2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RKMBrown]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?

Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants? WTF is wrong with your brain?

Nope, wrong again as usual, moron. Human activities, like burning CO2 emitting fossil fuels and deforestation, are definitely causing global warming by raising the natural pre-industrial CO2 levels of about 280ppm by over 43% to over 400ppm. Nobody said different. The "passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting" that you are making and that Crick was referring to, involve idiotic statements that you have just made, like: "How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere?", which nobody ever claimed. Either you're a troll making up lies to bug and distract people, or you are a retard with ZERO reading comprehension skills.

CO2 is good for plants at its current concentration. Increasing concentrations of CO2 either have no effect (C4 photosynthesis) or it winds up being less good for the plants in one way or another. Your assumption that because something is necessary and beneficial (like CO2 for plants) then more (and more and more....) of it must be better, is very stupid. A certain amount of salt, for example, is necessary and beneficial to humans but try ingesting a hundred times as much daily for a while and see what happens to you (please).

ROFLOOOOFOOFLLOLO

 

[Crick]

Your comments are inappropriate responses to our posts. You failed to address anything we said. If you were attempting to recover from the embarrassment, I'm afraid you failed.

 

[RKMBrown]

How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?

ROFL you heard it here folks there are no molecules in the atmosphere. ROFLLLLLL

 

[Crick]

Do you not realize how ignorant these comments make you look?

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you not realize how ignorant these comments make you look?

You've got the intelligence of a cricket.

 

[Crick]

You are so not worth the effort.

 

[Old Rocks]

How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?

ROFL you heard it here folks there are no molecules in the atmosphere. ROFLLLLLL

Browneyes, you measure atmosphere by volume, cubic, not square. Are you attempting to outdumb Frankie Boy? You are definately in the running.

 

[RollingThunder]

So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. With the exception of February, every other month of this year to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record. Now October has come in as the hottest October in the 36 year satellite record, tied with October of 2012. Since every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998, there are no years in the instrumental temperature records going back to 1880 that could have a warmer October than this last one. As NOAA will no doubt announce shortly.

Global Temperature Trend Update: October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record
Notes on data released Nov. 4, 2014:
October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. With a global average temperature that was 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, October 2014 tied October 2012.

 

[Billy_Bob]

WOW over 90% of the Continental US will be 20+ degrees below normal by Monday and the warmist morons still think its the hottest year ever... (well since record keeping began which is slightly over 135 years and the size of a molecule of hydrogen in comparison to the length the earth has existed.)

 

[Billy_Bob]

So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. With the exception of February, every other month of this year to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record. Now October has come in as the hottest October in the 36 year satellite record, tied with October of 2012. Since every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998, there are no years in the instrumental temperature records going back to 1880 that could have a warmer October than this last one. As NOAA will no doubt announce shortly.

Global Temperature Trend Update: October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record
Notes on data released Nov. 4, 2014:
October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. With a global average temperature that was 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, October 2014 tied October 2012.

And 1.2 Deg C is manufactured bogus crap due to homogenization and alterations of the record.... In other words.. MADE UP CRAP!

 

[RollingThunder]

WOW over 90% of the Continental US will be 20+ degrees below normal by Monday and the warmist morons still think its the hottest year ever... (well since record keeping began which is slightly over 135 years and the size of a molecule of hydrogen in comparison to the length the earth has existed.)

Well yeah, retard, GLOBALLY it is still the hottest year on record. In fact, the hottest twelve month period (a year) on record, compared to all twelve month periods since at least 1880, just ended in September. It is still almost certain that the calender year of 2014 will also be the hottest calender year on record.

Like most of the denier cult dimwits posting here, you seem to imagine that a bit of winter weather in parts of the USA somehow reflects what is happening on the rest of the planet. And you're stupid and clueless enough to ignore the fact that scientists have derived temperature records from proxie data going back tens of thousands of years

 

[RollingThunder]

So far this year, in 2014, April was tied with April of 2010 as the hottest April on record, with records dating back to 1880. May and June were both the hottest May and June on record, and August and September were also the hottest August and September on record. With the exception of February, every other month of this year to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record. Now October has come in as the hottest October in the 36 year satellite record, tied with October of 2012. Since every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998, there are no years in the instrumental temperature records going back to 1880 that could have a warmer October than this last one. As NOAA will no doubt announce shortly.

Global Temperature Trend Update: October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record
Notes on data released Nov. 4, 2014:
October 2014 tied as the warmest October in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. With a global average temperature that was 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, October 2014 tied October 2012.

And 1.2 Deg C is manufactured bogus crap due to homogenization and alterations of the record.... In other words.. MADE UP CRAP!

Crackpot denier cult conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands of scientists worldwide - completely insane!

 

[RKMBrown]

How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?

ROFL you heard it here folks there are no molecules in the atmosphere. ROFLLLLLL

Browneyes, you measure atmosphere by volume, cubic, not square. Are you attempting to outdumb Frankie Boy? You are definately in the running.

Sigh you know I meant cubic. Duh.

 

[Crick]

Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.

Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Okay, you meant cubic. How about explaining what you meant with these two statements?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.

Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Okay, you meant cubic. How about explaining what you meant with these two statements?

Which part of carbon cycle confused you? What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?

 

[RollingThunder]

Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.

Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Okay, you meant cubic. How about explaining what you meant with these two statements?

Which part of carbon cycle confused you? What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?

That's not an explanation of what you imagined those statements of yours meant, moron. The rest of us understand the carbon cycle and atmospheric physics just fine. It is you who has made nonsensical statements about both. Explain yourself or admit that you're a clueless retard blowing smoke about topics you know nothing about.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet your so called "science" requires that the carbon cycle somehow become overwhelmed, even thought it never has in the presence of life.

Further, your "science" also requires ignorance of what happens to other greenhouse gases as they are displaced in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Okay, you meant cubic. How about explaining what you meant with these two statements?

Which part of carbon cycle confused you? What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?

That's not an explanation of what you imagined those statements of yours meant, moron. The rest of us understand the carbon cycle and atmospheric physics just fine. It is you who has made nonsensical statements about both. Explain yourself or admit that you're a clueless retard blowing smoke about topics you know nothing about.

Other than mistyping square when I meant cubic what statement did I make that was wrong? Or are you incapable of writing a cogent sentence?

 

[Billy_Bob]

WOW over 90% of the Continental US will be 20+ degrees below normal by Monday and the warmist morons still think its the hottest year ever... (well since record keeping began which is slightly over 135 years and the size of a molecule of hydrogen in comparison to the length the earth has existed.)

Well yeah, retard, GLOBALLY it is still the hottest year on record. In fact, the hottest twelve month period (a year) on record, compared to all twelve month periods since at least 1880, just ended in September. It is still almost certain that the calender year of 2014 will also be the hottest calender year on record.

Like most of the denier cult dimwits posting here, you seem to imagine that a bit of winter weather in parts of the USA somehow reflects what is happening on the rest of the planet. And you're stupid and clueless enough to ignore the fact that scientists have derived temperature records from proxie data going back tens of thousands of years

WINNING!!! its what we do best with facts.... your flap is yapping but its crap comin out..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

..and by "globally" they mean adding the "warming" that was eaten by the deep, deep oceans

 

[Crick]

Which part of carbon cycle confused you? What part of atmospheric pressure confuses you?

Please explain what you meant by the carbon cycle being overwhelmed. I am familiar with the carbon cycle. I am unaware of anyone suggesting that it has been or will be "overwhelmed" and so I have no idea to what you refer.

And then, please explain what displacement of greenhouse gases you're talking about.