2011 9th Warmest Year in Satellite Record

[OohPooPahDoo]

Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.

I'm sorry. It was my understanding that you are asserting that the rise in CO2 is what is causing the warming.

Have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Ultimately, yes, but we cannot conclude that based solely on the graph of man made Co2 emissions and atmospheric Co2 content (in fact, we can say nothing about temperature, its causes or effects, based on that graph).

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Take a look at your graph of the level of CO2 and note when the CO2 starts to increase.

Take a look at the graph of proxy temps in the link below. You will note the that the first glimmers of warming show up in about 1575. The rest swing in by about 1650. Now, note when the CO2 starts to rise in your graph. The real increase in CO2 seems to be closer to about 1800 to 1850.

If you are saying that increasing CO2 causes increases warming, you are arguing that the future causes the past.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.

If CO2 is the cause of the warming and the warming started 200 years before the increase in CO2, then you are arguing that a cause in 1800 had an effect in 1600.

Was the blithering idiot writing or reading?

I am not arguing that.

 

[westwall]

The "cute" graph, as you call it, at issue is this one:

I never claimed this data lone supports the conclusion that Co2 is the cause of the recent temperature increase. I have claimed that this graph represents conclusive evidence that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 levels is caused mostly by man. Do you disagree?

That's because in the past Co2 increases have been caused by warmer temperatures brought about because of Milankovitch cycles and possibly other factors,

I fail to see your point.


Yes, but we have data which conclusively indicates the current rapid rise in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man. Its in the graph above. Its very simple. All of a sudden, in less than 200 years, man put about 1200 gigatons into the atmosphere. In the same period, atmospheric Co2 has risen 800 gigatons.

The conclusion that that 800 gigaton increase would still be there even if man had not added 1200 gigatons - which appears to be what you are saying - is not supported by logic or common sense. Your contention that a warming peak several hundred years ago could somehow cause the sudden, rapid rise of Co2 levels as seen in the above graph - instead of the sudden, rapid rise of man producing more than enough Co2 to account for the increase - is frankly, absurd, and it tells us just how much of a mental retard you are.


I see how you do science, yes. Which is horrible. It involves completely ignoring data which does not lead to the conclusion you want. You say that correlation does not equal causation yet you haven't even speculated at the causal link between a warming episode hundreds of years ago and the rapid rise of Co2 now - you ASSUME one exists because of correlation.

Absurd to you. However that is EXACTLY what the Vostock ice cores show us. Hundreds of years of nothing and then a sudden spike of CO2 hundreds of years after the warming.

And this means the warming causes the Co2 to increase hundreds of years later?

I thought you said correlation does not mean causation?

I didn't. I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it. How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.

Maybe time travel is involved?

 

[code1211]

You claimed that it had warmed more from 1AD to 1000AD than it has from 1000AD to the present, which is completely wrong. I presented the scientific information from NOAA that demolishes your moronic claim.

Then prove your case.

I did. You're unfortunately just too stupid to see it.

Perhaps you're not explaining it correctly.

Einstein said that you don't really understand anything unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

 

[code1211]

nobody is arguing that future causes past you blithering idiot.

if co2 is the cause of the warming and the warming started 200 years before the increase in co2, then you are arguing that a cause in 1800 had an effect in 1600.

Was the blithering idiot writing or reading?

i am not arguing that.

10-4.

 

[RollingThunder]

Then prove your case.

I did. You're unfortunately just too stupid to see it.

Perhaps you're not explaining it correctly.

Einstein said that you don't really understand anything unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

OK....I'll explain it to you, code4stupid.

You're a brainwashed, deluded retard so you are never going to be able to understand what is going on.

I think that about covers it.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't. I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it. How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult.

Maybe time travel is involved?

OohPooPahDoo is too slow on the uptake to follow your argument.

He suspects he's wandering into dangerous territory, but he doesn't really know what the danger is.

 

[bripat9643]

if co2 is the cause of the warming and the warming started 200 years before the increase in co2, then you are arguing that a cause in 1800 had an effect in 1600.

Was the blithering idiot writing or reading?

i am not arguing that.

10-4.

Actually, he is arguing that. He just doesn't want to admit it.

 

[code1211]

I did. You're unfortunately just too stupid to see it.

Perhaps you're not explaining it correctly.

Einstein said that you don't really understand anything unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

OK....I'll explain it to you, code4stupid.

You're a brainwashed, deluded retard so you are never going to be able to understand what is going on.

I think that about covers it.

Still don't get it.

Please try again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

gigaqtons? eeek! We're adding gigatons of deadly CO2??!!! Eeek!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Perhaps you're not explaining it correctly.

Einstein said that you don't really understand anything unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

OK....I'll explain it to you, code4stupid.

You're a brainwashed, deluded retard so you are never going to be able to understand what is going on.

I think that about covers it.

Still don't get it.

Please try again.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

 

[RollingThunder]

I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it. How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult. Maybe time travel is involved?

You sure must have fun fighting your straw-man. You seem to take great delight in 'winning' against positions that no one actually holds.

Of course, in the real world scientists say that natural factors (like the Milankovitch cycles that move the Earth's climate into periods of glaciation and out again into inter-glacial periods like our own) are what causes an initial warming which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere which in turn causes further warming. The natural cycles aren't strong enough to account for the amount of warming that is seen in the geological records and the increased (and increasing for some time) CO2 over those time periods is the only factor that can account for the additional warming. In those cases, CO2 was more of a 'feedback' that reinforced the warming trend started by orbital variations or whatever. Currently, the 40% increased CO2 levels brought about by mankind's burning of several hundred gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere are more of a 'forcing' that is directly causing the current abrupt global warming. There are no identifiable 'natural cycles' that can be scientifically linked to the current abrupt warming trends.

 

[westwall]

I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it. How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult. Maybe time travel is involved?

You sure must have fun fighting your straw-man. You seem to take great delight in 'winning' against positions that no one actually holds.

Of course, in the real world scientists say that natural factors (like the Milankovitch cycles that move the Earth's climate into periods of glaciation and out again into inter-glacial periods like our own) are what causes an initial warming which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere which in turn causes further warming. The natural cycles aren't strong enough to account for the amount of warming that is seen in the geological records and the increased (and increasing for some time) CO2 over those time periods is the only factor that can account for the additional warming. In those cases, CO2 was more of a 'feedback' that reinforced the warming trend started by orbital variations or whatever. Currently, the 40% increased CO2 levels brought about by mankind's burning of several hundred gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere are more of a 'forcing' that is directly causing the current abrupt global warming. There are no identifiable 'natural cycles' that can be scientifically linked to the current abrupt warming trends.

Silly person you are too funny. For the last 10 years the sceptics have been saying that nothing occuring is outside of normal variability. You clowns have bent yourselves into pretzels trying to claim that AGW will cause less snow in winter, then you bent yourselves into more pretzels claiming you never said that.

Basically you deluded dingbat 'tard, you have your head so far up your rectum you can't see. If you could see you would realise that the temps have been flat for a decade. DESPITE a rapid increase in CO2 levels. In defiance of your deluded, cult, 'tard religion.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey West..........ask me if I didnt split my sides laughing when I saw this on DRUDGE this am???


"80 degrees below zero in Alaska last night"


Bitter cold records broken in Alaska – all time coldest record nearly broken, but Murphy’s Law intervenes | Watts Up With That?






I guess CO2 doesnt go near Alaska!!!

 

[bripat9643]

Hey West..........ask me if I didnt split my sides laughing when I saw this on DRUDGE this am???


"80 degrees below zero in Alaska last night"


Bitter cold records broken in Alaska – all time coldest record nearly broken, but Murphy’s Law intervenes | Watts Up With That?

I guess CO2 doesnt go near Alaska!!!

You know what they're going to say, don't you?

I can see it already:

"That's just weather!"

 

[Old Rocks]

I merely pointed out that your hypothesis that CO2 caused a corresponding temperature rise has a serious flaw in it. How CO2 causes the temp to rise when it doesn't begin to accumulate till hundreds of years after the temp rise is a bit difficult. Maybe time travel is involved?

You sure must have fun fighting your straw-man. You seem to take great delight in 'winning' against positions that no one actually holds.

Of course, in the real world scientists say that natural factors (like the Milankovitch cycles that move the Earth's climate into periods of glaciation and out again into inter-glacial periods like our own) are what causes an initial warming which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere which in turn causes further warming. The natural cycles aren't strong enough to account for the amount of warming that is seen in the geological records and the increased (and increasing for some time) CO2 over those time periods is the only factor that can account for the additional warming. In those cases, CO2 was more of a 'feedback' that reinforced the warming trend started by orbital variations or whatever. Currently, the 40% increased CO2 levels brought about by mankind's burning of several hundred gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere are more of a 'forcing' that is directly causing the current abrupt global warming. There are no identifiable 'natural cycles' that can be scientifically linked to the current abrupt warming trends.

Silly person you are too funny. For the last 10 years the sceptics have been saying that nothing occuring is outside of normal variability. You clowns have bent yourselves into pretzels trying to claim that AGW will cause less snow in winter, then you bent yourselves into more pretzels claiming you never said that.

Basically you deluded dingbat 'tard, you have your head so far up your rectum you can't see. If you could see you would realise that the temps have been flat for a decade. DESPITE a rapid increase in CO2 levels. In defiance of your deluded, cult, 'tard religion.

The last ten years have been warmer than any decade prior to that since we have kept accurate weather records. And the decade prior to that was the same. As was the decade prior to that. But that is just natural variability. You 'skeptics' are selling ocean front property in North Dakota.

The claim was not less snow in the winter, the claim was 'wilder and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall increase in temperature'. And that is exactly what we have been seeing. A five fold increase in the cost of extreme weather events according to both Swiss Re and Munich Re.

When we get a strong El Nino, and the tempertures hit new high records, you lying bastards will then claim everything thereafter is coolinig until the next high. In spite of the fact that the average temperatures will be far above the old averages. From 1998 to present, 75% of the time the running average was above any prior high point in the running average before 1998. And you are claiming that represents a cooling. Only the dumbest fall for that kind of idiocy. But, you have Frankyboy and Pattycake as peer level intellects, so go for it, Walleyes.

 

[skookerasbil]

grand minimum might be a bitch Ray....................

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online



point is.........nobody knows about any of this stuff with any degree of certitude. IDK....for some, computer models are the end all and be all............but not to me. They cant even come close to predicting where the hell tomorrows arriving hurricane is heading. Cant launch into spending 76 trillion based upon that...........

 

[konradv]

grand minimum might be a bitch Ray....................

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

point is.........nobody knows about any of this stuff with any degree of certitude. IDK....for some, computer models are the end all and be all............but not to me. They cant even come close to predicting where the hell tomorrows arriving hurricane is heading. Cant launch into spending 76 trillion based upon that...........

If it's the "when" and "how bad", those ARE points of contention, not the "if". Trouble is you seem to think this is a political question and pull a number like 76 trillion out of your ass!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

We had a minimum TSI in 2008. Neither the Thames nor the Columbia froze over. The Thames is in far greater danger of freezing over from the affects of the amount of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean than from a low TSI. The forcing of a TSI like that of the LIA is far less than the present forcing from the increase in atmospheric GHGs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We had a minimum TSI in 2008. Neither the Thames nor the Columbia froze over. The Thames is in far greater danger of freezing over from the affects of the amount of freshwater entering the Arctic Ocean than from a low TSI. The forcing of a TSI like that of the LIA is far less than the present forcing from the increase in atmospheric GHGs.

What colleges and universities and laboratories need to do is force you fuckers into the lab and either show us how CO2 does any, much less ALL that you claim it does, then when you fail, kick you to the curb next to Venkman and Spengler