You put up irrelevant obfuscation and diversion in an attempt to appear knowledgeable, when in fact all you are doing is providing a good lesson for agnotology. How well are the Koch bros paying you? Al Gore was and is essentially right. I know deluded, crazed right wing fanatics like you won't allow yourselves to believe it, but it's true.
Yeah OK. There are enough paranoid ignorant deluded righties out there already. We don't need another. Look out! The UN ! They're right behind you ! Guess what. It's a small world, that all countries share. The time when we could or should act as an island was gone long long ago.
You already wrote me off as a reasonable person. At least a couple of times; pretty much when I don't agree with you 100%. Your insults proved that. Collecting meteorological data, including temps through a parcel of air (we didn't collect samples, we collected data) made me an expert in one area...knowing how flawed data used in the models could be up until about 20 years ago or so. Don't call me a right winger, because I'm not. I've agreed with you many times regarding AGW, but simply think there are many forces greater in nature, including phases involving the sun as well as Earth's orbital cycles, and any combination of the two, and firmly believe that many of those factors were left out of the models...intentionally or not. I saw an article the other day about GRBs where the scientists are now saying they may need to re-think some physics they thought were solid. Though unrelated, why couldn't the same be true with AGW science? The variables are nearly infinite. Perhaps the films I am recalling were about pollution (seems when I was 7 or 8 I watched one where we would all be in space suits by 2000) or maybe they were TV news items. Been a long time, but I do remember the media hype, something we have a great deal of now. What a surprise. Regarding sunspot diminishing while warming continues: You've been at war with jem over the ocean temps for weeks now. Perhaps the oceans are simply creating a lagging effect. After all, they do play a role in the temps of the atmosphere. I wasn't even thinking about the 17 year pause, but since you brought it up, and I've concluded that you view me as a right wing toe-the-line bought and paid for Koch shill, allow me to address it. I left the Navy in 86. It wasn't too much longer after that when full atmospheric temp readings with satellite came on line...and began to be perfected around maybe 20 years or so ago. If there is actually a pause in warming, perhaps one with an open mind might conclude that having such a drastic increase in temp reading accuracy running about the same time period as a "pause in heating" is not merely coincidental. Our difference is not over the existance of AGW. I'll some up our difference for you in two sentences. You believe AGW will triumph over nature. I don't. It's that simple. There is no need for you to insult me over that difference, but if you insist, I'm more than happy to go that road with you. It will be your call. Later
so you put up a chart of temps and co2 ... and pretend it stands of co2 leading... when it does no such thing. I then find a chart which drills down into the data in recent years and it shows temps lead co2 by 9 months. Yet, you are so dumb or such a troll that you call that obfuscation. I guess real data and science is obfuscation to an ignorant troll.
I really can't believe that you are this dumb. Below is the atmospheric levels of CO2. To say that there is a discernable nine month resolution correlation between this and world temps is the height of ignorance and/or deception. But you are not ignorant. You are just a fucking scumbag liar.
Here we can see that rising CO2 levels reverses a cooling trend into a warming trend, providing evidence that rising CO2 levels precede or coincide with rising temperature. The Co2 levels are rising because man is dumping 8 billion tons of it into the air every year. from NOAA...not a blog or the website funded by the Koch bros and run by a TV weatherman.
so you think one data point equals causation. See the dip in the middle I could argue it shows temps lead co2 If you had half a brain you would drill down into the month by month data. You would see temperature leads co2 by 9 months from multiple sources. And if you really cared about science you read the graphs I posted and see why some academics are saying Salby shows that the change in ocean temps leads the change in c02 by about 1 year and is very close correlation. You might even wonder since the correlation is so close you might say hey... it looks like change in ocean temps is the cause of the co2 change.
Wow, maybe you are just plain stupid. I guess you don't see how accurate and how good the resolution of the CO2 is. One can even see the annual CO2 cycle from the seasonal plant growth. How is one supposed to correlate monthly temperature with that ? You are a lying fuck-head. Kill yourself now.