• 1
"Even NASA data confirms no warming since 1998 despite a considerable 30 percent rise in atmospheric CO2;"

Nonsense. GISS shows about .15C of warming during that period - a warming of about .011C/year. Your link did not show what it or you claimed. And there was no "30%" increase in atmospheric CO2 over that time frame. More like a 30ppmv increase (about 364ppmv to about 394ppmv), which comes to roughly an 8% increase in overall CO2. Why should I trust someone who can't do 5th grade math?

You make a reasonable point. But only insofar as I should have been more precise and clarified that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions increased by 45% between 1990 and 2010. That's according to the European Commission Joint Research Centre. Read more here:


Re: CO2 up 45 percent

Yeah, but that takes the wind out of your original argument. For one thing, NASA data *did* show warming since 1998, as I pointed out. Two, CO2 concentrations went up almost 4 times less than you had erroneously claimed. You're batting zero.

Rob, that's delusional reasoning. My point stands firm - huge rise in CO2 levels alongside flatlining, then dropping temps since 2005 that are the coldest now in the last seventeen years. Game over for alarmists, based on their own rules. See here from 11-11-03:

"LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.

To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet."

"My point stands firm - huge rise in CO2 levels alongside flatlining"

1) An 8% CO2 increase isn't *huge*.
2) Temps didn't flatline. They went up about .15C. You said GISS showed no warming, but it clearly did. You said CO2 went up 40%, but oops, you failed 5th grade math and it was really 8%.

"then dropping temps since 2005 that are the coldest now in the last seventeen years"

Absolute nonsense. 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 (tied for warmest or second warmest), and 2011 were ALL warmer than any year before 1998. The top 12 warmest years have all occurred from '98 on. And do you not see the irony in posting a link to a study that says that you need a trend of at least 17 years in order to separate noise from signal, and *then* using one starting in 2005? Talk about delusional! Do you even read what you post?
From the article:

"Looking at a single, noisy 10-year period is cherry picking, and does not provide reliable information about the presence or absence of human effects on climate,"

Yet, *you* think that cherry picking an even shorter period is better, and you post to a study that explicitly says you are wrong while doing it!

Slaying the sky dragon? Bwahahahaa! More like tilting at windmills.

"You said CO2 went up 40%"

That should be 30%, not 40%.

You've totally missed the point. Apply Livermore's reasoning and see if you can determine any human signal of warming (let alone a 'catastrophic' warming) in the last 17 year's data. Flatlining noise is all you see. That's despite rapid rises in CO2. Where's the correlation of rising CO2 with rising temps? The facts prove your doomsaying theory busted. There's absolutely nothing at all unnatural about current temps.
Only fools are left cherry picking the short warming blip between 1975-98 and claiming dangerous man made warming.


  • 1

Log in