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.
In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:
Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.
So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?
OMG I went back and did the following plot:
Parameter: Average Temperature
Time Scale: 12-Month
Start Year: 1998
State/Region: Contiguous U.S. Climate Division/City: All 48 States
Guess what it showed? -.33 oF/ decade.
I am not making this up it is for all of you to see.
Do you not understand your theory?
Is the more CO2 raises temperature just bs
The mechanism of CO2 absobtion and re-radiation is perfectly understood. That's the type of experiment you could do in a lab. You could also predict how much energy would be needed to raise a variety of materials by a certain temperature. You tell me what part of the other atmospheric processes that are involved in temperature rise could be performed in a lab. The processes are too large and complex. You need computer models of the entire process to make those predictions.
but you can't test for the actual effects a 120PPM increase has on temperature or pH because.....?
Hmmm?
Anything?
In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:
Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.
So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?
well the nation is headed for another polar freeze down next week
does that help
could be some new cold weather records broke
--LOL
'Polar Vortex' in July: Record Cold Weather on the Way to U.S.
The mechanism of CO2 absobtion and re-radiation is perfectly understood. That's the type of experiment you could do in a lab. You could also predict how much energy would be needed to raise a variety of materials by a certain temperature. You tell me what part of the other atmospheric processes that are involved in temperature rise could be performed in a lab. The processes are too large and complex. You need computer models of the entire process to make those predictions.
but you can't test for the actual effects a 120PPM increase has on temperature or pH because.....?
Hmmm?
Anything?
We can and do literally point our measuring instruments up at the sky (or down at the sky in the case of the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite) and measure the level of IR radiation from the CO2 in our atmosphere. It radiates at an extremely specific frequency. And that IR radiation from CO2 is increasing as our atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.
O2 and N2, the gasses that make up roughly 99% of our atmosphere don't absorb infrared radiation. Not coming in, not going out. That's why they're not greenhouse gasses. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. Quite efficiently. And it reradiates it. Some of that reradiated IR energy going back to our planet's surface when it would have otherwise vented off into space.
And its that little extra every minute of every hour of every day that is slowly but surely increasing our global temperatures.
We can literally point an instrument up at the sky, tune it to the specific frequency of Infrared Radiation that CO2 emits and go 'huh, that's higher than it was 20 years ago'.
Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15
Go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4
The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.
I've never heard of any physical experiment that couldn't be performed in a lab. None.
You're just simply wrong. As are ALL the CAGW faithful...
Do you not understand your theory?
Is the more CO2 raises temperature just bs
The mechanism of CO2 absobtion and re-radiation is perfectly understood. That's the type of experiment you could do in a lab. You could also predict how much energy would be needed to raise a variety of materials by a certain temperature. You tell me what part of the other atmospheric processes that are involved in temperature rise could be performed in a lab. The processes are too large and complex. You need computer models of the entire process to make those predictions.
but you can't test for the actual effects a 120PPM increase has on temperature or pH because.....?
Hmmm?
Anything?
but you can't test for the actual effects a 120PPM increase has on temperature or pH because.....?
Hmmm?
Anything?
We can and do literally point our measuring instruments up at the sky (or down at the sky in the case of the SABER instrument on the TIMED satellite) and measure the level of IR radiation from the CO2 in our atmosphere. It radiates at an extremely specific frequency. And that IR radiation from CO2 is increasing as our atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase.
O2 and N2, the gasses that make up roughly 99% of our atmosphere don't absorb infrared radiation. Not coming in, not going out. That's why they're not greenhouse gasses. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. Quite efficiently. And it reradiates it. Some of that reradiated IR energy going back to our planet's surface when it would have otherwise vented off into space.
And its that little extra every minute of every hour of every day that is slowly but surely increasing our global temperatures.
We can literally point an instrument up at the sky, tune it to the specific frequency of Infrared Radiation that CO2 emits and go 'huh, that's higher than it was 20 years ago'.
You fuckers avoid the lab like Dracula greeting the rising Sun.
It's a simple experiment: how much of an increase in temperature and decrease in ocean pH is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2?
Would it be great to have lab work that shows the temperature increase and lowered pH at 20PPM increments?
Yet, that works exists nowhere in the AGWCult Universe....hmmm wonder why?
Is the lab cruel to your theory?
Has the AGWCult tried these experiments to no result?
And for all these new instruments, why do you keep "Homogenizing" the data?
People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth
In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:
Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.
So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?
Without the trend line, and I am not sure how they trend it, it is not obvious that the temperature has increased or decreased that just isn't true. 2000 and 2001 were obviously the real outliers on the chart they raise the slope of the line. Do a run from 2002 to 2014 and look at the trend a straight line. So OK there was slight warming, with 2001 and 2000 thrown in but since 2002 there certainly has not been any warming or cooling. I think the fact that the numbers are better, been taken longer and the fudged factors have been in place for 10 or so years has level out the temperature data. (don't forget to change both dates or you get the same trend.)
2001 wasn't an outlier. In fact, its the exact same temperatures as 2003, which you insist we include. Nor was 2000 an outlier. As we saw something similar in 2004 and 2008, both of which you insist we include. You're omitting them 'just because'.
And if the question is 'has the temperature gone up in the last 15 years', I'd go back 15 years and check. And we have an ascending trendline. Even if we inexplicably lop off 2000 and 2001 'just because', we still have an ascending trendline.
Look at them in 5 year chunks and it gets even more stark. From 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the average was 0.54. For 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the average is 0.67. A nearly 25% increase in land and sea temperature anomalies. But the temperature is flat, huh?
Go back to say, 1990, and it gets even more stark. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, the average is 0.35. That's an astonishing 91% increase in land and sea anomalies.
Go back to 1980, and wow. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.....and the average anomoly is 0.26. With our last 5 year average about 2 and half times higher.
There's a reason why 97% of publishing earth scientists are on one side of this issue; the evidence is pretty damn clear.
Oh, and if you hear a 'skeptic' tell you that our temperature has been flat since 1998, what they *actually* mean is that we had a temperature spike in 1998, going from .035 in 1995 to 0.39 in 1996 to 0.43 in 1997, to a whopping 0.67 in 1998, back down to a 0.41 in 1999.
1998 was an outlier. And a pretty stark one. It was the largest anomoly we'd ever recorded. Here's the scary part:
The temperature has increased so much, that our 5 year AVERAGE from 2010 to 2014 is now at almost exactly at the same place now the 'largest anomoly ever recorded' in 1998. 0.72 in 2010, 0.54 in 2011, 0.68 in 2012, 0.66 in 2013 and 0.74 so far in 2014.
Which the 'skeptics' know perfectly well. But really hope you don't.
In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:
Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.
So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?
In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:
Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.
So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?
Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15
Go!
The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.
People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth
I'm aware that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas but i don't that's rising. And the CO2 graph is a little suspect seeing as the CO2 concentration has risen by 30% since the industrial revolution.
In a thread titled something like "More Good News on the Global Temperature Front", a conservative talking point was brought up that now appears to be widely accepted. It's that global temperatures haven't risen for the last 15 years. In that thread, the following NCDC site was given as evidence:
Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Visually, the chart that is shown certainly seems to have risen in the last 15 years but all doubt is removed if you select years 1999 - 2014 and click the 'Display Trend' button.
So where did this erroneous notion come from that temperatures haven't risen in 15 years?
Here it is, moron:
BTW, the NCDC has been caught doctoring its data so flagrantly that you have to be terminally gullible to accept anything they claim.
Without the trend line, and I am not sure how they trend it, it is not obvious that the temperature has increased or decreased that just isn't true. 2000 and 2001 were obviously the real outliers on the chart they raise the slope of the line. Do a run from 2002 to 2014 and look at the trend a straight line. So OK there was slight warming, with 2001 and 2000 thrown in but since 2002 there certainly has not been any warming or cooling. I think the fact that the numbers are better, been taken longer and the fudged factors have been in place for 10 or so years has level out the temperature data. (don't forget to change both dates or you get the same trend.)
2001 wasn't an outlier. In fact, its the exact same temperatures as 2003, which you insist we include. Nor was 2000 an outlier. As we saw something similar in 2004 and 2008, both of which you insist we include. You're omitting them 'just because'.
And if the question is 'has the temperature gone up in the last 15 years', I'd go back 15 years and check. And we have an ascending trendline. Even if we inexplicably lop off 2000 and 2001 'just because', we still have an ascending trendline.
Look at them in 5 year chunks and it gets even more stark. From 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the average was 0.54. For 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the average is 0.67. A nearly 25% increase in land and sea temperature anomalies. But the temperature is flat, huh?
Go back to say, 1990, and it gets even more stark. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994, the average is 0.35. That's an astonishing 91% increase in land and sea anomalies.
Go back to 1980, and wow. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984.....and the average anomoly is 0.26. With our last 5 year average about 2 and half times higher.
There's a reason why 97% of publishing earth scientists are on one side of this issue; the evidence is pretty damn clear.
Oh, and if you hear a 'skeptic' tell you that our temperature has been flat since 1998, what they *actually* mean is that we had a temperature spike in 1998, going from .035 in 1995 to 0.39 in 1996 to 0.43 in 1997, to a whopping 0.67 in 1998, back down to a 0.41 in 1999.
1998 was an outlier. And a pretty stark one. It was the largest anomoly we'd ever recorded. Here's the scary part:
The temperature has increased so much, that our 5 year AVERAGE from 2010 to 2014 is now at almost exactly at the same place now the 'largest anomoly ever recorded' in 1998. 0.72 in 2010, 0.54 in 2011, 0.68 in 2012, 0.66 in 2013 and 0.74 so far in 2014.
Which the 'skeptics' know perfectly well. But really hope you don't.
I had never even considered the possibility that the supposed temperature increase flattening was a comparison of 1998 with today but I think you're on to something. Holy crap, these guys are even more simple minded than i thought.
You're measuring the month of June against the month of May in a different year. Look at the dates offfered; 200106. That's year first, month second. Or as we put it 06/2001.I don't really know what the hell you are looking at skyler but here are the numbers from the NOAA site. I am not making them up but one of us must be.
Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January-December
Units: Degrees Celsius
Year,Value
1990,0.40
1991,0.38
1992,0.24
1993,0.27
1994,0.33
1995,0.45
1996,0.32
1997,0.52
1998,0.64
1999,0.46
2000,0.43
2001,0.55
2002,0.61
2003,0.62
2004,0.58
2005,0.65
2006,0.60
2007,0.59
2008,0.51
2009,0.60
2010,0.66
2011,0.53
2012,0.58
2013,0.62
Don't know what more I can do for you. I provided the site which is totally objective, the numbers could have gone either way.
I bolded the years that were higher then 1998 which was .25 abnormally.
Not in the annual, not in the default, not in the month to month. All show an ascending trend. Which you already know. Which is why you're not using the default setting. Or the annual setting. Or the Year to Date Setting. Any method of measurement that doesn't give you the outcome you want, you discard. Even when they're clearly the best settings. If you want to know a yearly average, look at the annual average.If you trend 1998 to 2014 it is clearly a downward trend the chart even tells you that much.
And exactly as I predicted, you picked 1998 as your baseline. The all time highest temperature anomaly when it occurred as your 135 year baseline. You really don't want us seeing the years before 1998, do you?
Clearly it is not an outlier, according to the NOAA data. Higher then most yes, outlier no.
Not an outlier? It was the highest temperature anomoly ever recorded in history of land and sea measurements. It remained the highest until 2010. It is still the second highest annual average ever recorded. But its 'not an outlier'.
Lets see how your claim holds up when we *don't* use 1998 as our baseline:
Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January-December
Units: Degrees Celsius
Year,Value
1990,0.40
1991,0.38
1992,0.24
1993,0.27
1994,0.33
1995,0.45
1996,0.32
1997,0.52
1998,0.64
1999,0.46
2000,0.43
2001,0.55
2002,0.61
2003,0.62
2004,0.58
2005,0.65
2006,0.60
2007,0.59
2008,0.51
2009,0.60
2010,0.66
2011,0.53
2012,0.58
2013,0.62
And there's your outlier. A sudden peak that was unprecedented in our entire history of land and sea measurements. And still remains the 2nd highest annual temperature anomaly in the entire 135 year history of land and sea measurements.
Which you've inexplicably chosen as your baseline. That's profoundly dishonest. No one actually trying to figure out whats happening would choose an outlier as their baseline. All of which you already know.
Your entire argument relies on the ignorance of your audience. You know 1998 is an enormous outlier. But you really hope your audience doesn't. You hope that they don't ask why you picked 1998 out of all the years in the last 135 to start all your measurements. And you hope they don't conduct some average temperature anomoly calculations. Because if they do any of those things, your entire argument collapses.
Lets do those averages, shall we?
Going 2 years before and 2 years after 1998, we get an 5 average temperature anomaly of 0.47. Our current 5 year average temperature anomaly (using annual averages) is 0.60.
A 27.6% increase. But the temperature is flat, huh?
C'mon dude. You might be able to sell your 'I just happened to pick an enormous outlier as my baseline' to someone who doesn't have an even passing acquaintance with the data. But anyone who does will see through your nonsense is a heartbeat.
Which is why you're on one side of the issue.....and 97% of publishing earth scientists are on the other.
Worse, you've been trying to push the idea of global *cooling*. That our temperatures are going down. When anyone who takes even a glance at the data above can see you're completely wrong. You've already seen the data. So you know you're wrong. You're intentionally pitching a narrative that you know is factually inaccurate.
And hoping no one checks. Um, I checked. And your narrative falls to pieces.
Joe shows us the experiment. You know, the one that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 simultaneously raises temperature by 1-8 degrees and lowers ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15
Go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4
The 'experiment' would have to be the size of the Earth and is currently being performed by industrialized countries around the world.
How are the isolating the independent variables?
