In light of the continuing false and outrageous statements by Weather Channel founder John Coleman (who is not a meteorologist and never has been), The Weather Channel has issued a statement on global warming.
And yet: Someday, perhaps even in our lifetimes, climate deniers might eventually discover that the USA is not the whole world. Scientists remain guarded about the prospect. Note also that climate denier jc456 is utterly clueless about the deliberately distorted vertical scales on the graph he posted. (Like all climate deniers, numbers are not his strong suit. He's more of a prayer-and-magic kind of guy.) On jc's graph, 100 ppm of CO2 is equivalent to a whopping 60°F in temperature. That corresponds to a climate sensitivity of (wait for it ...) 78°C per doubling of CO2! Whereas even the largest range accepted by the IPCC is between 1.5 and 4.5°C. So jc's posted graph overstates climate sensitivity by between 17 times and 52 times. And climate deniers wonder why nobody trusts them.
When are you pause deniers going to admit that the US is part of the earth! See, the temperature in the US stayed stable while CO2 went up. Yet you're saying that everywhere else in the world it's different. Well, show me the rest of the world with the same data, not altered data as an anamoly.
Look who is talking about scales. Your graph is an abject fraud!. You have two trended series. Any two trended series can be made to give a good visual correlation all you have to do is play with the scale. Tell me why is 25ppm = 0.2C in your graph? Simple that is the scale you needed to get the trended series to match up. You coukd fo the same thing with temperature and the number of professional baseball games played. Your graph is an abject fraud!!!
I really wish you pause deniers would understand a graph. I understand it doesn't follow the montra, but lying about what is on a graph to fit your agenda is disengenuous. But one can hope just maybe one day.
That's a climate sensitivity of about 2.2°C per doubling of CO2, in the low-middle part of the accepted sensitivity range. In other words, unlike your pal jc, my graph is actually based on science.
But it doesn't fit well does it? It only fits well in that small 1976-2000 window. You climate sensitivity is derived from curve fitting.
For the true beleivers that think the science is settled and people calling out their errors as crazy there is this. New paper links warming since 1950 to ENSO and cloud cover variations Indicates that the temperature pattern can be attributed to a sequence of events, namely a shift in the prevailing ENSO conditions, then a reduction in total cloud cover and then a shift on cloud (decrease in low level cloud that was largely offset by an increase in mid and upper level cloud) Uses the Trenberth, Fasulo & Kiehl energy balance diagram to show that the loss in total cloud cover caused an increase in heat energy being absorbed at the Earth’s surface that was greater than the increase that IPCC 5AR claims was due to greenhouse gases Indicates that greenhouse gases played little if any part in the warming, which not only refutes the IPCC’s belief or opinion but also means that there is negligible, or even no, 16 or more years’ of “missing heat” to be found. Shows the changes in cloud cover and temperature both as global averages and then for the six latitude bands each of 30 degrees, the latter indicating the changes in cloud cover applied to most latitude bands except the Antarctic and to a less extent 30S-60S. Doesn’t attempt to identify the reason for the reduction in total cloud cover or the shift from low level cloud.
