 are incompatible with the hypothesis that the increase in CO2 is driving global warming. Other factors must be more important than CO2."

=======================

"Global warming" is running out of steam, all it has left are the positive El-Nino phases (which has been very common for the last 11 years, the longest streak in many decades), otherwise no warming at all.....

The Oceans are the main cause of atmosphere warming in recent decades, the very reason why the waters are cooling down slowly over time, eventually La-Nina will become dominant for the next few decades.....

 

[SSDD]

The topic was the response of temperature to CO2.

Temperature doesn't respond to CO2...CO2 responds to temperature...All the empirical evidence shows us that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature,,,and there isn't a whit of empirical evidence to support the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature...

 

[Old Rocks]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

The planet is no longer warming

February 6, 2019

Guest Post By Javier

Selected Excerpt:

According to the IPCC at least 77%, but more probably 120%, and up to 200% of the observed warming, has been caused by GHGs.

The rate of CO2 change (the atmospheric increase in CO2 every year) has been increasing almost linearly since 1959 and is currently ~2.4 ppm/year.

If the IPCC hypothesis was correct, the warming rate should increase (accelerate) if CO2 is increasing rapidly. The warming rate can only decrease (decelerate) if CO2 is increasing more slowly and can only turn into cooling (negative rate) if CO2 is decreasing.

But the hypothesis doesn’t fit the observations.

LINK

===================

Now watch the befuddled warmists here make clear they misunderstand the post as written since they are so wedded to the CO2 bogeyman so deeply that they will never understand it.

You don't understand the article either. He didn't say there is no warming at all, he is saying the RATE of temperature change, has changed into the negative region in late 2016. The last time it was like that was in 1970, which then went up the peak year of 1994 in the article, it has been falling ever since.

Javier in the comment section states that he thinks year 2019 will end up warmer than 2018, but will cool down again next year:

"Javier
February 6, 2019 at 2:29 pm Edit

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña."

Go read the article carefully, otherwise you will join the only other confirmed science illiterate warmist Mamooth in not understanding the article, the conclusions are obvious, don't embarrass yourself in tilting against the claims in it.

 

[mamooth]

Now it has become apparent no warmists will ever post a cogent counter to the posted article,

Why did you lie by claiming that the IPCC predicted an increasing rate of warming?

Why are you still openly lying about that?

Why are you relying on flagrant cherrypicks to calculate the rate of warming, and then lying about doing that?

Why are you lying about the measured rate of warming? It's 0.19C/decade.

Why did you expect not to get busted for such stupid lies?

You don't understand the article either. He didn't say there is no warming at all, he is saying the RATE of temperature change, has changed into the negative region in late 2016. The last time it was like that was in 1970, which then went up the peak year of 1994 in the article, it has been falling ever since.

So like we keep saying, he's using flagrantly dishonest cherrypicking.

2019 might be warmer than 2018 given the positive Niño index and atmospheric situation, but I expect 2020-22 to be cooler than 2018 on account of low solar activity, East QBO and La Niña."

Your side has been predicting cooling nonstop for the past 40 years. It never happens. Given your perfect track record of failure, why should anyone think that this latest prediction is any less stupid?

Go read the article carefully, otherwise you will join the only other confirmed science illiterate warmist Mamooth in not understanding the article, the conclusions are obvious, don't embarrass yourself in tilting against the claims in it.

We have read it, and ripped it shreds. In response, you've pissed yourself and run away crying.

Don't worry. Nobody expects a hardcore denier cult fanatic not to be a simpering intellectual coward, so you're not disappointing anyone. You're even earning brownie points with your cult, by demonstrating your willingness to endure humiliation on behalf of the cult.