Climate Change... its the sun... again.

futurecurrents said:
Oh and this year is the hottest on record. The last decade is the hottest in the last ten thousand years. There is no pause. There never was a pause in the heat gain of earth. So idiot righties will have to stop resorting to their favorite desperate stupid argument.
More...

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf
With uncertainty in ocean data being ten times larger than the total magnitude of the warming attributed to anthropogenic sources, and combined with the IPCC’s conclusion than it has less than 10% confidence that it can separate long-term trends from regular variability, why is it reasonable to conclude that increases in GMST are attributable to radiative forcing rather than to ocean variability?
More...
 
Humans are responsible for roughly 3 percent of CO2 emissions. THREE PERCENT. The rest is decaying organic matter.

And somehow, the whole crux of global warming depends on humans cutting CO2 by one half of once percent. One half of one percent is the difference between the planet self destructing or being fine
 
achilles28 said:
Humans are responsible for roughly 3 percent of CO2 emissions. THREE PERCENT. The rest is decaying organic matter.

And somehow, the whole crux of global warming depends on humans cutting CO2 by one half of once percent. One half of one percent is the difference between the planet self destructing or being fine
More...


Humans are responsible for the 40% increase in CO2. There is no question about that. CO2 is responsible for most of the long term greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be much much colder. There is no question about that either.

Can you put two and two together? A ten year old can. But not a righty.
 
jem said:
temperature has not gone up for 19 years and going down since 2001.
so if you telling me the solar energy has been going down the last 35 years...
and then I tell you that temps leveled off over 19 years and have have down since 2001...


the only way you can argue temperature is going up is by fudging with moving averages.
More...
Instead of throwing a bunch of different charts around when you are challenged, deal with the first one you threw and made the topic of the thread.

You're saying a chart showing yearly temperature from NASA GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index spanning 120 years.... is fudged.
You're saying taking 11 year period-moving average spanning 120 years from 1880 to 2010 of NASA data.... is fudged.
You're saying moving average is a fudged mathematical construct.

You're saying it's cherry picking :rolleyes:



You're saying your chart showing a NOAA anomaly index Nino3.4 generated by the climatology method spanning only 25 years... is not a fudge!?
You're saying overlaying that with a couple of 2 and 3 year periods with something called a Low frequency index aSST3.4... is not a fudge!?

You're saying that isn't cherry picking :rolleyes:
 
futurecurrents said:
Yawn.
More...

This demonstrates why Environmental Science degrees do not come out of the Science department of universities. They normally come out of the college that offers landscape management and golf course design, or the political science department -- because people enrolled in this program are incapable of comprehending hard science.
 
gwb-trading said:
This demonstrates why Environmental Science degrees do not come out of the Science department of universities. They normally come out of the college that offers landscape management and golf course design, or the political science department -- because people enrolled in this program are incapable of comprehending hard science.
More...


Again, you have nothing and have demonstrated that you don't even know what a GHG is. How is the grass today sheep? You reading the Wall St Urinal editorial section like a good sheep? Or is it Breitbarf today? LOLWUWT?

Say bah.
 
stu said:
Instead of throwing a bunch of different charts around when you are challenged, deal with the first one you threw and made the topic of the thread.

You're saying a chart showing yearly temperature from NASA GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index spanning 120 years.... is fudged.
You're saying taking 11 year period-moving average spanning 120 years from 1880 to 2010 of NASA data.... is fudged.
You're saying moving average is a fudged mathematical construct.

You're saying it's cherry picking :rolleyes:



You're saying your chart showing a NOAA anomaly index Nino3.4 generated by the climatology method spanning only 25 years... is not a fudge!?
You're saying overlaying that with a couple of 2 and 3 year periods with something called a Low frequency index aSST3.4... is not a fudge!?

You're saying that isn't cherry picking :rolleyes:
More...


No, he's saying that he's a lying sack of shit. As usual.
 
futurecurrents said:
Humans are responsible for the 40% increase in CO2. There is no question about that. CO2 is responsible for most of the long term greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be much much colder. There is no question about that either.

Can you put two and two together? A ten year old can. But not a righty.
More...
Great example of your problem. You try to dumb down GW to a point where you can understand it. It is much more complicated than that. Maybe it is just to complex for you to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top