Question about climate change

Your doing it again. Pretending to be miss informed and omitting the complete MEANING. Of AGW. But that’s fine, that’s up the scientist who don’t call it AFWWIBFTC.
Your continual similarity to style Faux lies is obvious.

 

Doing what again ??? Show us all data which shows the correlation of CO2 with temperature for (let’s make it easy) the Holocene.

What is your understanding of the complete meaning of AGW ???

 

AGW is real ?
That post is very funny. You believe in AGW but you don’t think global warm is created by people. Guess what rhe G and W stand for and assuming you know what A is. Check the thesaurus for AGW too.

 

Global warming and cooling shows no correlation with CO2 concentration. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere probably results in some warming but the current warming period started long before the 1950’s when CO2 began to significantly increase. The rates of warming before and after 1950 are practically the same.

 

But you just said , you believe AGW. Look up yer meaning of AGW in ANY common dictionary and read it in its entirety, including the meaning of its thesaurus GLOBAL WARMING . You afraid.
This is how all informed people use the English language l

 

“practically”
Another word to admit you don’t know what “rate” and science are. You’re an admitted verbal circular firing squad all by yourself.

 

Practically means the same within measurement error.

You post is absurd.

 

I guarantee you're just as miss informed with math as you are English. Moving on

 

last 100 years AGW graph

 

What is that supposed to show ?? And where are the measurement error bands ?? The graph shows that the oceans temperature increased at a rate of 0.01 deg Centigrade per year. And there is no acceleration of that rate of rise.

 

What is that supposed to show ?? And where are the measurement error bands ?? The graph shows that the rate of temperature increase is the same in the 1930's through the 1940's as it is in the 1980's through 1990's. There was significantly more CO2 going into the atmosphere in the later years. The graph also shows no warming after the year 2000.

 

The average rate over time is the firsts dirivative of the position function,Iif you don’t believe all the universities in the world with simple HS math, it’s pretty arrogant. If you don’t get that the slopes of two intervals out side of seventy five years are significantly verifiable then the slope of just 75 years, your confusing “weather with climate” again.

The change of rate any of kind of threat increase the climate at a rate higher then every normal species and puts every species at risk.

What does evolve faster is the evolution of intellect using past experience correctly to help solve these problems. You deniers just happen to be the mutations that die off in early times. If you truly beleive in non AGW acceptance/ denial is not really trouble some, prove it to all of us by using your theories and getting the best deals on Florida shore frontage with out storm surge mitigation.

My thought is, you deniers are always fearful you might be wrong , aren’t truly believers but bluster about everything that golf cheater trump does exponentially.

 

Measurement error bands....more woo woo.from Faux and friends. Show some of them from any organization in climate science that disproves your version of AGW.
You’ve got 3500 plus to choose from....go for it.

 

Look at the graph. It's obvious that the slopes over those ~ 20 - 30 year periods are the same. It's also obvious that there have been periods of warming, cooling, and steady temperatures all with steadily increasing CO2. The globe is warming but CO2 is not the control knob just as happened in 10 similar periods of warming and cooling cycles in the Holocene. And the rate of temperature increase is within the range of the other warming/cooling cycles in the Holocene in which half were above and half were below. I've given you the references - now educate yourself.

Florida storm surge is proof of what ??

 

You don't know what measurement error and what accumulated error estimates mean with regard to measuring temperature at a finite number of locations and then estimating a "global" temperature ?? That's telling.

I've given you the references. Now educate yourself.

 

We don’t look at graphs selected in 20 year periods . You compare a global value over 10 k with the value since the industrial revolution and the mainstream use of fossil fuels in comparison. If fossil fuel is a target , that becomes the inyerval of choice. Selecting artificial 20 year perioda only when they agree with you is trike and unscientific. . The graph globally is becoming exponential.
Your pseudo math is yelling.

And if co2 is a target, you look at natural items that respond to that linfluence over long periods including the industrial revolution like Sequoias anmong iother trees, bacteria , and the entire biological nitch

 

You’ve given nothing but your fictitious claims.


Lying continuously is off putting ....and as reliable as concerning with Trump.

 

Of course you do. In fact that is the time period necessary to confirm a temperature change trend. And the fact remains that the current warming trend we are in is no different than previous Holocene warming trends with constant CO2.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the graph is becoming exponential ??

I'm coming to the conclusion that you really have no idea what you are talking about. What is the entire biological nitch ???

 

That's funny. What does that unreadable tree cross section supposed to represent ??

You have the references - educate yourself.

 

That’s right, you claim me and 3500 hundred universities every other country and all the top corporations don’t but you do.....along with highschool math and nearly every biology book in the public schools. You think it’s all just all fake.
Gotcha.

 

, You’ve heard the expression blank as a stick.

 

Can't help it if you refuse to learn.

 

Actually I've never heard that expression - where did "blank as a stick" come from ??

 

The White House this year.

 

Burp.