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.
Deniers: they ignore EVERYTHING.AGW Cult: they believe ANYTHING
Don't change the subject, it only highlights your desperation!Deniers: they ignore EVERYTHING.AGW Cult: they believe ANYTHING
Show me one experiment, search YouTube for one repeatable experiment that show a 100ppm addition of CO2 causing "Climate Change"
Don't change the subject, it only highlights your desperation!Deniers: they ignore EVERYTHING.
Show me one experiment, search YouTube for one repeatable experiment that show a 100ppm addition of CO2 causing "Climate Change"
DAy 4: CO2 Causes Global Warming which causes Climate Change.
DAy 4: CO2 Causes Global Warming which causes Climate Change.
That's entirely correct, CrazyFruitcake. The 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has produced is causing the observed global warming which is causing the various observed climate changes.
I think it is absolutely hilarious that you are too retarded to believe these very clear and well established facts.
Hint for the reality-impaired:PressTV - Sydney posts record heat as blazes threaten towns in Australia
Sydneys temperature reached 45.8 degrees Celsius (114.4 degrees Fahrenheit) at 2:55 p.m. local time on Thursday, raising fears of a new escalation in raging wildfires.
Quite simply, Sydney is melting today, said Corey Watts, regional projects manager at the Climate Institute, on Thursday.
This kind of weather cannot be taken lightly. These heat waves can have serious impacts on human health and wellbeing.
Meanwhile, Australias emergency services warned that wildfires are threatening several towns in the state of Victoria, the nations populous southeast region.
Stop shouting, you retard. Larger font doesn't mean you're right -- it just means you're an annoying prick.Dream on fool. CLIMATEGATE is real and there are at least another 100,000 bombshells waiting to be hurled. Why do you think the asshats are starting to reverse themselves? Hmmmmm smartguy?Climategate was a hoax swallowed only by the Misinformation Voters.
What happens in your deranged little denier cult fantasy world has no connection to the reality the rest of world inhabits. Including these imaginary "reversals" you prattle about. You are obviously impervious to the facts and you will probably cling to your myths and fantasies long after they make you a laughingstock among all who know you. As your posts have made you here, you poor, poor, deluded retard.
Getting back to reality and the topic of this thread, here is come material from a post I made on another thread that deals with the topic of this thread.
Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You dont have to search too hard to find a skeptics blog proclaiming that global warming stopped in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? Ive looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 19881992, 19931997, 19982002, and 20032007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years global warming has not stopped.
Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets
If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, its easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all - that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So whats the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.
There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one - as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear - take a look at the green diamonds.
Hint for the reality-impaired:PressTV - Sydney posts record heat as blazes threaten towns in Australia
Sydneys temperature reached 45.8 degrees Celsius (114.4 degrees Fahrenheit) at 2:55 p.m. local time on Thursday, raising fears of a new escalation in raging wildfires.
Quite simply, Sydney is melting today, said Corey Watts, regional projects manager at the Climate Institute, on Thursday.
This kind of weather cannot be taken lightly. These heat waves can have serious impacts on human health and wellbeing.
Meanwhile, Australias emergency services warned that wildfires are threatening several towns in the state of Victoria, the nations populous southeast region.
That's weather, not climate.
EVERYTHING is a symptom of climate change. The High Priests have declared it so.Hint for the reality-impaired:PressTV - Sydney posts record heat as blazes threaten towns in Australia
Sydneys temperature reached 45.8 degrees Celsius (114.4 degrees Fahrenheit) at 2:55 p.m. local time on Thursday, raising fears of a new escalation in raging wildfires.
Quite simply, Sydney is melting today, said Corey Watts, regional projects manager at the Climate Institute, on Thursday.
This kind of weather cannot be taken lightly. These heat waves can have serious impacts on human health and wellbeing.
Meanwhile, Australias emergency services warned that wildfires are threatening several towns in the state of Victoria, the nations populous southeast region.
That's weather, not climate.
Hint for the reality-challenged denier cultists:
Very long duration, continent spanning extreme heat waves are currently a symptom of climate change. Particularly when the number of such events around the world increases significantly, as it has in recent decades. Particularly when record setting hot temperatures outnumber record setting cold temperatures by more than three to one.
What is causing Australia's heatwave?
Does the country's record-breaking heatwave have something to do with climate change?
The Guardian
Posted by The Bureau of Meteorology
Monday 21 January 2013
EVERYTHING is a symptom of climate change. The High Priests have declared it so.Hint for the reality-impaired:
That's weather, not climate.
Hint for the reality-challenged denier cultists:
Very long duration, continent spanning extreme heat waves are currently a symptom of climate change. Particularly when the number of such events around the world increases significantly, as it has in recent decades. Particularly when record setting hot temperatures outnumber record setting cold temperatures by more than three to one.
What is causing Australia's heatwave?
Does the country's record-breaking heatwave have something to do with climate change?
The Guardian
Posted by The Bureau of Meteorology
Monday 21 January 2013
Oh, then you believe that global climate change will make the Buckeyes franchise leave Ohio?EVERYTHING is a symptom of climate change. The High Priests have declared it so.Hint for the reality-challenged denier cultists:
Very long duration, continent spanning extreme heat waves are currently a symptom of climate change. Particularly when the number of such events around the world increases significantly, as it has in recent decades. Particularly when record setting hot temperatures outnumber record setting cold temperatures by more than three to one.
What is causing Australia's heatwave?
Does the country's record-breaking heatwave have something to do with climate change?
The Guardian
Posted by The Bureau of Meteorology
Monday 21 January 2013
STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE are the symptoms of AGW denying cultists who have been duped by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign.
Don't change the subject, it only highlights your desperation!Deniers: they ignore EVERYTHING.
Show me one experiment, search YouTube for one repeatable experiment that show a 100ppm addition of CO2 causing "Climate Change"
DAy 4: CO2 Causes Global Warming which causes Climate Change.
That's entirely correct, CrazyFruitcake. The 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has produced is causing the observed global warming which is causing the various observed climate changes.
I think it is absolutely hilarious that you are too retarded to believe these very clear and well established facts.
Stop shouting, you retard. Larger font doesn't mean you're right -- it just means you're an annoying prick.Dream on fool. CLIMATEGATE is real and there are at least another 100,000 bombshells waiting to be hurled. Why do you think the asshats are starting to reverse themselves? Hmmmmm smartguy?
What happens in your deranged little denier cult fantasy world has no connection to the reality the rest of world inhabits. Including these imaginary "reversals" you prattle about. You are obviously impervious to the facts and you will probably cling to your myths and fantasies long after they make you a laughingstock among all who know you. As your posts have made you here, you poor, poor, deluded retard.
Getting back to reality and the topic of this thread, here is come material from a post I made on another thread that deals with the topic of this thread.
Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You dont have to search too hard to find a skeptics blog proclaiming that global warming stopped in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? Ive looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 19881992, 19931997, 19982002, and 20032007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years global warming has not stopped.
Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets
If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, its easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all - that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So whats the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.
There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one - as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear - take a look at the green diamonds.
I see you're as mathematically challenged as your high priestsDAy 4: CO2 Causes Global Warming which causes Climate Change.
That's entirely correct, CrazyFruitcake. The 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has produced is causing the observed global warming which is causing the various observed climate changes.
I think it is absolutely hilarious that you are too retarded to believe these very clear and well established facts.
Actually little retard, what you just saw was another of your idiotic myths getting debunked by an eminent climate scientist. I'm not really surprised that you are too retarded to comprehend that fact or that your response is once again completely void of meaning.Still trying to compensate I see!Dream on fool. CLIMATEGATE is real and there are at least another 100,000 bombshells waiting to be hurled. Why do you think the asshats are starting to reverse themselves? Hmmmmm smartguy?
What happens in your deranged little denier cult fantasy world has no connection to the reality the rest of world inhabits. Including these imaginary "reversals" you prattle about. You are obviously impervious to the facts and you will probably cling to your myths and fantasies long after they make you a laughingstock among all who know you. As your posts have made you here, you poor, poor, deluded retard.
Getting back to reality and the topic of this thread, here is come material from a post I made on another thread that deals with the topic of this thread.
Global Warming Since 1998
Duke University
by Dr. Bill Chameides - Duke University Professor, Dean of Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union .
October 28th, 2008
(excerpts)
You dont have to search too hard to find a skeptics blog proclaiming that global warming stopped in 1998. Oh happy day if it were true, but sadly it is not. Why do I say this? Ive looked at the data. Take a look at the graphic below, which shows the average global temperatures from 1990 to the present. The green diamonds show the 5-year averages for the periods from 19881992, 19931997, 19982002, and 20032007. Each successive diamond appears at a higher temperature than the one before. In other words, global temperatures have been increasing over the past 15+ years global warming has not stopped.
Global temperature trends since 1990. Solid line with small dots indicate the annual averages. The green diamonds indicate the 5-year averages. Data taken from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory: CDIAC Temperature Data Sets
If you look at the temperatures in the graphic year by year, its easy to see why someone might think that the warming has stopped. After all, there was a huge temperature maximum in 1998. Since then, only 2005 [and now 2010] had average temperatures equal to or perhaps slightly greater than those in 1998. Eyeballing temperatures from 1998 onward might lead to the inference that temperatures have not increased at all - that global warming has stopped. But wait. If you do the same eyeballing exercise starting in 1999 or 1996 you would conclude that there has been a rapid increase in temperatures. Moreover, if you were back in 1992 or 1993 and had done the same eyeballing exercise back to 1990, you would have concluded that global warming had stopped; and you would have been wrong. So whats the problem? It comes from a confusion between inter-annual and short-term temperature changes and the longer-term changes in temperatures that are relevant to the issue of climate change on decadal time scales.
There are any number of factors that cause global temperatures to rise and fall. Solar activity is one - as the sun goes through its 11-year sunspot cycle, solar radiation goes up and down causing global temperatures to fluctuate up and down. El Nino and La Nina oscillations in the South Pacific Ocean also lead to relatively warm years (El Nino) and cool years (La Nina). The years 1998 and 2005 are interesting to compare. Depending upon the method used to analyze the temperature data, scientists have concluded that either both years tied for the warmest temperatures on record or 2005 was slightly warmer (see here or here). That 1998 was unusually warm is not surprising. It was a year with an unusually strong El Nino and with the sun close to its 11-year maximum. By comparison, the sun in 2005 was near the minimum in its cycle, and the year began with a weak El Nino that dissipated by late spring. A reasonable explanation for 2005 being as warm or warmer than 1998 without the benefit of a solar maximum or strong El Nino includes warming from greenhouse gases. Global warming from greenhouse gases does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs simultaneously with other factors that affect global temperatures like solar variations and El Nino/La Nina oscillations. As I discussed in my previous posts in this series, these other factors can cause short-term ups and downs in global temperatures. But the question for global warming is whether they cause a net temperature change. To determine that, we filter out the short-term fluctuations by using longer term averages (such as the 5-year averages shown in the graphic), and when we do, the upward trend in global temperatures comes through loud and clear - take a look at the green diamonds.
I see you're as mathematically challenged as your high priestsThat's entirely correct, CrazyFruitcake. The 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has produced is causing the observed global warming which is causing the various observed climate changes.
I think it is absolutely hilarious that you are too retarded to believe these very clear and well established facts.
I see that you're as retarded as the CrazyFruitcake (and that ain't easy). And talk about "mathematically challenged".....LOLOLOLOL.
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
(source: NOAA)
Current CO2 levels - December 2012: 394.28 ppm
(source: NOAA)
394 minus 278 equals 116
116 (growth) divided by 278 (original value) equals 0.417 or a bit over 40% increase over pre-industrial levels.
You silly moron.
Big fucking deal. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!I see you're as mathematically challenged as your high priests
I see that you're as retarded as the CrazyFruitcake (and that ain't easy). And talk about "mathematically challenged".....LOLOLOLOL.
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
(source: NOAA)
Current CO2 levels - December 2012: 394.28 ppm
(source: NOAA)
394 minus 278 equals 116
116 (growth) divided by 278 (original value) equals 0.417 or a bit over 40% increase over pre-industrial levels.
You silly moron.
The poor ol' walleyedretard, like many of the denier cult nutjobs, is obsessed with the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" without understanding the meaning or realizing that a necessary word has been left out of that quote. The actual phrase used in science is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". There are actually many examples of things that not only correlate strongly but also have a causal relationship. Correlation between two things does not in any way imply that a causal relationship is impossible or even improbable. Climate scientists do not, of course, think that correlation proves causation but they are aware that some of the factors in the Earth's climate systems that are strongly correlated with other factors are, in fact, being caused by those other factors. Causation is determined by analyzing everything involved and not just by looking at correlations but the correlations often give a hint as to possible causal factors.
Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. [1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.
Use of correlation as scientific evidence
Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]
In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, or a risk factor and a disease.
Big fucking deal. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!I see that you're as retarded as the CrazyFruitcake (and that ain't easy). And talk about "mathematically challenged".....LOLOLOLOL.
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
(source: NOAA)
Current CO2 levels - December 2012: 394.28 ppm
(source: NOAA)
394 minus 278 equals 116
116 (growth) divided by 278 (original value) equals 0.417 or a bit over 40% increase over pre-industrial levels.
You silly moron.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......too funny.....you just got your ass handed to you again ("mathematically challenged"???) so you try to change the subject with another debunked denier cult slogan.....LOLOLOL....
How many times do we have to go over this.....every thread?....multiple times per thread?....I just educated you about this in post #134 on another thread but apparently it didn't sink in (of course, as usual) so let's try it again....try to pay attention this time, you poor deluded moron.....NOBODY is claiming that "correlation equals causation"....got that?....nobody!....however, you brainless buffoon, correlation does not preclude causation either....causation is determined using more evidence than just statistical correlation but there is obviously a strong correlation between events that are causally connected....(too bad that's probably over your head, walleyed)....the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is based on far, far more evidence than just the statistical correlation between increases in CO2 levels and increases in global average temperatures.....
The poor ol' walleyedretard, like many of the denier cult nutjobs, is obsessed with the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" without understanding the meaning or realizing that a necessary word has been left out of that quote. The actual phrase used in science is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". There are actually many examples of things that not only correlate strongly but also have a causal relationship. Correlation between two things does not in any way imply that a causal relationship is impossible or even improbable. Climate scientists do not, of course, think that correlation proves causation but they are aware that some of the factors in the Earth's climate systems that are strongly correlated with other factors are, in fact, being caused by those other factors. Causation is determined by analyzing everything involved and not just by looking at correlations but the correlations often give a hint as to possible causal factors.
Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. [1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.
Use of correlation as scientific evidence
Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]
In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, or a risk factor and a disease.
