Thought these were interesting.

Now here’s a graph worth interpreting. As annual CO2 emissions have risen since 1895, there has been no comparable acceleration of warming, this according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. How can this be a cause/effect relationship? pic.twitter.com/bgmSX3cdwF

— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) July 30, 2022

I'm sure this would come as a surprise to many climate hysterics. #ClimateScam pic.twitter.com/llwJIktkZ1

— Brian Bellia (@BrianBellia) July 30, 2022

How much money do I need to give up to fix this?

coolerguy12 said:

---

How much money do I need to give up to fix this?

---

All of it, and then some

There is no significant man made global warming, and even if there was, there is no amount of taxes or government control that can fix it. HTHs

I would like to see volume of atmosphere compared to volume of ocean.

CO2 is not a pollutant. The entire correlation is false.

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

Why do global alarmists want to suffocate plants?

Plants breathe CO2, in fact, they thrive in high CO2 environments, how could it be bad for Earth?

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

---

How did they measure Temps in 1850?

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

---

I've always wondered how much of this variation can be attributed to changes in land use and thermometer technologies. A mercury thermometer in the middle of a Dallas farm in 1850 is going to read a lot differently from a digital thermometer at DFW. It seems like a change of 1 degree Celsius is entirely explainable by these 2 things.

DCAggie13y said:

---

I've always wondered how much of this variation can be attributed to changes in land use and thermometer technologies. A mercury thermometer in the middle of a Dallas farm in 1850 is going to read a lot differently from a digital thermometer at DFW. It seems like a change of 1 degree Celsius is entirely explainable by these 2 things.

---

That reminds me of this paper:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

It shows a lot of this kind of stuff

EKUAg said:

---

Thought these were interesting.

Now here’s a graph worth interpreting. As annual CO2 emissions have risen since 1895, there has been no comparable acceleration of warming, this according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. How can this be a cause/effect relationship? pic.twitter.com/bgmSX3cdwF

— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) July 30, 2022

I'm sure this would come as a surprise to many climate hysterics. #ClimateScam pic.twitter.com/llwJIktkZ1

— Brian Bellia (@BrianBellia) July 30, 2022

---

The dust bowl was a b1ch.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

---

That is like < 1/2 degree change in freedom units. Easy to take raw temperature data and logically smooth to a 1/2 degree rise. Just looks scarier in celsius units to the lemmings.

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

---

They've been caught fiddling with the data. They adjusted older years down. Its been discussed no fewer than 1000 times on this board. To think they had temperature measurements in 1850 accurate to fractions of 1 degree is ridiculous

S540841 said:

---

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

---

In a closed system? Perhaps

If only there were some... external factor that could account for the variations in global temperature. Such a hypothetical external source of warming would have to be huge, though -- something on the order of magnitude of our own Sun.

bmks270 said:

---

Why do global climate alarmists catastrophists want to suffocate plants?

Plants breathe CO2, in fact, they thrive in high CO2 environments, how could it be bad for Earth?

---

Epstein term.

I feel like a lot of it is all the roads, parking lots, and buildings that have gone up over time. I was in a giant bucees parking lot at the hottest time of the day and it felt unbearably hot on the walk to the store, yet I can play golf at the same time of day and it's still hot but it feels a lot less hot.

My goal is to completely stop C02 emissions and stomp out every plant in existence. What good is it that plants are able to respire.

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

---

Exactly right - that chart in the Tweet was very deceiving because of how the 2 axis were scaled. Temp scale was very large relative to the average, CO2 scale was adjusted such that it was very close to the min/max range of the data..

captkirk said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I'm not saying this to support the climate change nonsense, but we should be at least talking about scientific subjects scientifically.

The scale of the Y axis shouldn't be so large that it hides trends. The scale for CO2 makes it very visible, but the temperature scale is so wide it goes from 20F all the way to 80F.



There is a trend that corresponds with the rise in CO2. It's not a big trend, but it is a trend, and there's not enough here to conclusively tie it to CO2. I'll bet high fructose consumption also went up during that same period.

---

They've been caught fiddling with the data. They adjusted older years down. Its been discussed no fewer than 1000 times on this board. To think they had temperature measurements in 1850 accurate to fractions of 1 degree is ridiculous

---

Yep. They ran it through a model that assumes global warming to "correct" the old data.




1001

Let's update the graph with CO2 from 0 to 500 ppm and temperature from absolute zero to 100F and see how the correlation looks. That should address any concerns the warmistas have about scale, right?

This shows the current hysteria perfectly. Why no red death map in 2017?

captkirk said:

---

This shows the current hysteria perfectly. Why no red death map in 2017?

---

I had a business trip to Frankfurt in July 2017. My hotel had no AC and I was sweating my balls off.

I was complaining about the hotel until I realised the building was 400 years old. So I decided to cut them some slack since I'm sure this wasn't the hottest summer in the past 400 years.

captkirk said:

---

This shows the current hysteria perfectly. Why no red death map in 2017?

---

The local wether station here in Victoria also started using the fire red color scheme graphics and promoting the daily "weather indices" instead of the actual temperatures for each day. The on screen graphic shows "weather indices" ranges of between 110-115 for Monday thru Sunday when the actual temperature for these days is mid to upper 90's. There's an agenda in play I have no doubt.


"Weather indices" are the "feels like" temperature, to save you from looking it up.

EKUAg said:

---

Now here’s a graph worth interpreting. As annual CO2 emissions have risen since 1895, there has been no comparable acceleration of warming, this according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. How can this be a cause/effect relationship? pic.twitter.com/bgmSX3cdwF

— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) July 30, 2022

---

I'm sure the data collection and measurement techniques were dead nuts accurate in the pre-modern era.

Where did they pull the information? The Farmers Almanac?

S540841 said:

---

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

---

Maybe..there are too many variables in the atmosphere to definitively say that CO2 is THE reason for the greenhouse effect.

Assuming it's true, how do we know it's not a FEATURE of our atmosphere?

captkirk said:

---

There is no significant man made global warming, and even if there was, there is no amount of taxes or government control that can fix it. HTHs

---

Water vapor is by far the greatest green house gas.

zephyr88 said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

Now here’s a graph worth interpreting. As annual CO2 emissions have risen since 1895, there has been no comparable acceleration of warming, this according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. How can this be a cause/effect relationship? pic.twitter.com/bgmSX3cdwF

— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) July 30, 2022

---

I'm sure the data collection and measurement techniques were dead nuts accurate in the pre-modern era.

Where did they pull the information? The Farmers Almanac?

---

Zeph, they pulled it from the same data that the globalist climate nuts use, but without the corruption.

MagnumLoad said:

---

captkirk said:

---

There is no significant man made global warming, and even if there was, there is no amount of taxes or government control that can fix it. HTHs

---

Water vapor is by far the greatest green house gas.

---

There goes hydrogen as a fuel source.

With all the crazy stuff leftists have created out of whole cloth over the last few years, does anyone still buy into this?

EKUAg said:

---

Thought these were interesting.

Now here’s a graph worth interpreting. As annual CO2 emissions have risen since 1895, there has been no comparable acceleration of warming, this according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. How can this be a cause/effect relationship? pic.twitter.com/bgmSX3cdwF

— Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) July 30, 2022

I'm sure this would come as a surprise to many climate hysterics. #ClimateScam pic.twitter.com/llwJIktkZ1

— Brian Bellia (@BrianBellia) July 30, 2022

---

****ing South Carolina...it's all their fault.