What has caused our global warming?

[Politico]

What has caused our global warming?

You see. There's thing thing called planets. When they revolve around a sun.......

 

[Abraham3]

It's a little hard to do by eyeball with such a large cycle in the data, but between the dip at 1900 and today, on your older graph, I get a range of 1360.6 to 1361.3 or 0.7 W,-2. On the newer graph I put up, over the same time period, I get a range of 1360.6 to 1361.0 or 0.4 Wm-2. Not a third, but definitely a reduction in the TSI increase. And neither one presents enough energy to have caused the observed warming. But then, you haven't yet applied your magic. Hop to it angry boy.

 

[PredFan]

The earth has been going through warming/cooling cycles for centuries. It's natural and not caused by anything unusual. I bet most of the folks living on the east coast and portions of the south consider the global warming alarmists to be lunatics. Just guessing though.

Centuries hell, for millennia. It has been warmer on this planet than it is now on several occasions. Long before coal fired plants and SUVs.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's a little hard to do by eyeball with such a large cycle in the data, but between the dip at 1900 and today, on your older graph, I get a range of 1360.6 to 1361.3 or 0.7 W,-2. On the newer graph I put up, over the same time period, I get a range of 1360.6 to 1361.0 or 0.4 Wm-2. Not a third, but definitely a reduction in the TSI increase. And neither one presents enough energy to have caused the observed warming. But then, you haven't yet applied your magic. Hop to it angry boy.

Eyeballs eh?? Did you READ The decription that came with your "updated" graph??
It explains the diff... Wouldn't expect you to understand what an "offset" meant technically tho.

Big dissappointment man..

 

[Abraham3]

Have you come to understand why its the relative change and not the absolute value that matters? Do you believe that your graph and my graph show the same relative change? No, they don't . So now exactly what was your point?

 

[IanC]

Warmers; this paused happened at the worse time that it could of happened for credibility.

perhaps you are looking at this bass-ackwards. if the coincidental warming of the 80's and 90's hadnt happened then we wouldnt have gone down this rabbit hole and squandered billions of dollars.

Trenberth's latest excuse is 'coincidence'. but why is it coincidence when reality goes against you guys but proof positive when it runs for you.

 

[westwall]

Have you come to understand why its the relative change and not the absolute value that matters? Do you believe that your graph and my graph show the same relative change? No, they don't . So now exactly what was your point?

You grasp at straws with the best of them!

 

[Abraham3]

No, that wasn't his point. His point was to make a desperate attempt to discredit the evidence before him. The behavior of the Earth's total solar irradiance (TSI) has simply NOT created enough of a forcing factor to have had any but the most trivial responsibility for the warming of the last 150 years. And FCT's postulated-but-so-far-completely-uncharacterized non-linear transfer function still has but a single advocate.

 

[Geaux4it]

The answer to the OP's question is--- Nothing

Next

-Geaux

 

[Abraham3]

Things don't often happen without a cause. Are you suggesting supernatural causation? Or are you being sarrcastic??

 

[SSDD]

Things don't often happen without a cause. Are you suggesting supernatural causation? Or are you being sarrcastic??

If the change were due to CO2...now that would be magic.

 

[DriftingSand]

What happened to "The Pacific Ocean ate all the global warming"?

Don't ya know we are warming because they say so? Come on, where have you been? 2012 England had record snows and cold and this year North America is having record snows an cold. Yet we're warming up!

2012 England had record snows and cold and this year North America is having record snows an cold....because of Manmade Global Warming, because see, the warming causes climate change which makes it colder even when its warmer...it's too complicated for the layman but if you multiply Mann's tree rings by the Solar Output, well you get the point

Dallas, TX / 2013

Aw ... the sweltering heat and white sands of Texas.

 

[Abraham3]

Welcome to the mob. You're the 1,921st poster here to confuse weather with climate.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"The Paradoxical Effect" explains everything better than anything and it is so entirely correct that nobody can ever disprove it.

That's the hallmark of AGW Faither "good" science.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...

Look, I know your insane political cult fed you that crazy story, and that your BS detector is broken, meaning you fell hard for it. You just need to understand that out in the real world, AGW science has been making falsifiable predictions for decades now. And the predictions all end getting confirmed, not falsified. That's because it's real science.

In direct contrast, your political cult won't even make any predictions. That's because they're just babbling cult pseudoscience.

Your cult's constant conspiracy theories are also a big giveaway. A normal person would be thinking "Hmm ... maybe the whole world isn't mistaken ... maybe it's me." Cultists, however, believe their cult to be incapable of error, and so if the world disagrees, it means the entire world must be all wrong and deliberately plotting against the cult.

My BS detector works perfectly. This is why I call complete bullshit on you and your lies, manboob.

The BASIS of you AGW morons' cultish Faith is the non-falsifiability of your claims.

As for what a "normal" person might think, I am not interested in your clear speculation. YOU wouldn't have the first fucking clue.

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

You are a complete goober willingly lapping up the pablum spoon fed to you in your unquestionable ignorance.

 

[Abraham3]

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

Posts that make you go...

 

[westwall]

Welcome to the mob. You're the 1,921st poster here to confuse weather with climate.

Yep, everytime there is a hot day you clowns do exactly the same thing. There is no time I can think of when trolling blunder or olfraud or a whole host of other climate fraudsters hasn't opined that the hot weather is evidence of globull warming.

Not one....so you'll have to excuse us if we jump on the bandwagon the other way....just to push your buttons!

 

[mamooth]

So denialists, nothing new? Still just the endless conspiracy theories about the vast global socialist cabal that's out to steal your precious bodily fluids?

That would be why the whole planet is laughing at you now.

 

[westwall]

Normal people REJECT the claims of "science" when those claims HAVE BEEN disproved and when the underlying allegedly scientific basis for those mere claims cannot even be properly TESTED via scientific method and verifiable scientific processes.

Ummm... if they can't be tested, how can they have been disproved?

That's the point nimrod. If it's untestable it's classified as pseudo-science. End. Of. Story.
Thanks for making that so crystal clear. And I agree with flacaltenn...there is no way in hell you're an engineer. None at all.

 

[Abraham3]

1) AGW is falsifiable.
2) AGW has not been falsified.
3) Ms Myla said both that it was not falsifiable and that it had been disproved. I just asked her how that had been managed.

Did you just miss that point of was this another of your pathetic attempts to squirrel around the facts?