So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?

[Crick]

Your first plot isn't even temperature.

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Your first plot isn't even temperature.

God are you stupid.

So I grabbed the wrong graph...the rest still prove my point...your discounting of the rest because of one demonstrates your stupidity...not mine...catch any misspellings, or punctuation errors while you were at it?...what a f'ing loser.

 

[polarbear]

So tell me thunder...where is it warming?

Everywhere that you didn't cherrypick from.

Do you really think your dishonest cherrypicking fools anyone?

Get a grip on reality. It's not cherry "picking", when there is almost nothing but cherries in the harvest then they weren't "picked". You on the other hand go sour grapes picking in a truckload of cherries or whatever else is the bulk.

 

[Old Rocks]

The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Sorry thunder...some places are warming slightly...others are cooling...some are static..the "globe" is only warming in computer models and tortured global data sets.

That's your denier cult insanity.....like flat-earthers insisting that humans never landed on the moon.

That's all you have thunder?....

Yup! Science, evidence, and the almost unanimous testimony of the world scientific community.

NASA - Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change

Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates.


A line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change, with the base period 1951-1980, derived from the meteorological station network.

So tell me thunder...where is it warming?

Where? Most places on the Earth. Like here....



NOAA: 'Arctic Is Warming at Least Twice as Fast as the Rest of the Planet'
Dec. 14, 2016
The Arctic broke multiple climate records and saw its highest temperatures ever recorded this year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) annual Arctic Report Card released Tuesday.

Map: Temperatures across the Arctic from October 2015-September 2016 compared to the 1981-2010 average. Graph: Yearly temperatures since 1900 compared to the 1981-2010 average for the Arctic (orange line) and the globe (gray).NOAA

The report shows surface air temperature in September at the highest level since 1900 "by far" and the region set new monthly record highs in January, February, October and November. "The Arctic as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the planet," report author and NOAA climate scientist Jeremy Mathis told NPR.

Report Card Highlights

* The average surface air temperature for the year ending September 2016 is by far the highest since 1900 and new monthly record highs were recorded for January, February, October and November 2016.

* After only modest changes from 2013-2015, minimum sea ice extent at the end of summer 2016 tied with 2007 for the second lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1979.

* Spring snow cover extent in the North American Arctic was the lowest in the satellite record, which started in 1967.

* In 37 years of Greenland ice sheet observations, only one year had earlier onset of spring melting than 2016.

* The Arctic Ocean is especially prone to ocean acidification, due to water temperatures that are colder than those further south. The short Arctic food chain leaves Arctic marine ecosystems vulnerable to ocean acidification events.

* Thawing permafrost releases carbon into the atmosphere, whereas greening tundra absorbs atmospheric carbon. Overall, tundra is presently releasing net carbon into the atmosphere.

* Small Arctic mammals, such as shrews, and their parasites, serve as indicators for present and historical environmental variability. Newly acquired parasites indicate northward sifts of sub-Arctic species and increases in Arctic biodiversity.

 

[SSDD]

The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.

Fake science...fake news...its all fake all the time with you rocks.

 

[SSDD]

Yup! Science, evidence, and the almost unanimous testimony of the world scientific community.

And you try to support your position with failing computer models, cartoons, and a tortured temperature data set...laughing in your face thunder...laughing because you are such a dupe.

 

[RollingThunder]

The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.

Fake science...fake news...its all fake all the time with you rocks.

LOLOLOLOL......good example of denier cult insanity!

These denier cult dumbshits are actually stupid and ignorant enough to believe in a deranged crackpot conspiracy theory that claims that almost all of the scientists in the world are in a huge conspiracy to generate "fake science".....and, of course, those retarded fools who fall for that garbage know nothing at all about science but somehow imagine that they know more about everything than all of the PhD scientists. INSANITY!!!

 

[polarbear]

The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.

Why then are satellite temperature readings disqualified as official recording methods?
List of weather records - Wikipedia
Each of these records is understood to be the record value officially observed, as these records may have been exceeded before modern weather instrumentation was invented, or in remote areas without an official weather station. This list does not include remotely sensed observations such as satellite measurements, since those values are not considered official records.[1]

Satellites measure ground temperature that may exceed air temperature by as much as 50 C, that's why !

The standard measuring conditions for temperature are in the air, 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) above the ground, and shielded from direct sunlight intensity (hence the term, x degrees "in the shade").

 

[polarbear]

World Meteorological Organization's World Weather & Climate Extremes Archive
The truth be told, world record extremes are mistakenly created all the time. For example a "fat finger" errors such as hand digitizing a 28.0°C as 82.0 would create a world record observation that every quality control system would say was invalid. Additionally, instrumentation problems can generate a report far in excess of the meteorological conditions. But sometimes a combination of fairly extreme meteorological conditions with minor instrumentation problems, such as calibration errors, can necessitate considerable detective work to determine whether a new world record observation was indeed valid or not. Since weather records are often used as indicators that the Earth's climate is changing and/or becoming more extreme, confirmation of new weather extreme records should be recognized as a high priority in the meteorology community.

Dollars to donuts the data which is used to graph these anomalies you like so much do not undergo the same kind of scrutiny.

 

[RollingThunder]

The reality is that the globe is warming. All the earth observing satellites of the various nations show that. All the weather agencies of the various nations show that. Only a few idiots deny it.

Why then are satellite temperature readings disqualified as official recording methods?

They aren't "disqualified", you poor ignorant nutjob.

The lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly, via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

List of weather records - Wikipedia
Each of these records is understood to be the record value officially observed, as these records may have been exceeded before modern weather instrumentation was invented, or in remote areas without an official weather station. This list does not include remotely sensed observations such as satellite measurements, since those values are not considered official records.[1]

Satellites measure ground temperature that may exceed air temperature by as much as 50 C, that's why !

The standard measuring conditions for temperature are in the air, 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) above the ground, and shielded from direct sunlight intensity (hence the term, x degrees "in the shade").

LOLOLOLOL.....and there goes ol' poop4brains, fumbling with science that he is far too stupid to understand....

 

[SSDD]

LOLOLOLOL.....and there goes ol' poop4brains, fumbling with science that he is far too stupid to understand....

Name calling and wiki...that about sums you up thunder...

 

[Crick]

All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science. You refuse to consider it. You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works. Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day. You should see one.

 

[SSDD]

All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science. You refuse to consider it. You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works. Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day. You should see one.

All you have shown me crick, is that you wouldn't know good science if it bit you on the ass...you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you are easily fooled by instrumentation...and that climate scientists are routinely fooled by instrumentation...that is not good science by any definition..

 

[polarbear]

All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science. You refuse to consider it. You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works. Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day. You should see one.

Not all the world's scientists have an inadequate knowledge & understanding of physics as climatologists.
All it takes to be one is what John Cook, the cartoonist & "skeptical scientist" did and assume the identity of a theoretical physicist to make a case for climate "science". Much like some "nuclear engineer" who keeps posting here

 

[Crick]

Do you believe that matter can control its own IR emissions so as to never radiate towards a warmer target?

 

[RollingThunder]

All of us here have repeatedly tried showing you good science. You refuse to consider it. You've made up your mind that you're smarter than all the world's scientists and that your unsupportable, irrational, illogical bullshit is the way the world works. Psychiatrists deal with such problems every day. You should see one.

Not all the world's scientists have an inadequate knowledge & understanding of physics as climatologists.

Pretty strange then how virtually all of the world's scientists affirm the conclusions of climate scientists.....the reality here is obviously that you are just an ignorant denier cult liar with way less than zero "knowledge & understanding of physics".

In the real world....

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[Crick]

To PolarBear

Do you believe that matter can control its own IR emissions so as to never radiate towards a warmer target?

Still waiting.

 

[mamooth]

All it takes to be one is what John Cook, the cartoonist & "skeptical scientist" did and assume the identity of a theoretical physicist to make a case for climate "science".

That's some fine Cook Derangement syndrome. John Cook never said he was a theoretical physicist. Why did you tell that lie?

My guess is that you hate how Cook's web page makes it so convenient to debunk denier lies. You can't debate the content, so you're attacking the man.

Much like some "nuclear engineer" who keeps posting here

Sad that you couldn't even insult me to my face, ya big ol' limp-wrister.

If you start this shit again, I'll immediately drag your fudgepacked ass over to the vets forum, and you can explain to all the vets here why you're spitting on my military service.

 

[SSDD]

If you start this shit again, I'll immediately drag your fudgepacked ass over to the vets forum, and you can explain to all the vets here why you're spitting on my military service.

Big talk from a bitter old liberal whore...

And the only thing john cook provides is comic relief....which you glassy eyed chanters promptly grab up and spread about. To bad none of you have a sense of humor...he gives you great punch line after great punch line and you inevitably screw them up...bad timing I guess..or maybe it is that you don't realize that you are telling a joke.