February may have been the warmest month on record,

[9aces]

Amazing how some posters think that a bigger bold font somehow proves the validity of their post.

Amazing how some dimwits will completely ignore the scientific content (that debunks their denier cult myths) and instead will obsess over 'fonts', or some other irrelevant trivia. LOLOLOL. Another demented denier cult 'tactic of ignorance'.

95% is scientific certainty? Damn you had some really stupid teachers if they taught you that.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Aces, it is simply that you have had no teaching at all in statistics. 2 sigma

 

[Billy_Bob]

Amazing how some posters think that a bigger bold font somehow proves the validity of their post.

Amazing how some dimwits will completely ignore the scientific content (that debunks their denier cult myths) and instead will obsess over 'fonts', or some other irrelevant trivia. LOLOLOL. Another demented denier cult 'tactic of ignorance'.

95% is scientific certainty? Damn you had some really stupid teachers if they taught you that.

Only the IPCC and their drones will cite that number.. it's the only organization where the predictions become more certain when the error bars widen out..

 

[9aces]

No, Aces, it is simply that you have had no teaching at all in statistics. 2 sigma

An analyst doesn't know statistics....that's funny son.

An ancestor of mine once said "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Like any good analyst, I can take your numbers and make them sound like anything. All I have to do is select what data to use.

Which is why I've consistently said you're trying to solve a problem with 0.0004% of the information you need to do it with.

 

[RollingThunder]

No, Aces, it is simply that you have had no teaching at all in statistics. 2 sigma

An analyst doesn't know statistics....that's funny son. An ancestor of mine once said "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Like any good analyst, I can take your numbers and make them sound like anything. All I have to do is select what data to use. Which is why I've consistently said you're trying to solve a problem with 0.0004% of the information you need to do it with.

Actually, as is obvious to pretty much everyone, you're struggling to understand what is going on with the Earth's climate only 0.0004% of the brains that the climate scientists have.

You're clueless!

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Aces, it is simply that you have had no teaching at all in statistics. 2 sigma

An analyst doesn't know statistics....that's funny son.

An ancestor of mine once said "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Like any good analyst, I can take your numbers and make them sound like anything. All I have to do is select what data to use.

Which is why I've consistently said you're trying to solve a problem with 0.0004% of the information you need to do it with.

An analyst of what, silly ass? You have shown absolutely no knowledge of science or math in your posting. You have to start demonstrating at least a minimal acquaintance with those subjects in order to have any credibility. Might be smart to back you claims with links to credible sources, also.

 

[9aces]

No, Aces, it is simply that you have had no teaching at all in statistics. 2 sigma

An analyst doesn't know statistics....that's funny son.

An ancestor of mine once said "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Like any good analyst, I can take your numbers and make them sound like anything. All I have to do is select what data to use.

Which is why I've consistently said you're trying to solve a problem with 0.0004% of the information you need to do it with.

An analyst of what, silly ass? You have shown absolutely no knowledge of science or math in your posting. You have to start demonstrating at least a minimal acquaintance with those subjects in order to have any credibility. Might be smart to back you claims with links to credible sources, also.

Well Old Moron, I guess you've missed the posts talking about the discrepancies between current warming trends and previous ones. Oh yes that's right, because they contradict what you say must be the case because someone said so, that someone else said must be an expert.

I make the occasional dollar these days doing analysis of companies reporting and operational processes to improve their efficiency. So you see, reports are something I'm rather familiar with. Which is why I know the surest way to fail when you're tasked to deliver a report, is to have the conclusion set before you ever start to look at the data.

That's the difference between having someone else do their thinking for them (you), and someone who can do their own (me). We have millions of years of data on the planet's climate, and you idiots ignore all of it but the last micro-fraction of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yappity yap yap. So you say. And I am Napoleon's reincarnation, also. We are anonymous on this board, so we can claim anything. The subject is the very recent climate, and the effect it will have on the presently living humans and those that come after us. And we are not ignoring paleoclimatology. In fact, that is where we are learning about how serious the rapidity with which we are changing the present atmospheric composition can affect the climate we depend on for our existance.

 

[9aces]

Yappity yap yap. So you say. And I am Napoleon's reincarnation, also. We are anonymous on this board, so we can claim anything. The subject is the very recent climate, and the effect it will have on the presently living humans and those that come after us. And we are not ignoring paleoclimatology. In fact, that is where we are learning about how serious the rapidity with which we are changing the present atmospheric composition can affect the climate we depend on for our existance.

To understand the present you must look to the past. You see many instances of rapid change both positive, and negative, but you do not understand why they happened. So to try and use a micro-fraction of the data to come to a conclusion you've determined is certain is foolish.

You cannot separate the past from the present, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Crick]

What data, 9Aces, from our examination of the paleoclimate do you believe preclude human GHG emissions from warming the planet?

 

[WheelieAddict]

The most hilarious thing about this is the morons who denied the el nino will now claim that is why temps are up. Then when the la nina hits they will claim the lower than normal temps prove there is no warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yappity yap yap. So you say. And I am Napoleon's reincarnation, also. We are anonymous on this board, so we can claim anything. The subject is the very recent climate, and the effect it will have on the presently living humans and those that come after us. And we are not ignoring paleoclimatology. In fact, that is where we are learning about how serious the rapidity with which we are changing the present atmospheric composition can affect the climate we depend on for our existance.

To understand the present you must look to the past. You see many instances of rapid change both positive, and negative, but you do not understand why they happened. So to try and use a micro-fraction of the data to come to a conclusion you've determined is certain is foolish.

You cannot separate the past from the present, no matter how hard you try.

You are the one trying to ignore the past. Trying to ignore the North American large mammal extinction from the rapid climate changes at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas, trying to ignore the worldwide extinctions at other times of rapid climate change.

Here, learn something

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

Paleoclimatology: The Oxygen Balance : Feature Articles

And there is far more available.

 

[Crick]

Only the IPCC and their drones will cite that number.. it's the only organization where the predictions become more certain when the error bars widen out..

Really? Do you believe the IPCC invented 2 sigma? I suppose someone with your qualifications in atmospheric physics might believe such a thing.

 

[9aces]

Yappity yap yap. So you say. And I am Napoleon's reincarnation, also. We are anonymous on this board, so we can claim anything. The subject is the very recent climate, and the effect it will have on the presently living humans and those that come after us. And we are not ignoring paleoclimatology. In fact, that is where we are learning about how serious the rapidity with which we are changing the present atmospheric composition can affect the climate we depend on for our existance.

To understand the present you must look to the past. You see many instances of rapid change both positive, and negative, but you do not understand why they happened. So to try and use a micro-fraction of the data to come to a conclusion you've determined is certain is foolish.

You cannot separate the past from the present, no matter how hard you try.

You are the one trying to ignore the past. Trying to ignore the North American large mammal extinction from the rapid climate changes at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas, trying to ignore the worldwide extinctions at other times of rapid climate change.

Here, learn something

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

Paleoclimatology: The Oxygen Balance : Feature Articles

And there is far more available.

It'd probably help your case a lot if I wasn't the guy who points to that period, the Silurian, the Eocene, etc.

Consistently.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, Aces, it is simply that you have had no teaching at all in statistics. 2 sigma

An analyst doesn't know statistics....that's funny son.

An ancestor of mine once said "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics". Like any good analyst, I can take your numbers and make them sound like anything. All I have to do is select what data to use.

Which is why I've consistently said you're trying to solve a problem with 0.0004% of the information you need to do it with.

An analyst of what, silly ass? You have shown absolutely no knowledge of science or math in your posting. You have to start demonstrating at least a minimal acquaintance with those subjects in order to have any credibility. Might be smart to back you claims with links to credible sources, also.

Now this post is funny as hell... Old Fraud is a lying his ass off and now claims others are not scientific or scientists..

Speaking of minimal knowledge of the subject, your the epitome of one..

 

[MaryL]

Almost every winter here in Denver over the last 20 years has gotten a little warmer and a little drier, and this last winter especially. Something is screwy with the weather, that is a observable fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmest March 13th 8PM Ever!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is the number of experiments showing a 120PPM increase in CO2 raising temperature 2C still pinned at zero?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Almost every winter here in Denver over the last 20 years has gotten a little warmer and a little drier, and this last winter especially. Something is screwy with the weather, that is a observable fact.

Quick, let's spend a trillion, to unscrew the Denver weather.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is why I refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG.

That's Wild Ass Guesses for the clueless.

What is: why you "refer to all their "conclusions" as nothing more than WAG"?

"We think"
"It might"
"It's possible"

They won't tell you "it's going to do XXXX" Because they can't, so they guess.

It happened and it is a fact. There's no guess work about last month.