There has been no "global warming" for eight years

[mamooth]

Incorrect. There is an enormous amount of empirical climate evidence that says the exact opposite. Your evidence is correlation and computer modeling.

Nah. Our evidence is the observable data.

There's more warming in winter. Your theory does not explain that.

There's more warming at night. Your theory does not explain that.

The Arctci is warming more. Your theory does not explain that.

There's stratospheric cooling. Your theory does not explain that.

Downwelling backradiatino is increasing. Your theory does not explain that.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong. Yes, it really is that simple.

Your evidence is ... misinterpreting basic science.

 

[ding]

Nah. Our evidence is the observable data.

There's more warming in winter. Your theory does not explain that.

There's more warming at night. Your theory does not explain that.

The Arctci is warming more. Your theory does not explain that.

There's stratospheric cooling. Your theory does not explain that.

Downwelling backradiatino is increasing. Your theory does not explain that.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong. Yes, it really is that simple.

Your evidence is ... misinterpreting basic science.

That's called weather. And normal weather for an interglacial period at that. You got nothing.

 

[mamooth]

Who cares if urban areas are 1 to 10 degrees warmer than surrounding undeveloped land.

"UHI exists" -- your statement -- is not a refutation to the fact that urban areas have been warming at the same rate as rural areas.

Surely a city like Indianapolis has no more "urban heat" than 100 years ago...

If the specific area was built up 100 years ago, then yes.

Hint: Figure out the difference between "areas already urban" and "areas that have recently been urbanized". In the former, the temperature rise is the same as in rural areas. And that fact demolishes your conspiracy babbling.

How did Co2 thaw North America while at the same time freeze Greenland?

It didn't. That's just some crazy stuff you made up.

"You're just lying, and very badly at that" tends to be the answer to every "gotcha" question that deniers ask.

 

[EMH]

Do tell.

Theory - increasing atmospheric Co2 causes warming

The DATA - Co2 increased, temperature did not

The conclusion - THEORY REJECTED

What your fudge bakers did - FUDGE THE DATA AND LIE AND CONTINUE TO BILK THE TAXPAYER

 

[mamooth]

That's called weather.

No, it's climate. And if you can't understand that, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

And normal weather for an interglacial period at that. You got nothing.

I get it. You're upset because the facts show your theory is wrong, and you're extremely emotionally invested in your theory.

However, you getting upset doesn't change anything, any more than flat earthers getting upset changes the shape of the earth. The data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong.

 

[mamooth]

Theory - increasing atmospheric Co2 causes warming

And it does.

The DATA - Co2 increased, temperature did not

If you're not even going to pretend to be in touch with reality, why should anyone bother talking to you? We get it. You say what your cult tells you to. No need to keep hammering on that point.

 

[EMH]

"UHI exists" -- your statement -- is not a refutation to the fact that urban areas have been warming at the same rate as rural areas.


If the specific area was built up 100 years ago, then yes.

Hint: Figure out the difference between "areas already urban" and "areas that have recently been urbanized". In the former, the temperature rise is the same as in rural areas. And that fact demolishes your conspiracy babbling.


It didn't. That's just some crazy stuff you made up.

"You're just lying, and very badly at that" tends to be the answer to every "gotcha" question that deniers ask.

The data is undeniable.

The Vikings lived on Greenland's southern tip until the 1400 when it froze to the point they could not self sustain and grow crops.
Pinecones etc. under Greenland's thickest ice carbon date 400-800k years ago.
Recently Greenland DNA dated 2 million years old revealed a very very green Greenland then

greenland green - Google Search

www.google.com

North American ice age had glacier ice down to Indiana one million years ago....

north american ice age - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[mamooth]

The Vikings lived on Greenland's southern tip until the 1400 when it froze to the point they could not self sustain and grow crops.

The MWP was local, and there was no global warmup at the time.

Come on, learn the basics.

 

[EMH]

The MWP was local, and there was no global warmup at the time.

Come on, learn the basics.

The MWP froze Greenland...


GENIUS!!!


What did Co2 do....

 

[mamooth]

The MWP froze Greenland...

Can you please make up your mind? First you say Greenland got warmer, now you say it got colder.

I think "don't drink and post" applies here.

 

[EMH]

Can you please make up your mind? First you say Greenland got warmer, now you say it got colder.

I think "don't drink and post" applies here.

LOL


Jeopardy! music still playing, Mossad witch.

How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time???



Did you cheer when a Jew Army Ranger shot Pat Tillman and hate hoaxed it to Al Qaeda?

 

[ding]

No, it's climate. And if you can't understand that, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.



I get it. You're upset because the facts show your theory is wrong, and you're extremely emotionally invested in your theory.

However, you getting upset doesn't change anything, any more than flat earthers getting upset changes the shape of the earth. The data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong.

No. It's not climate. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends. The majority of the past 10,000 years was warmer than recent decades with less CO2, previous interglacials were warmer with less CO2 and the planet cooled from a greenhouse planet with no ice on its poles to a icehouse planet with ice on both poles CO2 greater then 600 ppm. That's climate.

 

[mamooth]

No. It's not climate. The geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends.

And this warming trend is one is like none of the past ones, showing that the causes of it are not natural.

But then, that's just the hard evidence, and you don't care about that.

Your stupid, stupid argument is that since warming was natural in the past, it has to be natural now. That's every bit as stupid as claiming that since forest fires were all naturally caused in the past, they must all be naturally caused now.

The majority of the past 10,000 years was warmer than recent decades with less CO2, previous interglacials were warmer with less CO2 and the planet cooled from a greenhouse planet with no ice on its poles to a icehouse planet with ice on both poles CO2 greater then 600 ppm. That's climate.

And if anyone had every said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate, that would matter. But since they haven't, it doesn't.

 

[mamooth]

Did you cheer when a Jew Army Ranger shot Pat Tillman and hate hoaxed it to Al Qaeda?

Oh, you're antisemite filth. Why didn't you lead with that? It would have immediately let everyone know to ignore you.

 

[ding]

And this warming trend is one is like none of the past ones, showing that the causes of it are not natural.

But then, that's just the hard evidence, and you don't care about that.

Your stupid, stupid argument is that since warming was natural in the past, it has to be natural now. That's every bit as stupid as claiming that since forest fires were all naturally caused in the past, they must all be naturally caused now.


And if anyone had every said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate, that would matter. But since they haven't, it doesn't.

The planet cooled with greater than 600 ppm.

 

[mamooth]

The planet cooled with greater than 600 ppm.

As expected.

What is it about the statement "CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate" that gives you such trouble?

 

[80zephyr]

During the last ice age, the place where I live was under a mile thick glacier. What caused it to melt?

 

[ding]

As expected.

What is it about the statement "CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate" that gives you such trouble?

You refuse to accept that the planet's climate fluctuates naturally, especially in the northern hemisphere and especially since the planet became bipolar glaciated. And you don't understand the reasons why this is the case. As such you have eliminated all possibility for natural causes even though the geologic record is litter with examples of warming and cooling trends in glacial and interglacial periods. The doomsday models are flawed. The feedback effect is 3 times the GHG effect of CO2 which is diametrically opposite what the empirical climate data shows as the planet cooled for millions of years with CO2 greater than 600 ppm. The doomsday modelers routinely tune out natural variations in their models which they call drift. They use urban station temperatures which include the urban heat island effect and use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites.

 

[mamooth]

You refuse to accept that the planet's climate fluctuates naturally

No, I don't. Nobody here has ever said or implied such a thing. That's just your standard dishonest strawman, one you toss out because you can't address what we actually say.

Again, the forest fire analogy. Your train of logic says that all forest fires must still be caused naturally, since they were all caused naturally in the past.

The normal people point out that the evidence points to how humans cause a lot of forest fires now. And they also correctly say the evidence points to how humans are changing climate now.

Oh, nice gish gallop rant. You're panicking now. If you had one good argument, you wouldn't need a bunch of really bad ones.

 

[ding]

No, I don't. Nobody here has ever said or implied such a thing. That's just your standard dishonest strawman, one you toss out because you can't address what we actually say.

Again, the forest fire analogy. Your train of logic says that all forest fires must still be caused naturally, since they were all caused naturally in the past.

The normal people point out that the evidence points to how humans cause a lot of forest fires now. And they also correctly say the evidence points to how humans are changing climate now.

Oh, nice gish gallop rant. You're panicking now. If you had one good argument, you wouldn't need a bunch of really bad ones.

But you absolutely do dismiss natural climate variation as a cause when you argue that only CO2 can be responsible for the recent warming trend. And that is despite empirical climate data from the geologic record which proves there is no correlation for CO2 driving temperature.