France record temperature.....more fakery!!

[SSDD]

Fine, then give a credible hypothesis that explains the current changes?

Natural variability...ice core, and numerous other proxy study have shown temperature changes happening which are far greater in magnitude than any change we have seen and those changes have happened more quickly than any change we have seen.

We KNOW that humans have dramatically have increased the rate of which this gas is released in the atmosphere.

Actually, we know no such thing. Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

We know the earth is warming. What's the unknown here in your opinion?

The fact is that the pause is real and has been going on for about 2 decades now...the surface record is heavily homogenized, infilled, and manipulated in order to claim a warmest temperature ever by a hundredth of a degree...on average, there is one temperature data station for every 10,000 square miles or so.....what do you think the "average" temperature really means on a planet on which the maximum and minimum temperature on any given day spans 200 degrees?

And the unknown are so great that we really don't even know where to start...For example, the TSI of the sun is relatively constant...but the output in any particular wavelength varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, century to century...what effect does each particular wavelength have on our climate...and how do changes in particular wavelengths alter our climate...The fact is that we are just beginning to scratch the surface in regard to what we know about our climate and what drives it..

And do note that I am not trying to pass of 20 year old studies as if they mean something today...

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is a far simpler way to disprove Forkup's BS.. The AGW hypothesis requires the presence of a mid tropospheric hot spot.

The models that predict man made warming fail empirical review thus the hypothesis is falsified. The region that they say should be warming is actually cooling with increased CO2 concentrations. The models fail with 100% certainty. Thus those crating them do not understand the system with enough clarity to mimic the system.

There is no reason to believe any of the BS the alarmists put forth.

 

[SSDD]

And look...yet another published paper finding that humans are not the ones causing CO2 to rise..

Reality and observation are bearing out the findings of the ice core studies...that CO2 is the result of temperature increases...not the cause.

What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO₂: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations :: Science Publishing Group

Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”


There is a reason that the estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 is trending towards zero...it is only in failing climate models that CO2 has an impact on the climate...out here in the real world, observation tells us that climate has an impact on CO2...not the other way around...

 

[Taz]

It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?

Put a few more weather stations in parking lots and the average temperature will be even higher!

No, I'm saying that no matter where you put it, if it records its highest temp ever, that can mean something.

 

[Taz]

News Flash! It gets hot in summer!

You will notice that all of the climate crusaders are people who just for some reason tend to the hysterical. They see the same violent thunderstorm we've all been seeing for decades and immediately pivot to "This must be climate change!". Come next winter, go to the local supermarket and find the customer loading up 3 baskets of food with a 6 inch snowstorm approaching. Dollar to a thousand stale donuts that person is a climate crusader like Taz.....they just navigate life waiting for the house to fall out of the sky on top of them.

My neighbor across the street.........same thing. Climate crusader........strides over when he see's some gun range targets Ive put up in my garage. Freaked him out......was like he was having a panic attack. That's how these people are.....just prone to being suckered by bomb throwers.

They see the same violent thunderstorm we've all been seeing for decades and immediately pivot to "This must be climate change!".

So a "climate crusader" is dumb for using a thunderstorm to affirm climate change. But a climate change denier can use a single heat record to deny it?
Do you see any problem here at all?

Us skeptics generally mention to you climate crusaders that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...and the generally ask for something simple like a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and you people never seem to be able to mange even a single piece of such evidence to support your position....we are skeptics because there simply is no actual evidence to support the claims...but feel free to prove me wrong...show me some actual observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Climate crusaders are dumb for being so gullible that they swallow a piss poor hypothesis like the AGW hypothesis when there is not any actual evidence to support it...and the tragic thing is that they don't seem to know that there is no actual evidence to support it...Hell, I bet you are thinking to yourself that there is plenty of evidence....and you probably even think you have seen some...but you aren't going to be able to show even a single piece because in reality...no such evidence exists...so in the end, the best you will be able to do is offer up some lame excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence.

There are tons of papers on the subject. Going from sea level measurements. To ice core data. To simple temperature measurements. Just one example. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Natural variations don't account for the rapidity of the changes. Natural variations can be traced. Solar activity, volcanic activity, earth rotation around its axis nothing fits the current changes. Except that is one.... human activity.
See science does measure quantify and look for evidence. The way I see it simply denying without providing a decent hypothesis to explain the data is faith.
You will find not a SINGLE climatologist or Oceanoligist who denies climate change and you will find few if any, in any other branch of science. What do you think it means that climate change denying finds no credible champions among those that actually research it?

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?

Put a few more weather stations in parking lots and the average temperature will be even higher!

No, I'm saying that no matter where you put it, if it records its highest temp ever, that can mean something.

When the temperatures of surrounding stations are 1.9 deg C lower than a station, there is a problem that needs to be investigated. This station is routinely 1.6-2.1 deg C above surrounding stations during the day and cools to baseline of those stations at night. This indicates a bias induced by station placement and its surroundings or structure..

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?

Put a few more weather stations in parking lots and the average temperature will be even higher!

No, I'm saying that no matter where you put it, if it records its highest temp ever, that can mean something.

When the temperatures of surrounding stations are 1.9 deg C lower than a station, there is a problem that needs to be investigated. This station is routinely 1.6-2.1 deg C above surrounding stations during the day and cools to baseline of those stations at night. This indicates a bias induced by station placement and its surroundings or structure..

It doesn't matter, they'd just fudge the data anyway. The entire thing is a scam

 

[Billy_Bob]

Averages all point up.

Only in altered data sets. Empirical observations, unaltered, show cooling since 1998. GLOBALLY!

 

[Taz]

Averages all point up.

Only in altered data sets. Empirical observations, unaltered, show cooling since 1998.

Got a link? I'd be interested to read that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Averages all point up.

Only in altered data sets. Empirical observations, unaltered, show cooling since 1998.

Got a link? I'd be interested to read that.

The empirical data can be seen at US-CRN. The only site we can still get this information in the public domain. Station Data archives were restricted when Karl Et Al was disproved by the data at NOAA and they obtained a huge black eye due to its data falsification/tampering. Fortunately for us, there are private aggregators of this data as it is sent to NOAA by governmental watch dogs that had to go to court to obtain this access.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/

Everything you can get today is filtered by the Karl Et Al modeling program.

 

[SSDD]

You will notice that all of the climate crusaders are people who just for some reason tend to the hysterical. They see the same violent thunderstorm we've all been seeing for decades and immediately pivot to "This must be climate change!". Come next winter, go to the local supermarket and find the customer loading up 3 baskets of food with a 6 inch snowstorm approaching. Dollar to a thousand stale donuts that person is a climate crusader like Taz.....they just navigate life waiting for the house to fall out of the sky on top of them.

My neighbor across the street.........same thing. Climate crusader........strides over when he see's some gun range targets Ive put up in my garage. Freaked him out......was like he was having a panic attack. That's how these people are.....just prone to being suckered by bomb throwers.

They see the same violent thunderstorm we've all been seeing for decades and immediately pivot to "This must be climate change!".

So a "climate crusader" is dumb for using a thunderstorm to affirm climate change. But a climate change denier can use a single heat record to deny it?
Do you see any problem here at all?

Us skeptics generally mention to you climate crusaders that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...and the generally ask for something simple like a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and you people never seem to be able to mange even a single piece of such evidence to support your position....we are skeptics because there simply is no actual evidence to support the claims...but feel free to prove me wrong...show me some actual observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Climate crusaders are dumb for being so gullible that they swallow a piss poor hypothesis like the AGW hypothesis when there is not any actual evidence to support it...and the tragic thing is that they don't seem to know that there is no actual evidence to support it...Hell, I bet you are thinking to yourself that there is plenty of evidence....and you probably even think you have seen some...but you aren't going to be able to show even a single piece because in reality...no such evidence exists...so in the end, the best you will be able to do is offer up some lame excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence.

There are tons of papers on the subject. Going from sea level measurements. To ice core data. To simple temperature measurements. Just one example. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Natural variations don't account for the rapidity of the changes. Natural variations can be traced. Solar activity, volcanic activity, earth rotation around its axis nothing fits the current changes. Except that is one.... human activity.
See science does measure quantify and look for evidence. The way I see it simply denying without providing a decent hypothesis to explain the data is faith.
You will find not a SINGLE climatologist or Oceanoligist who denies climate change and you will find few if any, in any other branch of science. What do you think it means that climate change denying finds no credible champions among those that actually research it?

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

 

[Taz]

So a "climate crusader" is dumb for using a thunderstorm to affirm climate change. But a climate change denier can use a single heat record to deny it?
Do you see any problem here at all?

Us skeptics generally mention to you climate crusaders that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...and the generally ask for something simple like a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and you people never seem to be able to mange even a single piece of such evidence to support your position....we are skeptics because there simply is no actual evidence to support the claims...but feel free to prove me wrong...show me some actual observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Climate crusaders are dumb for being so gullible that they swallow a piss poor hypothesis like the AGW hypothesis when there is not any actual evidence to support it...and the tragic thing is that they don't seem to know that there is no actual evidence to support it...Hell, I bet you are thinking to yourself that there is plenty of evidence....and you probably even think you have seen some...but you aren't going to be able to show even a single piece because in reality...no such evidence exists...so in the end, the best you will be able to do is offer up some lame excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence.

There are tons of papers on the subject. Going from sea level measurements. To ice core data. To simple temperature measurements. Just one example. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Natural variations don't account for the rapidity of the changes. Natural variations can be traced. Solar activity, volcanic activity, earth rotation around its axis nothing fits the current changes. Except that is one.... human activity.
See science does measure quantify and look for evidence. The way I see it simply denying without providing a decent hypothesis to explain the data is faith.
You will find not a SINGLE climatologist or Oceanoligist who denies climate change and you will find few if any, in any other branch of science. What do you think it means that climate change denying finds no credible champions among those that actually research it?

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

 

[SSDD]

Us skeptics generally mention to you climate crusaders that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...and the generally ask for something simple like a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and you people never seem to be able to mange even a single piece of such evidence to support your position....we are skeptics because there simply is no actual evidence to support the claims...but feel free to prove me wrong...show me some actual observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Climate crusaders are dumb for being so gullible that they swallow a piss poor hypothesis like the AGW hypothesis when there is not any actual evidence to support it...and the tragic thing is that they don't seem to know that there is no actual evidence to support it...Hell, I bet you are thinking to yourself that there is plenty of evidence....and you probably even think you have seen some...but you aren't going to be able to show even a single piece because in reality...no such evidence exists...so in the end, the best you will be able to do is offer up some lame excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence.

There are tons of papers on the subject. Going from sea level measurements. To ice core data. To simple temperature measurements. Just one example. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Natural variations don't account for the rapidity of the changes. Natural variations can be traced. Solar activity, volcanic activity, earth rotation around its axis nothing fits the current changes. Except that is one.... human activity.
See science does measure quantify and look for evidence. The way I see it simply denying without providing a decent hypothesis to explain the data is faith.
You will find not a SINGLE climatologist or Oceanoligist who denies climate change and you will find few if any, in any other branch of science. What do you think it means that climate change denying finds no credible champions among those that actually research it?

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

Sorry guy...it wasn't...which leads into the fakery involved in the surface temperature record...the fact is that the earth has not yet warmed up to the average temperature that existed at the onset of the little ice age. All this gnashing of teeth over the "hottest evah" temperatures is nothing more than a response to data tampering which result in an apparent temperature that is 1/100th of a degree over the previous year...

It is pure unadulterated bullshit...do you really believe anything like a real average temperature can be derived when at present, on average there is one data collection station for every 10,000 square miles and a large percentage of those are in urban areas measuring a heat island effect...and all this happening on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200 degrees?..and then on top of that, the "hottest evah" temperatures are expressed in terms of anomalies of a very short time span rather than being given in actual temperatures?

Are you really unable to see the sheer absurdity of believing anything such a record might provide?

 

[Taz]

There are tons of papers on the subject. Going from sea level measurements. To ice core data. To simple temperature measurements. Just one example. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Natural variations don't account for the rapidity of the changes. Natural variations can be traced. Solar activity, volcanic activity, earth rotation around its axis nothing fits the current changes. Except that is one.... human activity.
See science does measure quantify and look for evidence. The way I see it simply denying without providing a decent hypothesis to explain the data is faith.
You will find not a SINGLE climatologist or Oceanoligist who denies climate change and you will find few if any, in any other branch of science. What do you think it means that climate change denying finds no credible champions among those that actually research it?

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

Sorry guy...it wasn't...which leads into the fakery involved in the surface temperature record...the fact is that the earth has not yet warmed up to the average temperature that existed at the onset of the little ice age. All this gnashing of teeth over the "hottest evah" temperatures is nothing more than a response to data tampering which result in an apparent temperature that is 1/100th of a degree over the previous year...

It is pure unadulterated bullshit...do you really believe anything like a real average temperature can be derived when at present, on average there is one data collection station for every 10,000 square miles and a large percentage of those are in urban areas measuring a heat island effect...and all this happening on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200 degrees?..and then on top of that, the "hottest evah" temperatures are expressed in terms of anomalies of a very short time span rather than being given in actual temperatures?

Are you really unable to see the sheer absurdity of believing anything such a record might provide?

I just gave you proof.

You appear to be deranged mentally. Sorry, I can't help you. I wish I could.

 

[SSDD]

Here some satellite records looking at june...

The fact is that the pause is still alive and well...and whatever 100th of a degree of warming you believe in is the result of data manipulation...not actual warming...

 

[Third Party]

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

Sorry guy...it wasn't...which leads into the fakery involved in the surface temperature record...the fact is that the earth has not yet warmed up to the average temperature that existed at the onset of the little ice age. All this gnashing of teeth over the "hottest evah" temperatures is nothing more than a response to data tampering which result in an apparent temperature that is 1/100th of a degree over the previous year...

It is pure unadulterated bullshit...do you really believe anything like a real average temperature can be derived when at present, on average there is one data collection station for every 10,000 square miles and a large percentage of those are in urban areas measuring a heat island effect...and all this happening on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200 degrees?..and then on top of that, the "hottest evah" temperatures are expressed in terms of anomalies of a very short time span rather than being given in actual temperatures?

Are you really unable to see the sheer absurdity of believing anything such a record might provide?

I just gave you proof.

You appear to be deranged mentally. Sorry, I can't help you. I wish I could.

Well, thank you for sharing.

 

[SSDD]

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

Sorry guy...it wasn't...which leads into the fakery involved in the surface temperature record...the fact is that the earth has not yet warmed up to the average temperature that existed at the onset of the little ice age. All this gnashing of teeth over the "hottest evah" temperatures is nothing more than a response to data tampering which result in an apparent temperature that is 1/100th of a degree over the previous year...

It is pure unadulterated bullshit...do you really believe anything like a real average temperature can be derived when at present, on average there is one data collection station for every 10,000 square miles and a large percentage of those are in urban areas measuring a heat island effect...and all this happening on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200 degrees?..and then on top of that, the "hottest evah" temperatures are expressed in terms of anomalies of a very short time span rather than being given in actual temperatures?

Are you really unable to see the sheer absurdity of believing anything such a record might provide?

I just gave you proof.

You appear to be deranged mentally. Sorry, I can't help you. I wish I could.

An opinion piece from a liberal newspaper constitutes proof in your mind? Little wonder you have been duped... It is always interesting to see what passes for proof in the minds of people who have bought into pseudoscience....or any other scam for that matter....thanks fo the insight.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Us skeptics generally mention to you climate crusaders that to date, there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...and the generally ask for something simple like a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and you people never seem to be able to mange even a single piece of such evidence to support your position....we are skeptics because there simply is no actual evidence to support the claims...but feel free to prove me wrong...show me some actual observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

Climate crusaders are dumb for being so gullible that they swallow a piss poor hypothesis like the AGW hypothesis when there is not any actual evidence to support it...and the tragic thing is that they don't seem to know that there is no actual evidence to support it...Hell, I bet you are thinking to yourself that there is plenty of evidence....and you probably even think you have seen some...but you aren't going to be able to show even a single piece because in reality...no such evidence exists...so in the end, the best you will be able to do is offer up some lame excuse for not being able to provide any such evidence.

There are tons of papers on the subject. Going from sea level measurements. To ice core data. To simple temperature measurements. Just one example. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 Natural variations don't account for the rapidity of the changes. Natural variations can be traced. Solar activity, volcanic activity, earth rotation around its axis nothing fits the current changes. Except that is one.... human activity.
See science does measure quantify and look for evidence. The way I see it simply denying without providing a decent hypothesis to explain the data is faith.
You will find not a SINGLE climatologist or Oceanoligist who denies climate change and you will find few if any, in any other branch of science. What do you think it means that climate change denying finds no credible champions among those that actually research it?

Climate change is real. Human effect on it is still unproven.

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

Wrong again....

Your source has no factual content... Above is empirical evidence that calls bull shit on your modeled source.

 

[SSDD]

yes taz...it might be funny if it weren't so sad....Imagine, thinking that an opinion piece in a news paper is scientific proof of anything...how sad is that?

 

[Taz]

Actually, since the onset of the industrial revolution, we've changed the composition of our atmosphere quite a bit.

Actually...no we haven't...recently I have posted at least 8 published studies which find that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small...you "know" that we have changed the composition of the atmosphere like you "know" that the emperors new clothes are simply lovely...it is a fiction. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variations in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

People who believe that we are adding a great deal of CO2 to the atmosphere are most always suffering from a lack of perspective and scale... A single cup of water is nothing to us, but a disaster of epic proportions to an ant colony. From the perspective of an individual, the amount of CO2 we produce must seem enormous....but alas, to the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 we produce is barely noticeable... Here, perhaps this will assist you in developing some sense of the scale involved...

June was the hottest ever recorded on Earth

Sorry guy...it wasn't...which leads into the fakery involved in the surface temperature record...the fact is that the earth has not yet warmed up to the average temperature that existed at the onset of the little ice age. All this gnashing of teeth over the "hottest evah" temperatures is nothing more than a response to data tampering which result in an apparent temperature that is 1/100th of a degree over the previous year...

It is pure unadulterated bullshit...do you really believe anything like a real average temperature can be derived when at present, on average there is one data collection station for every 10,000 square miles and a large percentage of those are in urban areas measuring a heat island effect...and all this happening on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200 degrees?..and then on top of that, the "hottest evah" temperatures are expressed in terms of anomalies of a very short time span rather than being given in actual temperatures?

Are you really unable to see the sheer absurdity of believing anything such a record might provide?

I just gave you proof.

You appear to be deranged mentally. Sorry, I can't help you. I wish I could.

An opinion piece from a liberal newspaper constitutes proof in your mind? Little wonder you have been duped... It is always interesting to see what passes for proof in the minds of people who have bought into pseudoscience....or any other scam for that matter....thanks fo the insight.

No, they are reporting on what a European satellite agency found. See how that works?