Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

No. You are wrong.

I am not wrong in the least bit....

The Vikings farmed in Greenland from 950AD to 1250AD during the Medieval Warm Period. The crops included barley. As the climate turned colder after 1250AD they had to abandon farming and eventually Greenland.

http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

Can you explain why it has been too cold to farm in Greenland since 1250AD?

Can you explain how grapes were grown in England until 1000AD - it is too cold to raise them in the U.K. today.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Nice bullshit chart fhl. Means nothing and certainly not what you think it does.

The number of record temps is dependent on the previous records. Once they are set they don't easily get broken again.

But you and your denier moron friends and Republicans don't understand that.


The hottest years on record have all occurred recently.

"Bullshit crap chart not up to date.

Try again."

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

I am not wrong in the least bit....

The Vikings farmed in Greenland from 950AD to 1250AD during the Medieval Warm Period. The crops included barley. As the climate turned colder after 1250AD they had to abandon farming and eventually Greenland.

http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

Can you explain why it has been too cold to farm in Greenland since 1250AD?

Can you explain how grapes were grown in England until 1000AD - it is too cold to raise them in the U.K. today.

Doesn't matter. Today we are rapidly increasing the temps and they are higher than they were during the MWP. Can you read a chart? The recent rise is too new to make a big change in climate or melt Greenland's ice and the ocean currents may have been different. The current rise is also unprecedented in rate.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

You realize the source of the data is from AGW supporters. This article simply referred to Beck's paper that graphed it and provide details / links to the dataset.

So in your mind, graphing data that comes from global warming supporters is considered "denialist bullshit".

Not even Mayor Ford in Toronto could smoke enough crack to make that fantasy turn into a reality.

So why does it stop at 1960?

Regardless, that was not the world's atmospheric levels of CO2. The chart is wrong.

Compare that crap chart with this accurate one and tell me which one makes sense.

 

[jem]

you are at an extreme level of propaganda and ignorance when you present opinion as science.

here is science.... co2 lags temperatures.



Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.



See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008

Quote from futurecurrents:

There is a massive amount showing it. You are just too stupid and crazed to see it.


American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

you are at an extreme level of propaganda and ignorance when you present opinion as science.

I think it's called trumpery.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'm going to burn my leaves today. Not sure if that contributes to the argument on either side at all.

 

[jem]

that is a great word for it.

Quote from Lucrum:

I think it's called trumpery.

 

[jem]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

I'm going to burn my leaves today. Not sure if that contributes to the argument on either side at all.

good question... it may release more carbon... but at this stage it may cause more cooling than warming.

Science is still investigating what happens when ghcs are added.
the theory had been / is more co2 produces more clouds.

Now however, science realizes more clouds may produce cooling... since the whole cloud cover thing is very very complicated.

here is what NASA has to say.


http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

good question... it may release more carbon... but at this stage it may cause more cooling than warming.
.

Presumably leaf burning has been going on for a long time. And Tsing's burning is probably not going to be a significant increase to global leaf burning (how big is your property, Tsing??) ; )

So... if leaf burning is a net coolant it's not a very good one.