Earth just had its 400th straight warmer-than-average month thanks to global warming

Ok, so the now documented decline of global mean .56C in two years does what to your story?

 

Back it up.

 

Nothing because you are limiting yourself to two ****ing years of data.

 

So, just to be clear here, are you volunteering for stopping breathing??

 

Not that kind of party. Sorry if that disappoints you....

 

Can you provide a link?

The warming over the last 60 years was 0.15C/decade. Over the last 40 years it is 0.18C/decade. Over the last 20 years it is 0.22C/decade. And over the last 10 years it is 0.27C/decade based on a 5yr lowess smoothing. The rate has been increasing.

 

Sorry, I don't follow?

 

What a load... you'd limit us to a mere 30-40 years, whose vacillations get entirely smoothed out when you view them from the perspective of a millennium. And the longer you go out, the more trivial your 30 year observation becomes. And given that the sample is roughly larger than your margin of error, the statistical significance of the variance is even more devastating to your asinine dogma.

Here's the problem you're faced with. If CO2 is linearly associable to warming, concentration is the only measure that is quantifiable. Since there hasn't been a documented decline in CO2, the fact that temperatures declined in the absence of an equal measure of decline in CO2 concentrations irrevocably breaks the link of your faith. Sorry. Try some PH....

 

Total horse ****.

The earth has existed for 54,000,000,000 months, the vast majority of that in Warm Earth conditions, much warmer than today's ice age temperatures.



400 months is 1/135,000,000millionth of earth's duration.

You'll likely live 3,672,000 seconds. If assessed you for 1/40th of one second, would I really know anything about your life? Anything from which I could draw authoritative conclusions about how normative that 1/40th of a second was of your entire life's state?

Such silliness, but you must find it entertaining!

 

It demonstrates two things. First, the temperature decline from a potent El Nino can be dramatic. Second, the temperature is very erratic on small temporal scales. By the way, did you know that in the 2 years leading up to the El Nino the monthly mean temperature increased by 0.75C?

 

I did not limit you to thirty years. In fact, the article explicitly references the entirety of the 20th century as the baseline.

No one argued that CO2 is perfectly linearly associated to the warming. So no, a minor deviation from the increase in the CO2 and the increase in the global average temperature does not present evidence to contradict the causative link.

 

LOL... Is your dogma then like being a Unitarian and you only ever have to adopt Christianity when it becomes convenient??

 

Make another troll post.

 

I think you've missed the point. Over a 30+ year period each and every monthly mean temperature was above average. If the Earth were neither cooling or nor warming you'd expect a 50% probability of each month being above the average if the temperature was only exhibiting random fluctuations. But, what we got was 400 months that were above. That means, again assuming the Earth was not undergoing a significant warming trend, that the probability of this happening by random chance is (1 - 0.5) ^ 400. Those are beyond astronomical odds. It is essentially a statistical argument that the Earth is insanely likely to be warming.

 

Mother Earth feeds you?? Does she make you sit in a high chair and wear a bib?

 

Would you feel better if I bought a Prius?

 

I'm not arguing about it, no. Aqua Net, Rave, and Loreal are still the most widely used aerosol hairsprays in America, I didn't know they banned it.

 

The dry bulb air temperature certainly declines during its erratic up and down swings. But, the net total of all heat content is increasing with essentially zero decline. This is evident when you look at all heat storage and transformation mechanisms including equivalent potential temperatures in the atmospheric, oceanic heat content, and the latent of fusion in the conversion of ice to water. We usually focus (perhaps too much) on dry bulb air temperatures because they are the most applicable to human perception and because that's what mostly determines when/how ice melts.

 

Don't care about your personal life choices.

 

Your Cult is limited to about 180 years of faulty data out of 4.5 BILLION years the Earth has been around.

 

That usually happens coming out of an ice age.

 

Which is inaccurate at best. Our data only goes back to the late 1700's while our climate goes back 4.5 billion years. This is like trying to measure the depth of the Pacific after adding one drop of water to it.

 

That’s all you care about. Otherwise your hysteria about the weather would subside to a rational level (stop pretending you can do anything about it)

I don’t care about your personal life choices whatsoever, and that statement is 100% true.

 

Because we're still coming out of what we consider to be a mini Ice Age.

 

you are wasting energy by needl

You are confused about the difference between wasting energy needlessly and using energy. You are consuming more energy than you need to. Therefore you are factually contributing to the problem you claim exists. Which is it.