Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?
It is true!
No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!
There's not really any such thing as "scientific proof".
Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..
The father of the "AGW movement" died in 1927.
James Hansen is still alive and you have not provided a link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..
Svante Arrhenius published the first paper on CO2 and the greenhouse effect in the 1890's.
Source code? You want a computer program now?
No Hansen is the farther of the AGW movement..
And yes they need to present the real science with datasets and source code.
And yes Computers are the new way of doing things incase you haven't noticed. Especially in the AGW predictions..
But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.
Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.
Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.
Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.
It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.
And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)
That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.
A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.
There's that word again.
And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly.
Alas, you make the same mistake as you did last time: commenting on a post you didn't actually read. If you had, you would have come across this portion:
"(Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)"
It is true!
No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!
There's not really any such thing as "scientific proof".
Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..
The father of the "AGW movement" died in 1927.
James Hansen is still alive and you have not provided a link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate..
Svante Arrhenius published the first paper on CO2 and the greenhouse effect in the 1890's.
Source code? You want a computer program now?
No Hansen is the farther of the AGW movement..
And yes they need to present the real science with datasets and source code.
And yes Computers are the new way of doing things incase you haven't noticed. Especially in the AGW predictions..
You can get the source to Hansen's model online. Do I need to hold your fucking hand like a 5 year old and show you how or are you capable of doing your own research like a fucking grown up?
Nope. Not the hockey stick problem, which measures from 1400 to present. But the ice core record, which measures 800,000 to present.
OMG!!!!Well, Trees approach has the benefit of at least acknowledging Climate Change and the effects of CO2......disputing only the degree of change and other factors.
The problem is that many of these factors are interdependent. Take the ocean currents as they exist now. Many are based on a particular degree of salination of water near Antarctica. It acts as the primary engine of sea convection,.drawing water downward due to its higher density. However, small changes in temperature due to CO2 can melt ice sheets which pour enormous quantities of fresh water directly into the convection belts, diluting the salination process that drives them.
This can have dramatic impacts on the distribution of heat from the oceans. Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.
There's also the snow balling effects of methane. There's huge quantities of methane in deep water and permafrost. But its locked up because of the low temperatures. Raise the temperatures even a little and you get periods of defrosting of some permafrost. And the release of massive amounts of methane. Methane is a hugely efficient greenhouse gas in its own right. Its release will only speed the process of further warming.
Hansen has no source code on-line..
so be quiet!Unprecedented. Except for all the previous times in Earth's history when it was 400 PPM or much, much higher.
You need to actually read the article, not just the headline:
Specifically, the passage 'the first time that has happened for an entire month since record keeping first began'.
Denialists don't like to read, they like to talk.
I have as much proof that climate change is bullshit as the Libtards have that Hillary would make a good President.100% of a fart in a windstorm.....
We know about how much fossil fuel has be burned over the past 200 years or so. Its very basic math and chemistry to show that the amount of Co2 released from burning that fuel is in excess of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Sorry, but have you not already done this exercise yourself? You must have just started studying climate science 5 minutes ago.
Nope. Not the hockey stick problem, which measures from 1400 to present. But the ice core record, which measures 800,000 to present.
The ice core record for the last 800,000 years shows our current interglacial period to be going as expected, though slightly on the cool side with sea levels 20 feet lower. If you go by the Vostok record, we're due for an 85,000 year cooling period.
In the meantime, despite the fact that we're emitting 10 times more carbon into the atmosphere than we were 100 years ago, global temps have stabilized. Even if you put credence into the subjective NOAA/NASA study that concluded 2014 to be the hottest ever recorded*, it's in a statistical tie with 1998 and 2010 and a couple of other years. I
I have as much proof that climate change is bullshit as the Libtards have that Hillary would make a good President.100% of a fart in a windstorm.....
We know about how much fossil fuel has be burned over the past 200 years or so. Its very basic math and chemistry to show that the amount of Co2 released from burning that fuel is in excess of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Sorry, but have you not already done this exercise yourself? You must have just started studying climate science 5 minutes ago.
Most of the increase is attributed to the Hot Air being exhausted through the bloviating of AGW cult members.
We've actually burned more than enough fossil fuel to account for the increase.
Hansen has no source code on-line..
You didn't even look you fucking hack. It took me THREE MINUTES to find it.
http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/modelE2_AR5_branch.2015.05.12_07.50.01.tgz
Nope. Not the hockey stick problem, which measures from 1400 to present. But the ice core record, which measures 800,000 to present.
The ice core record for the last 800,000 years shows our current interglacial period to be going as expected, though slightly on the cool side with sea levels 20 feet lower. If you go by the Vostok record, we're due for an 85,000 year cooling period.
Making the warming period all the most unlikely to be a grand coincidence. Given the increases in CO2, the increases in Methane, the increases in atmpospheric infrared emissions of CO2 and Methane, and the upward trendline in temperature all happening at the same time we pump unprecidented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere...
..can we at least agree that its ridiculously unlikely that its a coincidence. As even with the Muller analysis, temperature spikes like we're experiencing are relatively rare. That they would coincide with all those other rare factors listed above (with 400ppm CO2 levels having occurred once in 3,000,000 years) by random chance is uselessly unlikely.
Making the 'grand coincidence theory an awful explanation. As in addition to be fantastically implausible, it also lacks a demonstrable mechanism. While the CO2 explanation matches the evidence, is orders of magnitude more likely, and has a demonstrable mechanism.
In the meantime, despite the fact that we're emitting 10 times more carbon into the atmosphere than we were 100 years ago, global temps have stabilized. Even if you put credence into the subjective NOAA/NASA study that concluded 2014 to be the hottest ever recorded*, it's in a statistical tie with 1998 and 2010 and a couple of other years. I
1998 was an obvious outlier, an enormous spike in temperature outside the trendline of temperature increases. Which is probably why you picked it as your baseline.
Which I'm pretty sure you know. And despite picking an outlier as your baseline, the trendline's upward trajectory is unmistakable
With the 10 warmest years on record being since 1998. That's not 'stabilization'. That's an upward trend.
Hansen has no source code on-line..
You didn't even look you fucking hack. It took me THREE MINUTES to find it.
http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/modelE2_AR5_branch.2015.05.12_07.50.01.tgz
Again that is not the source code and thus disproves that the Hansen source code is online.
Also Hansen has claimed that the source he did make available was a part of the source code that he used before Congress, then later claimed he no longer used said source code.
So once again the AGW cult proves that NO source code exists online to prove that CO2 drives climate..
The white Sun and the magnetic field of the Earth have more to do with driving climate than CO2..
I thought you would. That's why I worded it that way. GFY.I have as much proof that climate change is bullshit as the Libtards have that Hillary would make a good President.100% of a fart in a windstorm.....
We know about how much fossil fuel has be burned over the past 200 years or so. Its very basic math and chemistry to show that the amount of Co2 released from burning that fuel is in excess of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Sorry, but have you not already done this exercise yourself? You must have just started studying climate science 5 minutes ago.
I think you're saying the exact opposite of what you think you are saying. Fucking idiot.
Most of the increase is attributed to the Hot Air being exhausted through the bloviating of AGW cult members.
We've actually burned more than enough fossil fuel to account for the increase.
Wrong on every level the human contribution to CO2 levels is less than 1%..
I thought you would. That's why I worded it that way. GFY.I have as much proof that climate change is bullshit as the Libtards have that Hillary would make a good President.100% of a fart in a windstorm.....
We know about how much fossil fuel has be burned over the past 200 years or so. Its very basic math and chemistry to show that the amount of Co2 released from burning that fuel is in excess of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Sorry, but have you not already done this exercise yourself? You must have just started studying climate science 5 minutes ago.
I think you're saying the exact opposite of what you think you are saying. Fucking idiot.
But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.
Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.
Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.
Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.
It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.
And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)
That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.
A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.
Your proof of which is? Another one pulling numbers out of his asshole. Really, you expect us just to accept flap yap because you said so? Dumb.Most of the increase is attributed to the Hot Air being exhausted through the bloviating of AGW cult members.
We've actually burned more than enough fossil fuel to account for the increase.
Wrong on every level the human contribution to CO2 levels is less than 1%..
And you're a ****** from nawlins....you lose.I thought you would. That's why I worded it that way. GFY.I have as much proof that climate change is bullshit as the Libtards have that Hillary would make a good President.100% of a fart in a windstorm.....
We know about how much fossil fuel has be burned over the past 200 years or so. Its very basic math and chemistry to show that the amount of Co2 released from burning that fuel is in excess of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same period. Sorry, but have you not already done this exercise yourself? You must have just started studying climate science 5 minutes ago.
I think you're saying the exact opposite of what you think you are saying. Fucking idiot.
LOL! No, you're just an idiot!
