Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[PMZ]

Climate is the reaction to long term changes in the big energy picture for mother earth. Weather is the local process of energy balance being restored. Weather is never stable. Climate usually is.

 

[westwall]

Deniers lack one thing. They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW. Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.

No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around, now stops working.

No ideas even.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

 

[westwall]

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

That's true. Of course there are many trends going lower...the only trends going up seem
to be in urban areas.....how not shocking....

 

[westwall]

Climate is the reaction to long term changes in the big energy picture for mother earth. Weather is the local process of energy balance being restored. Weather is never stable. Climate usually is.

Usually? You're too funny.

 

[PMZ]

Climate is the reaction to long term changes in the big energy picture for mother earth. Weather is the local process of energy balance being restored. Weather is never stable. Climate usually is.

Usually? You're too funny.

Use your words. Speaking with pictures went away back in the cave days when your science also did.

 

[PMZ]

Yes, a 100 year local rain event is still a local rain event.

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

Deniers lack one thing. They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW. Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.

No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around, now stops working.

No ideas even.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

Deniers lack one thing. They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW. Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.

No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around, now stops working.

No ideas even.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

What do you believe?


I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

If you want to waste your own money to reduce your own "carbon footprint", feel free.
Your first step should be turning off your computer.
Your electricity probably comes from evil coal.

 

[PMZ]

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

What do you believe?


I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

If you want to waste your own money to reduce your own "carbon footprint", feel free.
Your first step should be turning off your computer.
Your electricity probably comes from evil coal.

Just what I've always said. AGW denial is based solely on politics and the absence of science.

What a stupid approach to solve technical problems.

 

[PMZ]

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

What do you believe?


I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

If you want to waste your own money to reduce your own "carbon footprint", feel free.
Your first step should be turning off your computer.
Your electricity probably comes from evil coal.

You apparently believe that spending money on recovery from extreme weather caused by AGW is a good investment. We believe that it's throwing good money thrown after bad.

And no matter what, we will run out of fossil fuels and have to move on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

What do you believe?


I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

If you want to waste your own money to reduce your own "carbon footprint", feel free.
Your first step should be turning off your computer.
Your electricity probably comes from evil coal.

Just what I've always said. AGW denial is based solely on politics and the absence of science.

What a stupid approach to solve technical problems.

Just what I've always said. AGW promotion is based solely on politics and the absence of science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

What do you believe?


I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

If you want to waste your own money to reduce your own "carbon footprint", feel free.
Your first step should be turning off your computer.
Your electricity probably comes from evil coal.

You apparently believe that spending money on recovery from extreme weather caused by AGW is a good investment. We believe that it's throwing good money thrown after bad.

And no matter what, we will run out of fossil fuels and have to move on.

You apparently believe that spending money on recovery from extreme weather caused by AGW is a good investment.

You apparently believe hurricanes didn't occur before global warming.
Ditto for droughts and floods.

Stop posting, you're KILLING the planet!!!

And no matter what, we will run out of fossil fuels and have to move on.

Let's build a bunch of thorium power plants.

 

[mamooth]

I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

 

[orogenicman]

I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

I see the green sin of envy spreading out over someone's jaw. Hoo-haw!

 

[IanC]

I believe that giving idiot politicians, I repeat myself, like Al Gore more power over the economy is a really, really bad idea.

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

Its funny how these hypocritical clown fawned over Gore, praised his winning a Nobel and an Oscar, and practically made it manditory for students to watch AIT in school. But now he is off limits for discussion.

Every new study is proclaimed definitive proof of global warming but when they are shown to be exaggerated and faulty, it doesn't matter because they are just a small piece of a large pile of evidence. What warmers don't realize is that almost all of these studies are exaggerated and faulty when examined closely.

 

[PMZ]

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

Its funny how these hypocritical clown fawned over Gore, praised his winning a Nobel and an Oscar, and practically made it manditory for students to watch AIT in school. But now he is off limits for discussion.

Every new study is proclaimed definitive proof of global warming but when they are shown to be exaggerated and faulty, it doesn't matter because they are just a small piece of a large pile of evidence. What warmers don't realize is that almost all of these studies are exaggerated and faulty when examined closely.

If only there was some theory or evidence that demonstrated even the possibility of some response to increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs other than AGW.

 

[PMZ]

One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.

So it's a match up between truth and lies.

As many here prefer what the liars promise to what the truth predicts, it's an uphill battle for AGW.

 

[westwall]

Not quite O-man.. A 100 yr rain event is a statistical occurence.. Happens once (on average) every 100 years. But what we see in that graph is a 100 yr trend.

What you see is a 100 year trend in one locality. Look at another locality and you might get a different 100 year trend. That is why it is called weather (or local climate, if you will). Until you add up all the local trends, you aren't seeing the global picture. That is why it is called global warming, not local warming.

Deniers lack one thing. They have nothing as even a hypothesis that explains how higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs don't cause AGW. Their only game is the old defense attorney trick of creating some doubt about the credibility of the 'witnesses' or the evidence.

No explanation at all of why something that nobody questions worked since earth has been around, now stops working.

No ideas even.

That's because we don't need to. YOU are the ones who need to prove your theory. You haven't and you can't. I gave you a hypothesis for the CO2 rise...it is an artifice of the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the Vostock records show a 400 to 800 year lag in CO2 rise after a global warming period.

You seem to change your story daily.

What do you believe?

1) that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2?

2) that CO2 doesn't end up in the atmosphere?

3) that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

4) that the earth hasn't been warmed by greenhouse gasses since the beginning?

5) that the atmospheric concentration of GHGs hasn't risen in proportion to fossil fuel use.

6) that restricting energy out of the earth system by redirecting it back to earth does not create energy imbalance?

7) that weather is not the process of the earth dealing with energy imbalance either locally or globally?

Tell us what you believe and what evidence supports that.

The deluded leading the blind! The only people to have changed their story is you fraudsters! Global Warming.... gave way to Climate Change....gave way to Global Climate Disruption.....gave way to Biodiversity Attack....etc. etc. etc.

You guys have changed your story so many times no one even knows what you are talking about anymore....much less YOU!

 

[westwall]

One of the global problems with AGW is that scientists are specialists in facts and politicians are specialists in lying.

So it's a match up between truth and lies.

As many here prefer what the liars promise to what the truth predicts, it's an uphill battle for AGW.

You fraudsters have had the POLITICIANS and the MEDIA in your pockets for 30 years. It is indicative of the failure of your fraud that even with unrequited support you have still lost the battle for the minds of the people. Science eventually won out over fraud.

 

[westwall]

The Gore Rule: First person to bring up Al Gore a global warming discussion loses.

If a person on any side brings up Gore, you know you're listening to a political crank. Those who can discuss the issues, do. Those who can't, yammer about Al Gore.

He does make your side look silly.

I can see why you'd rather not discuss him.

He did make it possible for later, no talent assclowns to win the Nobel Peace Prize (cough...Obama...cough).

I see the green sin of envy spreading out over someone's jaw. Hoo-haw!

No, that's called pity. Pity that a once great organization has sold its soul....