Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

My statement is factual and says nothing about global averages. This is the data that you selected. How confident are you that this raw data was not manipulated (homogenized) in the calculation of global average temperature.

 

And actually, it is not. As a number, of course that's a huge number. As a percentage of overall molecules, it's still insignificant. You're still describing less than .04% saturation.

- - - Updated - - -

How is your's then different? You make the same argument. You suggest that there is global warming because it's warm in your garden.

 

You stated "This data shows that it was just as warm in ~ 1930 than today.". Did you bother to look at that data - 2016 average +1.61. 1930 average 0.02. So at this particular location which year was warmer? Also do you think that in the 1930's, the people then were thinking, let's manipulate the raw data to make people in 90 years time state that global temperature is rising!

 

Not significant because the concentration is only 400ppm?. Try breathing arsenic pentafluoride at 20ppm (5% the concentration of co2).

No I did not! You stated "if your standard is not providing actual measurements" so data showing the actual measurements was posted from just 2 of the 6300 plus weather stations that NASA use. You could also use the several thousand other stations that Japan and other agencies access which also agree with the conclusion of NASA.

 

Look at the graph from the link you posted.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431043600000&dt=1&ds=14

 

CO2 is dangerous at concentrations of 5% and greater. That's 50,000 parts per million.

If you actually plot the raw data it shows something much different.

 

I can't see your point here

Please point to which year circa 1930 has an average greater than that of 2016 and give that figure using the raw data. For this weather station, year 2003 was the highest and year 2016 was second

 

I missed your point on AsF5 as well. What does that have to do with air containing 400 ppm CO2.

And ~ 1930 was ~ equal to 2016.

 

The point was that there have been posters here stating that as CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 is insignificant ie so low as to not worry about it. Yet if AsF5 was only 0.002% of the atmosphere we would all be dead even though 0.002% is "insignificant"

But it is not though. Average for the 1930's is +0.115. Average for 2006-2016 is +0.468

 

OK.

The temp for 1930 is practically the same as 2016.

 

Again, no, For this station, 2016 average +1.61. 1930 average +0.02.
The global temperature from the mid 1930's to 1980 was practically the same. From1980 onward it has been increasing about 0.2C per decade (post 44)

 

Again look at the chart. And the satellite data shows no warming in the last ~ 20 years. The earth is clearly warming up from the little ice age but human emissions of CO2 do not explain all of the temperature increase.

 

Which satellite data shows no warming in the last ~ 20 years.?
You have also debunked your first sentence by your second sentence

 

So, how about this. If you're worried about climate changes, what are you, personally, doing to lessen it's impact? Do you heat your house? Does your workplace provide air conditioning? Do you drive a car? Obviously, you're a consumer of the internet. Any guesses which industry is one of the least "green" on the planet?

If your worry is founded, shouldn't you be doing something to abate it?

 

The satellite data from UAH and RSS.

How so ?? Since ~ 1950 when the CO2 concentration began to significantly increase the globe has warmed, cooled, and remained steady. This indicates no direct correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentration.

 

Please supply a link for that data that shows no warming in the last ~ 20 years.

 

Yeah...

... dat's why Uncle Ferd tol' Granny...

... to wait till evenin' to cut the grass...

... so she wouldn't get a heatstroke.

 

There are, actually, many studies that now demonstrate this. The AGW crowd, however, have ignored this evidence, or studies, because they find them heretical. It is unlikely then that reminding the followers of AGW religiocity that this significantly undercuts their dogmatic slavish obsession to force the non faithful to bend to their will.....

 

They also refuse to acknowledge the benefits of global warming and the fact that any energy policy enacted to reduce the rate of CO2 emission increase will do economic damage and have no effect on global average temperature. This is due to Roger Pielke Jr.'s iron law of climate policy which basically says that any gov action to severely limit CO2 emissions will cause so much economic hardship that it will not be tolerated by the general public. That gov will be voted out of office. The D's have just experienced the iron law in action.

 

You seem to be deluding yourself with the .04% term. I guess you muxt be unaware that plants gain most of their mass by extracting the carbom from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Along with global warming we have been seeing an increase in plant growth due to the higner concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
.

 

My home is entirely heated by solar means, my electricity is generated by combinations of photovoltaic cells, a wind turbine, and falling water. My primary mode of transpotation is my bicycle.

 

You are perfectly capable of educating yourself. Please do.

 

No I'm not capable. I need you to show the evidence for your claim of "satellite data showing no warming in the last ~ 20 years". Surely that is not one of your made up 'facts'? You know, one of those facts that did not take account of satellite drift and also chose to start at the biggest temperature anomaly as measured by ground based stations to start their measurements from.

 

You say so much, but know so little. Have you NO self-perception?

 

Awww, are you a little hurt that I've shown what a Trump sheepie you are?

Are you one of those - "Can't be global warming because it's colder in my garden than yesterday" ?