Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record

[ding]

Hilarious

You one dead ass stupid boi.

I’ve forgotten more science than either of you keyboard warriors ever knew.

 

[Crick]

Have you ever been published? I have.

Taking lessons from Billy Boy and Donald Trump?

 

[ding]

Taking lessons from Billy Boy and Donald Trump?

I’ve been published twice. How about you?

 

[Crick]

Take a look at the oxygen isotope curve and then tell me my analysis of a cooling planet is unfounded.

YOUR analysis? All the fuck you are doing is looking at temperature curves someone else made. That's not an "analysis", that's fucking reading "Dick and Jane".

Because from where I sit it's unfounded to say an incremental 120 PARTS PER MILLION OF A RELATIVELY WEAK GHG will reverse a 50 million year trend of a cooling planet.

1) "unfounded": Blatantly false since there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating precisely this point. What is unfounded is just about every contention you have ever placed before this forum. You have NEVER produced a published paper that agrees or even vaguely supports your central theses.
2) "incremental": The trend of increasing CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has not been incremental. I believe you simply don't understand what the word actually means. Do us a favor and look it up.
3) "120 parts per million": You seek to make this look like a small change. A more meaningful characterization of what has happened is to note that it is a 50% increase and the highest value in over 2.5 million years; more than twelve times the span of human existence.
4) "relatively weak GHG": By dint of its absorption spectrum and its atmospheric lifetime, CO2 cannot be objectively termed a "weak GHG" under any circumstances. Look at Venus. You can compare it to water vapor but you have to note that water vapor is dependent on warming, not vice versa. You can compare it to methane, but you have to note that its lifetime is roughly a tenth of CO2's or less.
5) "50 million year old trend": This is a type of mistake you have frequently made here: believing that a process such as the cooling of the Earth has inertia or momentum; that the Earth cannot be warming because the cooling has been underway for such an extended length of time. Like your contention that apparently spontaneous changes in ocean circulation are responsible for glacial-interglacial cycles, the manifest flaws in this claim display a really fundamental weakness in your knowledge of how the universe works. Events require causes. Nothing actually happens spontaneously. "Natural" does not mean what a lot of deniers here seem to think it means; an even not requiring causation or explanation.

 

[ding]

YOUR analysis? All the fuck you are doing is looking at temperature curves someone else made. That's not an "analysis", that's fucking reading "Dick and Jane".

1) "unfounded": Blatantly false since there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating precisely this point. What is unfounded is just about every contention you have ever placed before this forum. You have NEVER produced a published paper that agrees or even vaguely supports your central theses.
2) "incremental": The trend of increasing CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has not been incremental. I believe you simply don't understand what the word actually means. Do us a favor and look it up.
3) "120 parts per million": You seek to make this look like a small change. A more meaningful characterization of what has happened is to note that it is a 50% increase and the highest value in over 2.5 million years; more than twelve times the span of human existence.
4) "relatively weak GHG": By dint of its absorption spectrum and its atmospheric lifetime, CO2 cannot be objectively termed a "weak GHG" under any circumstances. Look at Venus. You can compare it to water vapor but you have to note that water vapor is dependent on warming, not vice versa. You can compare it to methane, but you have to note that its lifetime is roughly a tenth of CO2's or less.
5) "50 million year old trend": This is a type of mistake you have frequently made here: believing that a process such as the cooling of the Earth has inertia or momentum; that the Earth cannot be warming because the cooling has been underway for such an extended length of time. Like your contention that apparently spontaneous changes in ocean circulation are responsible for glacial-interglacial cycles, the manifest flaws in this claim display a really fundamental weakness in your knowledge of how the universe works. Events require causes. Nothing actually happens spontaneously. "Natural" does not mean what a lot of deniers here seem to think it means.

Can you walk me through the oxygen isotope curve and explain the climate changes it recorded?

 

[Crick]

I’ve been published twice. How about you?

Without revealing anything you don't want to reveal, give us a little more detail. What topic published in what sort of media?

 

[Crick]

Can you walk me through the oxygen isotope curve and explain the climate changes it recorded?

Oxygen 18 isotope is a proxy for temperature. That is common knowlede on this forum and if you think you're going to impress anyone here with that, you have simply made another in a long line of mistakes.