August global temperature was 0.19C, September is 0.29C
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade September temperatures (preliminary)
Notes on data released Oct. 6, 2014:
There was some warming in the tropics in September as an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event apparently tries to get its act together, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
During the 1997-1998 El Niño, the September 1997 tropical temperature anomaly was +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees F) warmer than seasonal norms, while in the 2009-2010 El Niño the September 2009 anomaly was +0.56 C, or about 1.01 F warmer than seasonal norms. That could indicate that this El Niño — if it fully develops — might be somewhat modest.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in September was in northern Canada of the northern coast of Prince Charles Island, where temperatures were as much as 2.73 C (about 4.91 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms. Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in September was in the western Antarctic, along the eastern edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. Temperatures there were as much as 5.35 C (about 9.63 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
Global composite temp.: +0.29 C (about 0.52 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 C (about 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.40 C (about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
Tropics: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for September.
August temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.20 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.24 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.15 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.06 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a “public” computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
— 30 —
The temperature is higher in September than in August-so what! I could start a headline that reads temperatures were cooler in August than in September. I’d say again -so what! Nothing is constant, including air/sea temperatures. The real surprise is people trying to put normal or permanent status to climate. People who want a place where the atmospheric characteristics are nearly constant are living on the wrong ball-try the moon!
“Already salt water is moving upstream in the Mekong.”
*If* salt water is moving upstream in the Mekong River, it sure isn’t because of a few mm sea level rise.”
It’s not an if, it’s happening now. I don’t doubt that damming is part of it, but clearly drought is as well. I agree that the impact of sea level rise is probably minor at this point relative to that due to drought and damming.
http://en.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Mekong-Delta-stems-drought-saltwater-intrusion-impacts/20143/47836.vnplus
http://uqinvietnam.com/2014/04/25/floods-drought-salinity-and-rising-sea-levels-threaten-the-mekong-delta/
Good to see Anthony has corrected the typo in the first sentence to this post.
Alas, the current first sentence is also incorrect. It’s odd, because Anthony even mentions in his article that the August UAH temperature was revised from +0.19 to +0.20 C; yet the first sentence still says the August global temperature was 0.19C. Puzzling.
To add to the confusion, it appears that the UAH September data has also already been revised, as the officially published record shows +0.30 for September, not 0.29C. So the (current) correct intro for this post should really be:
“August global temperature was 0.20C, September is 0.30C
Furthermore, the dataset created by Dr. Spencer, and published at
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
differs from the summary of 2013 and 2014 anomalies at his own blog at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/category/blogarticle/
Several months have a difference of one or two hundredths of a degree. You’d think it would be a simple job to tell us which version he considers to be correct (if either)
Why is it that both sceptics and converted cannot actually accept that the science is far from settled, and that what is not known may be greater than that which is established. We only need look at the new “science” reported on this site to appreciate the probable inadequacy of current knowledge, and our inability to explain convincingly large scale climate changes pre-history.
The lack of warming for 18 years certainly moves the odds towards the sceptic camp, but may only be a function of our lack of knowledge. There is a huge depth of knowledge demonstrated by some posters, sadly offset by simplistic, trite and sometimes unpleasant posting from many.
Well if that’s the case then the alarmists cannot claim certainty and the need for destroying economies and pushing austerity. Let’s face facts, it has nothing to do with man made global warming and everything to do with economic control, destroying economies as part of their divide and conquer ‘order out of chaos’ world government strategy and a sinister population reduction agenda.
Ebola has been released right on cue as well as a virus that’s killing children in Canada.
Regarding CO2 the data all shows a much lower climate sensitivity than the GCMs. There’s time to phase in alternative energies even if temperatures continue to climb and there’s no guarantee that that will happen, in fact we may be at the peak of a Holocene Climactic optimum ready to descend into an ice age according to some.
Is it just me….
I seem to remember that back in the 90’s we were told how hot it was then, and how the past was blue, but the ‘present’ (of the ’90s) was firey hot (and very very red…). Then the 1998 ‘blip’ up and we were all gonna roast (and the drop after was welcomed, but still red … i.e. above the normal line.
Now I look at that top anomaly graph and, golly, the 90’s have gone all blue! The 1998 spike is still red, but the relaxation after it is now blue too! OMG, the ’90s are rapidly cooling! Much more of this, it will have been snowing in the ’90s and starting a new ice age glacial….
I sure hope I had a good coat on back in the ’80s and ’90s, ’cause it’s getting darned cold now, then.
only 1/2 /sarc; and the other 1/2 pity …. I’m so tired of the past changing….
“Now I look at that top anomaly graph and, golly, the 90’s have gone all blue! “
If you look at the bottom, it says:
“All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) “
The ’90’s are cool relative to that base, which they weren’t using back then.
I love WUWT’s articles, but these things that measure global temps…I have no ****s to give.
This is why.
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-strange-death-of-the-themometers
Why should we trust these readings at all, warm or cold, when they’ve been rapidly killing the very same thermometers used to measure the planet’s temperature, thereby giving us smaller and smaller pools of data to use?
Add: I realize that a lot of the temp data is also coming from satellites, but still…if the death of thermometers is any indication of how things are going.
I suppose that it is not so easy to measure the temperature outside with an accuracy better than 0.1 °C. It is not enough to take a thermometer reading but you have to calibrate your thermometer. A weather station is rather complicated apparatus. The influence of land-use on the data has to be taken into account. On the other side, the measured temperatures between nearby weather stations are highly correlated. So I think there is no advantage to have many weather stations.
I’m not convinced I can measure the temperature in my own yard within 2 deg F without going to a great deal of trouble.
I made following test. I have at home 5 digital thermometers with 0.1 °C resolution. I put them close together and compared its readings. They differed by 1 °C. I hope your thermometer is better.
Paul In what world is nearby weather station the measured temperatures are highly correlated. Were I grew up was on the prairie, twenty miles away the forest started from the bottom of the valley seventy miles away the weather would warm faster in the spring and cool slower in the fall the trees would be about two weeks different in leafing and leaf lose. Twenty miles east again at least a weeks difference. The biggest difference was the elevation changes and we are talking 300 feet between the bottom of the valley to my home town and then another 300 to 400 further east where the forest started. The climate for each were different and noticeable different. At any one time there can be a twenty to thirty degree temperature difference across all three sites for days on end without them getting in sync. What a thermometer would read at each site and how it would read between all three site will be significantly different those differences would also change with the seasons. Just like native prairie warms slower than farm land in the spring the difference would be frost leaving the field days to weeks before the native prairie.
I was going to comment on thermometer accuracy, but that one could write a book on and still not cover all the areas that error will creep in regardless how well calibrated the device is. Let alone having two device trying to measure the same thing and expecting them even in close to each other come even close to .1 C agreement across the entire 100 + degree variation most of us will live through in a year, it even worst where I grew up since -40 was no uncommon and +100 F was not uncommon all though they still see the -40 but there has not been much +100 F in the last 30 years. I left off the F on the -40 far a reason, since it is moot between C and F at that point.
Is beckley bud somehow related to the common stoat, William Connelly? Same characteristics of low-grade troll.
Jeef,
Not only a troll, but he posts throughout the work day, all day long. I suppose as long as his EBT card is charged up, he can pay his electric bill and emit his strange version of reality here.
I doubt that buddybeckley is the same as the Stoat, who is very intelligent and evil. They’re both trolls, but Buddy is pretty deficient in the IQ department. He’s the only commenter who can’t understand charts.
DB Stealey, for someone who criticizes beckley bud so roundly, it’s surprising since you did not address one of his main points. You say 1) CO2 follows temperature, and 2) the temperature has not changed in the last 18 years. It doesn’t matter if T has moved up and down slightly during that time, the temperature at this point in time is the same as it was 18 years ago, and yet CO2 is 33 ppm higher now than it was then. How does a rising CO2 and no temperature change over 18 years explain your CO2 follows temperature claim?
Chris
dbstealey linked to the previous thread where he had provided graphs which showed his point. If you intend to support the troll then you should at least get your facts right.
Richard
Because OHC has been increasing this century. But also higher SST is the origin of more atm. CO2., not the air temp . It is suspected that the rate of ocean circulation (overturning, etc.) has increased as well.
Richard,
I did look at his graphs. Most are over periods of 10s of thousands of years, so not relevant for an 18 year discussion. The only link he posted that goes through 2014 that I could find is this one: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
Tell me, how does that graph of CO2 at Mauna Loa vs RSS prove his point?
Chris
You are posting anonymously in support of a troll and you write of dbstealey saying in total
Clearly, you did not look very hard. He provided that graph – as he said – as an example of overlays which do not inform of the lag.
The first of his series of graphs in that thread which show the lag over the last 18 years was here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/02/its-official-no-global-warming-for-18-years-1-month/#comment-1754445
and his immediately following post in that thread linked to another chart.
There is above normal troll infestation of WUWT at present. Can you say if ‘troll central’ has initiated this?
Richard
@Courtney
…
The graph you posted is not comparison of T versus CO2. It compares “rate of change” versus “rate of change” which is an exact copy of the WFT graph comparing the noise versus the noise using the “isolate” function.
…
Chris says:
Tell me, how does that graph of CO2 at Mauna Loa vs RSS prove his point?
Chris, you don’t seem to be paying much attention. The only chart of Mauna Loa was posted by beckleybud. The chart I posted that included ML was only to provide an example of what an overlay is. That was the “point” of it.
By not paying attention, you probably didn’t notice that I have repeatedly demolished buddy’s absurd claim that temperature has not moved at all for 18 years.
In fact, it does matter that T has fluctuated, because those fluctuations were followed by CO2. Can you also not understand that?
Just because T is the same now as it was 18 years ago does not mean it hasn’t changed in the mean time. That is like saying it is daytime now, and we had daylight yesterday, so it could have never been dark in the mean time.
You really need to use a little thought before posting.
As for buddy’s fixation on the isolate function, that point has been asked and answered. It means nothing in the context of cause and effect. But since it’s all that beckleybuddy has, he keeps throwing it out there. It is irrelevant. Noise is irrelevant in cause and effect. What matters is what came first, and what followed. T came first; CO2 followed. Never the reverse. Case closed.
@dbstealey
…
You posted: ” T is the same now as it was 18 years ago ”
…
Since you also claim that CO2 follows T, how come CO2 is not the same now as it was 18 years ago?
Friends:
It is possible that some onlookers have been misled by a spurious point made by the troll in its continued attempt to destroy this thread. The troll wrote to dbstealey
I write to provide an explanation for onlookers of the fallacy being asserted by the troll’s question.
The question confuses coherence with correlation.
Correlation and coherence can each and both provide information pertaining to causality.
Correlation is a mathematical relationship between two parameters. If the correlation is known over the length of the data sets, then their correlation indicates the magnitude of a change in one parameter that is expected when the other parameter changes by a known magnitude.
Correlation does NOT indicate a causal relation between two parameters.
But
Absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct a causal relation between two parameters.
Coherence of two parameters indicates that when one parameter changes then the other parameter changes later.
Coherence can disprove that change of one parameter causes change in the other; i.e. if change in parameter A follows change in parameter B then the change of A cannot be the cause of the change of B (because a cause cannot occur after its effect).
So,
1.
absence of correlation indicates absence of a direct causal relationship
and
2.
when there is a direct causal relationship then coherence indicates which of the two parameters is causal.
Furthermore, coherence in the absence of correlation is strongly suggestive that both parameters are affected by another parameter (or other parameters).
For example, leaves fall off trees soon after children return to school following their summer break.
The coherence is great; i.e. both effects occur each year.
But the effects do not correlate; i.e. the number of returning children is not indicative of the number of falling leaves.
In this example, the time of year is the additional parameter which causes children to return to school and the leaves to fall off trees.
So, if it is known that there is a causal relationship between two parameters then the coherence between the parameters indicates which is causal. In response to dbstealey pointing out the coherence, the troll is saying the equivalent of “Ignore the coherence and look over there”.b>
Richard
Peter,
Judging by the maturity and sophistication of your comments, your eldest son will be 40 in about 45 years’ time.
Many of us are daddies and we all got the same medal you will get.
The latest stats from our model has these estimates….
Wood For Trees Index = WTI = average of Hadcrut, GISS, UAH, RSS
Jan 2014 +0.24
Feb 2014 +0.07
May 2014 +0.30
Jun 2014 +0.27
Jul 2014 +0.23
Aug 2014 +0.24
Sept 2014 +0.27
Oct 7 2014 +0.24
Becklybud… no one here (that I can find) has said that increasing temps is the ONLY thing that can cause C02 to rise…and that’s where your argument seems to fall apart. So temp trend is flat, and C02 rose. So what? Your theory has already been disproven because temps did not follow C02.
@jimmaine
…
At no point have I made the claim that temps follow CO2.
…
His claim that CO2 follows T has been falsified by the past 18 years.
…
Mr Dbstealey needs to acknowledge that something else besides T has caused the 36 ppm rise. He seems unable to do that. It’s not that hard to do, and it is pretty evident what the cause is. But for the life of me, I don’t understand why he finds that to be so difficult to make the admission.
jimmaine
Please, please, please don’t feed the troll.
Richard
Richard
.
Please, please, please, mind your own business
beckleybud
I am always willing to an answer a request when I can so I will fulfill yours.
CLEAR OFF, TROLL.
YOU ARE WASTING SPACE ON THE THREAD WHICH COULD BE USED BY SOMEONE WITH SOMETHING INTERESTING AND/OR INFORMATIVE TO SAY.
Richard
How old are you, becklybud?
beckleybud says:
Mr Dbstealey needs to acknowledge that something else besides T has caused the 36 ppm rise. He seems unable to do that. It’s not that hard to do, and it is pretty evident what the cause is.
I don’t “need” to acknowledge anything. It is true that I’m unable to state definitively all of the causes of rising CO2. One major cause is the warming of oceans, which outgas CO2. There is no disagreement on that [except maybe from buddy].
Oceans cover more than 70% of the planet. Therefore, their contribution to atmospheric CO2 is enormous. But there are other causes, such as the annual ≈3% contribution from human emissions. This is a net benefit to the biosphere — but the conversation is not about that.
To say that I am “unable” to identify each source is nothing but bluster. buddy lives on bluster. It’s what he’s got. But I prefer to identify only those sources that I am certain cause rising CO2. Everything else is conjecture.
Again, the debate is not about CO2 sources. It is about cause and effect: which is the net cause, and which is the net effect: CO2 or T? Empirical evidence on all time frames confirms that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
But beckleybud constantly attempts to re-frame the debate to his liking [AKA: ‘moving the goal posts’]. That’s because he has lost the cause and effect argument.
buddybeckley appears to be ignorant of basic science. He is unable to understand what charts say. He constantly confuses an overlay chart with a chart showing cause and effect. That is the root of his misunderstanding.
So far I’ve posted a half dozen charts, covering time frames from years to hundred of thousands of years, all showing conclusively that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. I’ve repeatedly asked buddy if he can post even one chart showing the reverse: that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. But he has never posted such a chart; he has never even responded to that request.
Cause and effect go to the heart of the global warming debate. The alarmist crowd must produce verifiable measurements showing conclusively that rising CO2 is the cause of global warming. But they have never been able to produce any such evidence. Yet buddy asserts: it is pretty evident what the cause is. Really, buddy? Then tell us what it is.
The result of the complete absence of any measurements quantifying the claimed effect of human emissions is that, at this late stage of the debate, trolling by people like beckleybud appears. It is the last stand of the scientific illiterates.
Science is nothing without measurement; every significant physical process can be measured. Since the “carbon” scaremeisters cannot produce any evidence to support their false alarm, they produce whatever they can. beckleybud is their product.
It’s all they’ve got left.
@dbstealey
..
” but the conversation is not about that.”
…
Yes it is
No, you are still attempting to re-frame the argument. That is because you will not face the fact that ∆T causes ∆CO2.
If you acknowledged that fact, your entire catastrophic AGW belief would collapse.
@dbstealey
…
The past 18 years is proof that you claim that ∆T causes ∆CO2 DOES NOT APPLY TODAY
…
I will repeat what I have steadfastly maintained.
..
Something other than ∆T has caused the rise of CO2 in the past 18 years.
“So far I’ve posted a half dozen charts, covering time frames from years to hundred of thousands of years, showing conclusively that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. I’ve repeatedly asked buddy if he can post even one chart showing the reverse: that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. But he has never posted such a chart; he has never even responded to that request.”
I believe that is called “the fallacy of the excluded middle”, or something like that.
beckleybud is not claiming “that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature”, merely that you have not shown that “changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature”, and he uses the case of the last 18 years to illustrate that it is not, at least not always, the case that “changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature”.
JohnB,
Welcome aboard. Since you are interpreting what buddy is trying to claim, maybe you would be so good as to answer this question, which buddy cannot answer:
Can you produce a chart [like the numerous charts I’ve posted], showing that changes in temperature are caused by changes in CO2?
Thanx for playing, and I’ll wait here for your answer.
John B says:
I believe that is called “the fallacy of the excluded middle”, or something like that.
John, buddybeckley is employing the fallacy of the excluded middle, when he asserrts that since temperatures now are the same as temperatures were 18 years ago, then claiming that in the mean time [the ‘excluded middle’], temperatures could not have changed. That’s nuts.
[I know that’s not really the fallacy of the excluded middle, but it goes to the heart of buddy’s absurd argument.] And buddy falsely claims that during the past 18 years, CO2 has not followed temperature.
That is flatly contradicted by real world measurements. Really, you are both asserting facts not in evidence. The charts I posted show conclusively that ∆CO2 follows ∆temperature. CO2 follows T like a dog on a leash, but for some strange reason neither of you will admit what everyone can clearly see.
Furthermore, you apparently cannot produce any evidence showing the reverse causation: that changing CO2 levels are the cause of changing temkperature.
This is the real world, folks. You can deny what is right before your eyes. People do that all the time. But it doesn’t win you this argument. Your position on this is nonsense, and you have picked the wrong battle. You will die on this hill if you persist, because the evidence contradicts you.
Then we have buddyb’s next load:
The past 18 years is proof that you claim that ∆T causes ∆CO2 DOES NOT APPLY TODAY
buddy needs to take his nap. He’s getting cranky. ^That^ is simply a baseless assertion. So now we have a claim that for some unspecified reason, reality has been altered, and the forcings and feedbacks changed at a point 18 years ago… I’m all for “proof”, so let’s see it, buddy.
And:
Something other than ∆T has caused the rise of CO2 in the past 18 years.
“Something”, eh? And what might that mysterious “something” be?
Make sure any answer is measured and quantified. There has been far too much baseless speculation from the alarmist side. Mere assertions like that mean nothing.
Post verifiable measurements, please. Show us how everything changed 18 years ago.
@dbstealey
..
” CO2 follows T like a dog on a leash ”
…
Please post a chart of T versus CO2 for the past 18 years Not “rate of change” and not “isolate” a simple T versus CO2 chart for the past 18 years that shows the change in T that caused the 36 ppm change in CO2.
Becklybud what you fail to understand is that CO2 is playing catch-up. In a few hundred years CO2 rise will level off, that is, if the present cooling trend continues. Or, if the cooling trend intensifies, CO2 could catch up sooner. But first, OHC will have to go down. It’s that darned hidden heat, you see.
@mpainter.
…
Are you saying the heat is hiding in the oceans?
..
You do realize a lot of people are looking for it
dbstealey, Buddy is pretending that he believes the following proposition:
P: If A-type events cause B-type events, then every B-type event is immediately preceded by an A-type event.
If someone claims that falling from 1,000 causes death, a troll will retort that he knows someone who died without falling from 1,000 ft and pretend that he takes this to be a reasonable objection to the claim. Now others are faced with the task of ferreting out P which underlies the troll’s argument. Of course, in the case of the last CO2 rise, it could have been caused by something other than a rise in temperature. Or it could have been caused by the rise in temperature that ceased about eighteen years ago. But buddy knows that.
Trolls include more than the name-calling, mudslinging variety. There is also the willfully obtuse troll. These trolls like to feign obtuseness in order to annoy others. They try to lure others into the pointless and laborious task of ferreting out their mistaken assumptions. It’s a pointless task because the trolls don’t really honestly make these assumptions but merely pretend to do so. The thread being ruined, they achieve their goal.
Jim Ryan,
The term “willfully obtuse troll” defines buddy exactly.
Buddyb says:
Please post a chart of T versus CO2 for the past 18…&blah, blah, etc.
I’ve posted those charts repeatedly. Quit pestering me. If you can’t understand, just give it up. Go practice TicTacToe or something.
@jim Ryan
…
It’s really pretty simple
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
…
From that chart, you can see how CO2 follows T
buddybeckley says:
From that chart, you can see how CO2 follows T
That is flat wrong.
beckleybud simply does not have the mental acuity to understand the difference between an overlay chart and a chart showing cause and effect. He keeps confusing the two. His comment above proves that beyond doubt.
The chart above posted by buddy is exactly the same chart that I used upthread to demonstrate an overlay chart. CO2 was simply overlaid on top of temperature. buddy cannot understand this, but just about everyone else can. When you take two different charts and combine them into one, it does not show which is the cause, and which is the effect.
Contrast my overlay chart example [the one buddy copied above] with this chart, or with this chart, or this chart [I have plenty more; just ask].
Those charts all show clearly that the temperature changes occurred first, and the subsequent CO2 changes followed. There is ample evidence across all time frames, showing the same cause and effect between temperature and CO2: first temperature rises or falls, then CO2 follows. Never vice-versa.
Despite my constant requests, buddy cannot produce any charts showing the reverse causality. So any rational reader would conclude that changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2.
The entire CO2=CAGW narrative has been built on the foundation premise that rising CO2 is the cause of rising temperature. I am willing to accept that, PROVIDED that buddy, or someone, posts verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 is the cause of global warming.
But so far, no one has ever posted any such evidence. They make constant assertions that human emissions cause global warming. But as Willis says, ‘Where are the bodies?’ IOW: where is the scientific evidence? Where are the measurements??
There are none. There never were any. The whole man-made global warming conjecture is based on measurement-free assertions. And because there are no measurements, at this point it looks like they have made up the whole scare.
@dbstealey
…
1) The chart I posted disproves causation.
.
2) Your first chart uses the “isolate” function.
I suggest you review the WFT page that describes what it does
http://www.woodfortrees.org/help
Pay close attention to the words, ” subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise’ ”
..
3) The second chart you posted does not show CO2 at 400 ppm, in fact, if it did, the line would be several inches above the top of your computer screen. (Not to mention that it does not have enough resolution to show the past 18 years)
..
4) The third chart does not compare T to CO2. It is comparing the “Rate of change” to the “Rate of change”. It suffers from the same problem the WFT graph, namely it’s graphing de-trended data.
..
5) Keep posting your charts. I want to see your chart that graphs T versus CO2 for the past 18 years.
..
6) You should stop deflecting, I am not, and have not asserted that T follows CO2. All I have done is shown that your claim of “CO2 follows T” does not apply to the past 18 years.
..
7) You post: “So any rational reader would conclude that changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2”
A rational reader would conclude that in the past 18 years, CO2 has not followed T and that something else has caused the 36 ppm of CO2 rise.
@jim Ryan
…
No, it’s more like this…..
…
1) falling from 1,000 causes death
2) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/skydiver-survives-14000-foot-fall-3699030
3) Therefore item #1 is not always true
”
Paul Berberich
October 8, 2014 at 10:41 am
I made following test. I have at home 5 digital thermometers with 0.1 °C resolution. I put them close together and compared its readings. They differed by 1 °C. I hope your thermometer is better.”
Well you know what to do, use the warmest temp thermometer as the only reliable one, the rest throw out. Easy science. LOL
Doesn’t matter which ones he chucks, as long as he picks one instrument and sticks to it. It will still provide him with a record of temperature ‘change’ over time whether or not the instrument is precisely calibrated to actual temperature.
buddybeckley,
You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper. Every single point you posted is flat wrong. You say:
The chart I posted disproves causation.
That is the same chart that you copied from me, which I first posted to demonstrate a chart that does not show causation! George Orwell would have a field day with you: Black is White, Ignorance is Strength, etc. First, you claimed to show causation, then you claimed the chart does not show causation. You are simply trolling; moving the goal posts to obfuscate a simple situation.
Next you misdirect by saying:
Your first chart uses the “isolate” function.
Which I keep telling you, does not have anything to do with causation. The isolate function addresses nboise, not causation. But you just can’t get that fact to sink in. Can you? Either that, or you are one despicable troll.
Next, you say:
The second chart you posted does not show CO2 at 400 ppm…
There’s buddy again, digging, digging…
But, SO WHAT?! CO2 amplitude has nothing to do with causation.
It says right in the chart: Note: TEMPERATURE CAUSES CO2 CHANGE And that was the point… which clearly flew right over your head.
Then you say:
The third chart does not compare T to CO2….
Once again: the point of the chart was to show causation, not to compare amplitude! Are you really that dense? Or are you being a despicable troll? And ‘de-trending has nothing to do with any of this.
And this nonsense:
I want to see your chart that graphs T versus CO2 for the past 18 years.
I have posted charts covering the past 18 years numerous times here. Look upthread, you will find them. Quit deflecting. The charts are there. Stop your incessant trolling.
More evidence of your mendacity:
I am not, and have not assert (sic) that T follows CO2. All I have done is shown that your claim of “CO2 follows T” does not apply to the past 18 years.
Wrong, as always. Are you blind, in addition to being a troll? You asserted that CO2 does not follow T, so stop misrepresenting my comments. Your continued false assertion that “CO2 follows T does not apply” is directly contradicted by the extensive empirical evidence I and others have posted. Either you’re ignorant, or you are a lying troll. I don’t see a third possibility. Does anyone?
A rational reader would conclude that in the past 18 years, CO2 has not followed T…
After posting numerous charts of empirical observations showing beyond any reasonable doubt that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, why should anyone not conclude that you are either a completely dishonest troll, or that you are incredibly dense? Maybe both… probably both.
One thing is certain: you are digging a hole that is so deep it is impossible for you to climb out of now. So I suppose you think your only recourse is to keep digging, even if it means deflecting, lying, misrepresenting, and in general, trolling the thread.
Better start learning Chinese. That hole you’re digging is getting real deep…
@dbstealey
..
This chart: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
…
Shows clearly that CO2 is independent of T, or that T does not cause CO2. It shows that the behavior of CO2 is independent of T.
The “isolate” function in WFT that your chart strips out the trend, and leaves “noise” That’s is what the WFT help page says. Comparing noise to noise does not show causation. All you chart shows is that you do not understanding what the “isolate” function does.
..
Comparing the “rate of change” to a “rate of change” on your
..
You post: “Digging, digging… SO WHAT?!” I will tell you “what”………you need to post a chart that shows T versus CO2 for the past 18 years You know what that chart does not show? It does not show the change in T that produced the 400 ppm reading of CO2.
“to compare amplitude! Did you know that the first derivative (rate of change) destroys the amplitude?
…no?….you would know that if you ever took a course in Calculus.
..
” ‘de-trending has nothing to do with any of this.” …..no, trends have EVERYTHING to do with this.
…
“Wrong, as always” ….. I challenge you to post a link to my claim that T follows CO2. That’s not the issue I brought up, it’s a deflection you have made. I have simply shown that your “CO2 follows T” does not apply to the past 18 years.
When someone asserts that CO2 does not follow T, that does not mean that T follows CO2. You tried to make a joke about the “excluded middle” and this is a perfect example where you’ve committed the fallacy.
..
Empirical evidence shows that in the past 18 years CO2 has not followed T. CO2 has risen 36 ppm in the past 18 years, and “global warming has stopped” (as you have said). Obviously, something other than T has caused CO2 to rise in the past 18 years.
BuddyB,
This chart shows… &etc.
*sigh* It is an overlay of two different charts. But you still cannot understand that concept — or you are being a despicable troll. There is no cause and effect relationship in that chart. None.
I don’t recall ever interacting with anyone so dense and/or mendacious in my life. And I’m 66. Buddy, you sound like an immature kid. How old are you, anyway? Even a juvenile could understand the diference between a chart showing cause and effect, and an overlay chart overlaying two different measurements, one on top of the other. But you either cannot grasp the concept, or you are being disingenuous. Maybe both. Probably both.
buddiboi, you are wrong, as always. You say:
…no, trends have EVERYTHING to do with this.
That is still another false assertion. It is flat wrong. My condolences if you are the imbecile you seem to be. But this debate is about causation. How many times have you been told that? Only an imbecile would fail to understand — or a troll would pretend to not understand.
The entire climate alarmist argument is that the rise in CO2 causes global warming. ‘Causation’, see?
No, you don’t see. Or you are deliberately misrepresenting everything, in the hope of prevailing in an argument that you cannot possibly win. That’s how losers act. That’s how trolls act. The whole discussion from the beginning was about causation. Not amplitude. Not trends. Cause and effect is the debate. And you lost the debate. Planet Earth is debunking your beliefs.
This chart is the same kind of chart that you copied from my post. It is also an overlay chart.
Listen up: neither chart shows cause and effect. They are both overlays. But the other charts I posted do show cause and effect: they show that temperature precedes CO2. ALL of them show that. NONE of them show that CO2 causes T. Only a simpleton cannot understand that concept. Or a troll will continue to argue incessantly.
Next, I see you’re still fixated on the completely irrelevant “isolate” function. It has zilch to do with the debate, but for some reason you seem to think it matters. It doesn’t. You are either deliberately trying to muddy the waters, which doesn’t work with me, or you are a troll. Maybe both. Probably both.
Next, you say “I challenge you to post a link to my claim that T follows CO2. ”
Puppies don’t get to challenge the big dogs, troll. If you ever respond to any of the many challenges I’ve made to you upthread, then I will consider entertaining yours. But I note for the record that you have never posted any evidence showing that temperature follows CO2. None. You have no such evidence. All your evidence-free claptrap leaves out the one essential element: measurements.
Without verifiable, testable measurements — like the ones I have posted repeatedly, proving that ∆T causes ∆CO2 — you are just talking through your hat. You’re good at that. But you suck at basic science and logical thinking.
You sound like a mentally disturbed individual, constantly demanding the same evidence that I have posted repeatedly. Your last sentence is just more of the same nonsense: baseless assertions, which you cannot support. You have zero empirical evidence to support your wacko beliefs. And despite my numerous requests, you have never produced even one measurement to support your alarmist nonsense.
If there was ever a poster boy for Cognitive Dissonance, it is you. Leon Festinger would have a field day with you. The flying saucer will be here any day now, buddyboi. Get ready. They reserved a seat for you. It’s in the Troll section.
Friends
The troll is deliberately confusing correlation with coherence as a method to ‘rope’ dbstealey.
For any who fail to understand this, I provided an explanation of it in this thread here but it may not have been seen as a result of the threaded form WUWT now uses.
Richard
dbstealey
You say to the troll
Sorry, but that displays complete misunderstanding.
The troll is NOT attempting to win an argument. The troll is – with much success – attempting to destroy rational debate by deflecting the thread from its subject. And that is why the troll is “deliberately misrepresenting everything”.
Whether or not the troll won or lost the “debate” is not relevant; at least it is not relevant for the troll. Destroying the thread is the troll’s intention and the troll is clearly winning at that.
As Jim Ryan wrote above
I remind that you agreed buckleybud is a “willfully obtuse troll”. He/she./they/it is winning.
Richard
CO2 has not followed T in the past 18 years.
…
Facts are your biggest problem.
Buddy wouldn’t know a scientific ‘fact’ if it bit him on his a-a-a… nkle.
I’ve asked that cognitive dissonance-afflicted puppy a half dozen times now to give us just one (1) fact:
Post a measurement showing the quantity of global warming attributable to human emissions.
But the child can’t do it. He is getting mauled in this debate because he can’t even understand a simple chart. His response is to troll the thread with his anti-science. That’s why he’s losing the debate.
@Courtney
..
I am successful in debating dbstealey because the fact that CO2 has not followed T in the past 18 years cannot be disputed.
beckleybud@gmail.com
Stop trolling. You are being a pest.
And you are being plain daft when you write
You have lost that debate repeatedly but – like the ’round bottomed man’ on the floor of a birdcage – each time you are knocked down you bob back up to be knocked over again.
But that is your intention; i.e. to destroy the thread by use of interminable and repetitive nonsense. And you are having success with that trolling.
You have repeatedly been shown that CO2 follows temperature. It always has and it always will at all time scales.
The shortest time scale was first reported in 1990 by Cynthia Kuo, Craig Lindberg & David J. Thomson who published their paper titled ‘Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’ in Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990).
Several others have found the same since.
For your information I provide an outline of the carbon cycle as we assessed it in one of our 2005 papers.
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Mechanisms of the carbon cycle
The IPCC reports provide simplified descriptions of the carbon cycle. We considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be:
Short-term processes
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
Longer-term process
6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).
7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.
8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.
Natural processes that add CO2 to the system:
9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).
10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.
Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system:
11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).
12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).
Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.
At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.
The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.
The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.
Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.
Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations. However, some things can be stated from the empirical data.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.
The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature. So, our paper considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940 (there was an estimated average rise of 0.5 °C in average surface temperature).
It is that temperature effect I have been reporting in this thread.
Richard
@Courtney
..
No, I haven’t lost the debate.
You post: ” it always will at all time scales.”
But it has not followed it in the past 18 years.
CO2 does not follow T in all cases as evidenced by empirical data from the last 18 years.
…
Deal with that fact. The past 18 years proves it true.
Just tell your wingman dbstealey to admit that CO2 does not follow T in all cases and this discussion will be terminated.
BuddyB:
Pff-f-f-f-f-ft.
Go away. You’re just a troll.
You know where you can stick your ‘choice’.
No, you are (deliberately) confusing as many issues as possible by repeatedly “arguing” a statement that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: Worse, you seem to feel that statement proves something. But it is meaningless. It proves nothing, and establishes no “truth” that matters.
So, let us back up a bit. The CAGW religion holds the following string of arguments as their Bible and Chapter and Verse. Their religious compass, so to speak.
Man is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
The CO2 that man is releasing is heating the atmosphere.
If man continues to release CO2 – the atmosphere will catastrophically heat up …
… and many bad things will happen.
DBStealey and Courtney have presented several times compelling and accurate proofs that show NOT ONE of those strings, those much-feared results will occur even IF the assumed precedent occurs.
– CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and no atmospheric heating resulted.
– Man’s contribution to today’s CO2 levels are only 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The remaining 97% is natural origin. And today’s atmospheric CO2 is going back into natural sinks faster than before.
– Co2 has gone up before (to levels higher than today’s levels) and has gone down before – to levels almost fatal to life!
– Across all known times, global average temperature proxies have gone UP about 800-900 years BEFORE CO2 rose. Thus, an increase in CO2 can be proven – on a global level – to cause NO change in global average temperatures.
Over much shorter periods of time (800-1000 years), global average temperatures has risen and fallen significantly while CO2 levels remained steady. Again, on a global scale over a known periods of time, a rise in temperature CANNOT be blamed on a change in CO2.
– On smaller time scales (20 – 30 years), CO2 has been constant.
Temperatures rose over a short a period of time.
Temperatures were steady.
Temperatures fell over a short period of time.
Recently, CO2 levels have risen about 20%
Temperatures rose over a short a period of time.
Temperatures were steady.
Temperatures fell over a short period of time.
Continuing this pattern, CO2 rose significantly during the 18 years between 1996 and 2014.
Global average measured temperatures remained steady.
Thus, the 23 year 1973 – 1996 slight increase in global average temperature CANNOT be blamed on ANY increase in CO2 caused by ANY mechanism.
Further, the 30 year 1945 – 1973 slight DECREASE in global average temperature CANNOT be blamed on the simultaneous increase in CO2 during that period!…
Now …
You are obsessed with your claim that “CO2 increased for 18 years while temperatures remained the same.”
So what? Ferdinand regularly summarizes considerable information that indicates some portion of today’s increase in CO2 levels are due to man’s production of CO2. If natural process released CO2 from the ocean over many past tens of thousands of years, those same natural processes will release CO2 from the ocean in the future tens of thousands of years. So what? A warming ocean is EXPECTED to release CO2 into the atmosphere!
If man is releasing additional CO2 today over a short 18, 36, 54, or 154 year period, that extra release of CO2 does not affect past levels of CO2 release. It changes TODAY’S levels of Co2. And, since global temperatures do NOT respond to any past changes in CO2 levels, and they do NOT respond to today’s change in CO2 levels, we don’t care about your numerous repeats about any 18 year period.
It is as relevant to global warming political policy and the continued funding of the CAGW in politics and the academic industrial political complex as the color of my granddaughters’ school restroom walls.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978
” It proves nothing, and establishes no “truth” that matters.”
…
Actually, you are wrong. It shows that something other than a change in T has cause the rise in CO2 in the past 18 years. It shows that the statement proffered by dbstealey that “CO2 follows T” is NOT true in all conditions.
…
Stiop deflecting and bringing up the CAGW argument, as it does not apply in this case
…
When Dbstealey admits that CO2 does not follow T in all cases, this discussion will end. The evidence for this is clear, and he needs to acknowledge reality.
buddybeckley:
The only ‘success’ you are having is in trolling this thread. You constantly deflect and misrepresent, never answering the one simple question I’ve constantly asked: post just one (1) simple measurement: a measurement showing the specific quantity of global warming caused by human activity. Either that, or an admission that you cannot produce that measurement.
That measurement, or the lack of it, is the central point around which the entire debate centers. So either produce it, or you lose the debate. Simple as that. Everything else is buddybluster.
In a scientific discussion like rthe rest of us are having, someone who has no facts is regarded as no more than a bystander who is interfering with the conversation. I’ve repeatedly shown you the difference between an overlay chart and one showing cause and effect; we know you either can’t, or you stubbornly refuse to understand the difference, despite the many examples posted to help you. Everyone else understands the difference. I think you are being basically dishonest when you pretend to not understand. A 5th grader could easily understand it.
Now, quit constantly changing the subject. Enough with all your misrepresenting, and with your constant attempts to re-frame the argument away from what you can’t answer, and with your deflecting, and enough of your constant blustering. Just post a simple measurement, showing causation — or admit it if you can’t. Either one would make you a stand-up guy.
Personally, I don’t think you’re a stand up guy. I don’t think you want to be. Prove me wrong.
RACook,
Thanks for that easy to understand explanation. Of course, it will fly right over buddy’s head.
You are right that buddybeckley is “obsessed”. That is the correct term. He’s picked a losing argument, but now he is fixated, and he cannot let go. He cannot admit that he is on the wrong track. He cannot man-up and do what a skeptic would do: simply say that since the facts have changed, his view has changed. Instead, he looks for the most outlandish ways to ‘explain’ his weird outlook.
The result: he comes across as a stubborn lunatic, and every new comment puts him deeper in his hole.
Thanks again for the clear explanation. No doubt every one except buddy will understand it.
As for when this debate will end: it will end when buddy admits that although global T is the same now as it was 18 years ago, in the mean time it has fluctuated constantly — and those fluctuations are consitently followed by CO2. Simple as that, and that is what all the evidence shows.
buddy could put an end to this, by simply admitting the obvious. But being a troll, he will not do that. I’ve got his number. I know him like the back of my hand. I know buddy better than he knows himself. And I know what he will do, and what he will not do.
Friends
The troll has been fully answered repeatedly, but the troll has achieved its objective of destroying rational debate of the thread’s subject by deflecting the thread onto repeated refutations of the troll’s irrelevant nonsense.
The best policy now is to allow the troll to write whatever it wants and to ignore it.
Richard
@Obtuse Troll,
Of course you’re not a stand-up guy. I already knew that. Your first two sentences are your usual inane, pointless bluster. You’re good at bluster. Best I’ve ever seen. If I wanted to learn how to bluster, you would be the go-to guy.
Yes, global warming has stopped. It is the same now as it was 18 years ago. We agree on that. And that fact deconstructs your “carbon” scare. But you seem to believe in the preposterous notion that between 18 years ago and now, global temperatures have remained absolutely flat, with zero fluctuations of any kind. That’s crazy.
If you really believed that, I would say you are completely nuts. Insane. Certifiably.
But no, you are just doing your usual trolling. Anyone who looks at a simple chart like this can see at a glance that temperatures fluctuate non-stop above and below trend. The trend is zero, that’s all. It is flat; there is no global warming.
But it is obvious that T fluctuates constantly. And that single fact debunks your argument:
To “fluctuate” means to rise and fall. Each temperature rise and fall is followed by a subsequent rise and fall of CO2.
Thus, your idiotic claim is easily falsified. Even the most casual observer can see that.
Next, you keep pointing to “36 ppm”, as if it is relevant to this falsification of your True Belief system. It is not, because amplitude has nothing to do with it. You have been told this repeatedly, but you are far too stubborn to let it sink in. It could be 360 ppm, or 360,000 ppm, and it still would not matter. Because it has zero to do with the issue of cause and effect. It is just more of your misdirection, deflection and bluster.
As for your final delfection, there isn’t much in science that is always true 100.0% of the time. But conversely, it is never true that temperature consistently follows CO2 — while it is always true that CO2 consistently follows temperature.
Thus, you are wrong in every one of your arguments. Par for the course with you.
@dbstealey.
…
Since ∆T is zero for the past 18 years (global warming has stopped)
..
What is the cause of the 36 ppm of CO2 rise in the past 18 years. (∆CO2 = 36 ppm?)
…
Please show us the ∆T of the past 18 years that has caused the rise in CO2
….
Additionally
…
Your “chart” uses the WFT “isolate” fuction. It is comparing noise to noise.
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/help —> “Isolate ……Does the same running mean as ‘mean’, but then subtracts this from the raw data to leave the ‘noise’
buddyboi, as usual you didn’t answer anything, you just changed the subject.
Here’s another question that probably won’t be answered: How is it that you can post non-stop, throughout the work day, day after day? Most folks, unless they’re retired, are either working or looking for work. But not you. What’s Up With That?
I’ll add that to my measurement question, which buddy is still desperately avoiding.
I know I shouldn’t enjoy things that derail the discussion of the thread’s official topic.
That was entertaining though.
Thanks Richard, DB, and RACook. 🙂
Mark Bofill,
Isn’t the Obtuse Troll entertaining? He is so easy to deconstruct.
He still can’t understand that ‘noise’ has nothing to do with cause and effect. But he clings to that deflection like a drowning man clings to a stick.
Once again buddy is trying to re-frame the debate, because he lost this one.
@dbstealey.
..
Post a chart that shows the ∆T that caused the 36 ppm rise of CO2 in the past 18 years.
..
Here’s ∆CO2 for the past 18 years http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/trend
…
Show me the ∆T
The monomania exhibited is almost a little spooky. 🙂
Regards Stealey.
Mark Bofill,
The OT [obtuse troll] can’t get it thru his head that he is still trying to re-frame the argument into something he believes could be more in his favor.
It’s not, but at least it isn’t as damning as trying to post a non-existent measurement.
And yes, he is more than a little spooky — but it’s the right month for that, no? ☺
[Snip. ~mod.]
Hey, the Obtuse Troll is deflecting again! Changing the subject! Trying his hardest to avoid admitting that the debate is about cause and effect charts, not CO2 amplitude.
I predicted this. As I said upthread, I know buddy like the back of my hand. I know him better than he knows himself. I know what he will do, and he’s done it again. More misdirection! ☺
[Snip. Threadjacking. Take some time off. ~ mod]
[Snip. Threadjacking. Take some time off. ~ mod.]