Germany’s 2017/18 winter (December-January-February) came in moderately above normal in terms of mean temperature (+0.7°C), according to DWD German national weather service data recorded from its 2000 measurement stations scattered across the country. But February was a completely different story.
Seb thinks Central Europe is warming
First, in a recent comment, warmist reader Seb claimed that Germany saw a “pretty ‘normal’ February”. Yet DWD here just reported that the mean temperature for the month was -1.7°C (preliminary), which is 2.7°C below the 1981 – 2010 mean.
That’s quite a bit colder than “pretty normal”. And we expect that number will be revised a tenth or so of a degree colder over the coming weeks.
Seb added in his comment:
What would be a surprise would your predictions of a cooling climate to become true. Let’s fast forward 5-10 years and see who will laugh at whom …”
Looking at the 30-year trend (the time period used to define climate) we see that the trend for February in Germany is clearly downward (I added the latest data point for February to the chart, which was provided by Josef Kowatsch last year):
In the chart above, using the data from the DWD German national weather service, we see that the trend for February over the past 31 years in Germany is clearly downward.
Since 1988, the mean February temperature has in fact fallen about 1°C. That’s quite a surprise when we consider that it’s supposed to be getting warmer. Moreover, the data has not even been adjusted to take the urban heat island (UHI) into effect, Kowatsch says.
Who’s laughing?
Well Seb, we’re already laughing. That’s a rather foolish statement you’ve made. You need to look at the data before expressing such strange things. We’ve already been waiting for the warming 31 years, and there’s no need to wait another 5 or 10 years. But do keep pushing it off if you like – eventually it will get warmer because of natural cycles.
Germany’s highest peak, Zugspitze, set a new all-time record low for late February, measuring -30.5°C.
Central European winters gradually cooling over past 30 years
But that’s just the month of February, and arguably one could claim cherry-picking here. The cold trend in February, however, indeed matters because it impacts when spring starts in Central Europe. Data on this as well show that spring has been arriving later over the past 25 years, and not earlier.
Now looking at the winter trend (D-J-F), here as well we see there’s been no warming over the past three decades:
German winters have been cooling. Chart: Josef Kowatsch
20th coldest February in Austria
In neighboring Austria, the mean for February was also 2.0°C below the mean, according to Austria’s ZAMG national weather service here.
The ZAMG adds that in the mountains it was the 20th coldest February month since measurements began. Indeed Austria’s and Switzerland’s high elevation temperatures have cooled by a brisk 1.4°C over the past 30 years.
No warming in sight.
Here’s a pre empt.
DNFTT.
Thanks for the advice, but this time I couldn’t pass it up.
Understandable
The complete winter timeline:
https://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/national/gebietsmittel/brdras_ttt_16_de.jpg
Notice the 30 year mean.
The same for February:
https://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/national/gebietsmittel/brdras_ttt_02_de.jpg
It was a pretty normal February, not even outside 1 STD.
Yeah, happy Kowatsch. Lucky for him that this period is starting on a very warm year. I guess he waited for that moment long enough to finally be able to claim that “it’s cooling”. Will be interesting what he makes of this in spring and summer though … will he also claim that it’s cooling?
Yeah, look at the data …
https://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/national/gebietsmittel/brdras_ttt_17_de.jpg
Oh, and let’s not forget, Germany’s size is 0.07% of the whole planet’s surface. Our temperature data is not indicative for the whole planet …
U.S. temperatures also should not be taking as an indicator for the whole planet at just about 1.9% of the planet’s surface area.
The percentage of the Earth’s sea surface (71% of the globe) that is measured by thermometers is but a tiny fraction of 1%. In the Southern Hemisphere, the sea surface temperatures have long been “mostly made up”. And yet here you’re suggesting that we can get a reliably long-term “global” temperature anyway with thermometers?
So you are suggesting we don’t really know the surface temperature of planet Earth and how it changes?
I wonder how you convince yourself that having some proxies for temperature and what not is sufficient for a global coverage for “thousands of years in the past”, but actual measurements in the present are not sufficient 😉
And what are these “actual measurements in the present”? Sometimes they are “mostly made up” temperatures and/or “completely artificial adjustments” to hide the decline. You still haven’t explained why you believe a “completely artificial adjustment” that “may not be defensible!” is nonetheless real and actual. I’ve asked you to explain the “hide the decline” e-mails in your own words (why did they have to hide it?), and yet you still continue to evade.
“…you really ought to replace the values from 1961 onwards with observed [instrumental] temperatures due to the decline.”
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were” …. “Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of ‘correcting’ for the decline, though may be not defensible!”
Oh! Germany is now a warming-free zone!
Is it?
Look at the data!
Poor seb,
apart from El Nino release of solar driven ocean warming..
..there has been NO WARMING in the satellite era.
ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE ANYWHERE.
oh and seb, would you like to remind us all, please
Oh, and what was the unit of “work”?
What is the unit of “kinetic energy”?
What is the unit of “strain energy”?
Waiting for your vast knowledge to enlighten us all, 😉
Also waiting for some proof that enhance atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect on anything.
Waiting, waiting, waiting.. !!
All we hear is an EMPTY AGW vassal.
And off we go … discussion successfully derailed.
Do you think the decline is real? Do you really think that those proxies that show a decline in the late 20th century do so because the temperature really declined?
You are imagining a conspiracy here. Sorry.
@AndyG55:
Do I need to remind you that you claimed that a chair is performing constant work to hold up a weight? This adds up to how many Joules after 1h? How many after 2h?
Do you think the “completely artificial adjustment” used to “‘correct'” the decline that “may not be defensible!” is real temperature data, or is it “mostly made up” temperature data like the SH SSTs are (as admitted by Phil Jones)?
There is actually quite a bit of instrumental data that suggest temperatures have been declining (or at least not rising) since the 1980s. Antarctica, the Southern Ocean, most of the Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic, the Eastern U.S., Australia, large regions of South America, large regions of the Indian Ocean, mountain ranges in Asia… Of course, by removing temperature stations from regions of the world where it has been cooling/not warming (rural locations, mountain ranges) and by keeping the urban temperature stations affected by buildings and concrete and artificial heat, the temperatures rise artificially. For people like you, making temperatures rise artificially isn’t a problem, as it fits the narrative you believe in. For skeptics, artificial heat and “adjusting” temperature data to show warming is problematic. To dismiss our skepticism, you pivot to name-calling (“Conspiracy theorists!”).
Poor seb, RUNNING AWAY from simple questions
What was the unit of “work”, seb?
What is the unit of “kinetic energy”?
What is the unit of “strain energy”?
Why can’t you answer these very simple questions.?
Are you AFRAID that it might give away your total and utter IGNORANCE of physics and structural analysis?
You really are an PATHETICALLY EMPTY little trollette, aren’t you.
I’ll give you the hint one more time, in the vain attempt to allow you to EDUCATE yourself.
The unit of “strain energy” is JOULES. Comprehend?
What is the SI unit for “work”, seb?
Now put your thinking cap on, if you can find it at the bottom of your AGW anti-science, nil-educated sewer, and attempt to engage at least a tiny dribble of your fetid mind-sludge.
You didn’t answer the question, Kenneth.
Do you?
Instead you do your usual thing of deflecting and accusing “us” of fraud. If nothing helps, all the data is fake. I said it before and I say it again … make your own adjustments, the raw data is available. Explain how you would do it better and why the current adjustments are wrong (with examples from the data). If you are able to improve on the current state, I am sure your method will be widely adopted.
Do I need to remind you that you claimed that a chair is performing constant work to hold up a weight? This adds up to how many Joules after 1h? How many after 2h?
Please answer this simple question first.
Surface temperature changes are regional, not global. So in the regions where there are proxy records that show evidence of cooling, yes, it’s more likely than unlikely that those regions actually have been cooling…or not warming.
According to instrumental records (1,407 temperature stations), the continental U.S. has not warmed since 1901, with pronounced cooling in the Eastern half. Are those thermometer records real, SebastianH?
According to instrumental records, East Antarctica has been (rapidly) cooling since 1979.
According to instrumental records, Asian mid-latitudes have been cooling since 1990.
According to instrumental records, West Antarctica has been cooling since 1999.
According to instrumental records, the Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean have both been cooling since the 1970s.
According to instrumental records (the longest-running temperature stations), Australia has not warmed since the mid- to late-1800s, and SE Australia has been cooling since the early 1960s.
According to instrumental records, the Southern Ocean and Pacific Ocean both cooled between 1970 and 2009.
According to instrumental records, the North Atlantic has been cooling since 1985.
According to instrumental records, the Yellow and East China Seas have been cooling since 1998.
According to instrumental records, Greenland coasts have been cooling since 2001. And overall, Greenland has not warmed since the 1940s.
I could go on and on and on with dozens more like this.
So now that I have answered your question, please answer mine. To review, this is what I asked:
Do you think the “completely artificial adjustment” used to “‘correct’” the decline that “may not be defensible!” is real temperature data, or is it “mostly made up” temperature data like the SH SSTs are (as admitted by Phil Jones)?
At what point does a “completely artificial adjustment” used to “‘correct'” for the decline in temperatures in the proxy data get transformed into real temperature data?
So assuming the instrumental data that shows cooling or non-warming for recent decades is truth, please answer this: What is the mechanism for all that cooling and non-warming described above? What is causing the North Atlantic to cool so rapidly, for example? Is it natural cooling, or do humans cause it?
So you are ignoring the divergence problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem
Noted.
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=GISS_TA_Y&date=2017-12-01
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/
Not a lot of cooling visible. I don’t know where you are getting most of your instrumental temperature record data from, are those unadjusted datasets?
The decline is visible in some proxy data and thought to be caused by tree rings (for example) not only being influenced by temperature, but also other factors. Since it didn’t really cool in the decades affected the instrumental record was fused with that data (it matches earlier proxy data, so that is a valid way to join two time-series of data).
That’s all that happened here.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4601 (read it, understand it …)
Earth is not uniformly warming or cooling. So even with the global heat content increasing, there will be places which don’t experience increasing heat content. On a global scale it increases though.
Human emissions are causing the global heat content to increase because of the changing radiative properties of our atmosphere. They are not directly causing a cold winter day or a warm summer day or other local or short lived events.
“Human emissions are causing the global heat content to increase because of the changing radiative properties of our atmosphere.”
ROFLMAO…
And there is that TOTALLY UNSUPPORTABLE FANTASY that seb has been brain-hosed with.
Mindless parroting of anti-science GARBAGE.
The ONLY thing seb knows.
Let’s just remind everybody of seb’s non-existent grasp of physics/maths/science…..
“For this to happen the compression would have to perform work (unit Watt) continously over time to provide Joules (work X time) for the heat content.”
Apparently in seb’s FANTASY FIZZICS world, the unit of “work” is watt and a Joule is “work x time”
(anyone can look this up with a quick google search 😉 )
Talk about having things bass-ackwards.. DOH !!!
So seb.
Let’s get things straight, hey…
What was the unit of “work”, seb?
What is the unit of “kinetic energy”?
What is the unit of “strain energy”?
Prove your manic ignorance yet again.
….we are all waiting,
but we know it will happen with your next post.
AndyG55,
it might not have been totally clear from what you quote, but performing work is not equal to work. Therefore let me rephrase it for you. You claim the chair is constantly performing work to hold up a weight. So there should be a power output (Watt) which over time results in a amount of Joules. An amount that changes the longer the weight sits on the chair.
So, how many Joules in 1h and how many in 2h? Simple question, no answer from you. Or do you realize that this is nonsense and the compression happens only once, resulting in a fixed amount of Joules? Nothing that gets compressed once and then not further can add to the heat content after the initial compression. That’s why bicycle tires cool down to surrounding temperatures after filling them with air. That’s why your “gravito thermal effect” is BS.
ROFLMAO,
And seb doubles down on his IGNORANCE.
The basic concepts of work, strain energy, kinetic energy are totally beyond his failed junior high FIZZICS.
What is the unit of “work” seb,?
What is the unit of “strain energy”, seb?
What is the unit of “kinetic energy”,seb?
“So, how many Joules in 1h and how many in 2h?”
The fact you continue to ask such a dumb, anti-physics question says it all, and shows everybody your incredible ignorance when it comes to basic physics.
How does a headless chook dig such a deep hole as you are now in, seb?
“and the compression happens only once, resulting in a fixed amount of Joules?”
Ahhh, so the more the compression, the more kinetic energy.. is that what you are saying?
So the very bottom of the atmosphere, where the air is most compressed by the air above it, has the highest kinetic energy? Is that what you are saying ???
Well done seb..
You have just describe the gravity-thermal based temperature gradient.
“So there should be a power output (Watt) which over time results in a amount of Joules. An amount that changes the longer the weight sits on the chair.”
You really do have a vivid imagination.
Brought about by your total lack of understanding of anything to do with physics.
What are the units of “work”, seb?
What are the units of “strain energy”, seb?
What are the units of “kinetic energy”, seb?
When you can answer these simple questions, maybe you can bury your headless chook routine in the deep hole you have dug for yourself, yet again.
Seems early March temperatures are also dropping significantly in the USA and has been for quite a long time..
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/plummeting-march-3-temperatures-in-the-us/
A new book for that beloved AGW fanatic in your life.
Watch their head EXPLODE. 🙂
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-climate-change-by-marc-morano/
The synopsis:
“Less freedom. More regulation. Higher costs. Make no mistake: those are the sure-fire consequences of the modern global warming campaign waged by political and cultural elites, who have long ago abandoned fact-based science for dramatic fearmongering in order to push increased central planning. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real-life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of “deplorable” Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar “climate change” complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.
“…the
multibilliondollar ‘climate change’ complex…”you mean the…
“the multiTRILLION dollar ‘climate change’ complex…”
[…] Latest Data Show Central Europe Winters Cooling Over Past 30 Years…Germany’s February Almost 3°… […]
[…] Latest Data Show Central Europe Winters Cooling Over Past 30 Years…Germany’s February Almost 3°… […]
[…] Latest Data Show Central Europe Winters Cooling Over Past 30 Years…Germany’s February Almost 3°… […]
The point that seb has never conceded is that with HadCRUT4 data-set showing that there has only been 0.78°C of net warming since 1850. Thus the warming rate is 0.47°C/century and, when compared to historical variation, is perfectly in line with the natural recovery from the 1690 (or there about) ‘cold point’ of the Little Ice Age. So logically there has been absolutely no detectable warming much above the approximately 0.5°C/century natural variation in the past 167 years in spite of all the CO2 since 1850.
The other point he conveniently misses, is that increases in atmospheric CO2 is not a driver of global temperatures, CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of this planet warming. All the indicators show this! Atmospheric CO2 levels rising is the natural consequence of this natural warming since the LIA and the iceage before it — land and sea naturally outgass as temperatures rise. I hope it rises some more as higher atmospheric CO2 level is good for ALL life.
Given that the sun and it’s variations is the driver of both our weather and climate, and that the record of solar cycles have been shown to be a reasonable indicator of how the climate changed over time, it does not take much to see that as we enter the solar minimum the planet will cool. Also history shows us that during this transition period, anomalous weather will be more evident — more drought condition in countries susceptible to them, more winter storms in temperate regions of the world, overall more wild weather weather events.
It will take some 5 years or so from now, before the new solar cycle 25 begins to re-establish some real warmth to the planet, before it starts to counter the extended lack of activity of solar cycle 24. However if solar cycle 25 turns out as expected by some researchers, then we’ll only have a slightly more active sun — that would ensure an extended period of cooler (and probably cooling) conditions worldwide, regardless of CO2 levels.
We will be living in some interesting times, weatherwise.
I like to consider that human released CO2 was a trigger for increased plant growth which triggered further release of CO2, leading to the slight, but highly beneficial atmospheric increase out of the unsustainable “danger zone” of sub 280ppm levels.
It is GOOD that humans have contributed somewhat to the biosphere that sustains all life on this CARBON BASED planet of ours. 🙂
Oh yes AndyG55,
We were all doing our bit, burning oil, and coal (aka fossilized sunshine), helping all life to flourish.
Does it help to tell that to yourself? Anyway, CO2 emissions increased during that time period and exponentially so. (meaning half of all CO2 emitted by mankind was emitted since the last doubling time. At a growth rate of 2% that was 35 years ago. What is the average temperature increasein the HadCrut4 data for that period? Or the last 10 years?
Yeah it is, but I hope you are not implying the concentration we are observing is all natural from outgasing because of the higher temperatures? That does somewhat conflict with the other skeptic viewpoint, that it isn’t warming at all and the equations for this outgasing, well we do understand the physics of this process pretty well. For that the partial CO2 pressure in the oceans need to be higher than in the atmosphere. That is not the case.
Question is, what will you do if predictions of global warming due to CO2 continue to hold true. With what excuse will you then come up? All the data is fake?
Uh, the predictions of global warming due to CO2 have not continued to “hold true”. In fact, the predictions of 0.3 C per decade warming in climate models have not only not held “true”, they’ve been demonstrably wrong for the last 25 years.
—–
Zhou and Wang, 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789
Land surface air temperature (Ta) is one of the fundamental variables in weather and climatic observations, modeling, and applications. Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”
—–
Hedemann et al., 2017
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3274.html
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Hedemann%202017.pdf
Budgeting with existing observations cannot constrain the origin of the recent hiatus, because the uncertainty in observations dwarfs the small flux deviations that could cause a hiatus. The sensitivity of these flux deviations to the observational dataset and to energy budget choices helps explain why previous studies conflict, and suggests that the origin of the recent hiatus may never be identified. … The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 ◦C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) ensemble-mean projection—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.
—–
Xie et al., 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4809/abstract
As the recent global warming hiatus has attracted worldwide attention, we examined the robustness of the warming hiatus in China and the related dynamical mechanisms in this study. Based on the results confirmed by the multiple data and trend analysis methods, we found that the annual mean temperature in China had a cooling trend during the recent global warming hiatus period, which suggested a robust warming hiatus in China. The warming hiatus in China was dominated by the cooling trend in the cold season, which was mainly induced by the more frequent and enhanced extreme-cold events.
—–
Xian and Fu, 2017
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.5130/abstract
Despite continually increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas, there has been a hiatus in rising global temperatures during the 21st century.
—–
Your logic is flawed. Just because temperature increases (in some regions of the world) at the same time that CO2 emissions increase does not mean that one can conclude that human CO2 emissions caused the oceans to warm.
http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/post_hoc_examples/502/
The hiatus nonsense again … how predictable.
By now you should know that this is not what climate science is basing AGW on. If you want to see correlations that work this way: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Why do you feel the need to make something like this up? Or is this really how you understand the mechanisms involved? Or is this some kind of revenge for me pointing out your logical fallacy last time?
So scientists who publish papers about the hiatus…are writing nonsense? How substantive.
What “logical fallacy” would that be?
https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/01/another-new-paper-shows-arctic-sea-ice-has-been-increasing-overall-since-the-1930s/#comment-1253803
“Saying A can not be the cause of B, because in the past C caused B is a fallacy and is called – i had to google it – “Denying the antecedent”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent“
Yes, they are. Even scientists can write nonsense. I hope that is not a suprise to you? Or are only those who you don’t like guilty of doing that?
Considering the IPCC has acknowledged the “hiatus” and the failure of climate models (111 of 114 CMIP5 simulations) in their last report, it would appear your definition of “nonsense” is a conclusion that does not support that which you believe. If it agrees with your point of view (i.e., the Earth is browning, not greening, ocean acidification is happening so fast that the marine biosphere cannot adapt to it, etc.), it’s scientific truth, and anyone who questions it should be labeled a denier of truth. If it doesn’t agree with your point of view, it’s “nonsense”. That’s pretty much what your “rebuttals” come down to.
“The hiatus nonsense” that the IPCC in their publications mentions it.
For real nonsense about the ‘hiatus’ see the cAGW bible at https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
In particular Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years, page 769
“Even scientists can write nonsense.”
Yes seb , and all those so-called “climate scientists” that you suck up to, have made a fine art of writing nonsense.
And you fall for it every single time, because you know no better.
“The hiatus nonsense again”
You mean the 33 years of ZERO WARMING in the satellite data, right seb ?
Only regional warming coming from El Nino and ocean effects, which humans have absolutely ZERO effect on.
Its the Sun, seb
If you thinks it from CO2 then its way passed time you actually produced some empirical evidence to back up your FANTASIES.
But first, learn what the unit of “work” is.
Show that you didn’t actually FAIL junior high.
s
“Saying A can not be the cause of B,”
Its just that there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that A causes B.
AGW science fantasy and ASS-umption driven models are NOT scientific proof.
If you have proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming, or causes Arctic sea ice loss or causes glaciers to melt….
THEN PRODUCE IT.
… or remain the sub-normal, EMPTY little AGW headless chook you have always been.
“of global warming due to CO2 continue to hold true”
ROFLMAO
The seb FANTASY yet again.. so hilarious
Seb,little-mind.. there IS NO WARMNING FROM CO2
Not in the oceans,
Not in the atmosphere
NOT ANYWHERE.
It is all just an ANTI-SCIENCE FALLACY.
Oh, and what was the unit of “work”, again, seb?
What is the unit of “kinetic energy”?
What is the unit of “strain energy”?
See if you can get it right this time . 😉
“that it isn’t warming at all “
wow seb, you really are just “MAKING CRAP UP” now, aren’t you.
Yes, there has been some HIGHLY BENEFICIAL and TOTALLY NATURAL solar and ocean based warming out of the COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years
Show us some PROOF that any of that highly beneficial warming has come from enhanced atmospheric CO2.
YOU HAVE NONE, because there ISN’T ANY.
And you will just keep squirming and worming and slithering around, trying to avoid that FACT.
AND, what little data we DO have suggests that CO2 COOLS!
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_03_03_01_12_06.png
AND, what little data we DO have suggests that CO2 COOLS!
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_03_03_01_12_06.png
Don’t know if you are trolling or if you really think this is the case …
Poor seb,
There is ZERO EVIDENCE of warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2.
Get over it !
What is the unit of “work”, seb?
Why is it the same as the unit for “strain energy” in solids and “kinetic energy” in gases?
Try to engage that tiny ignorant mind of yours, little trollette.
“Question is, what will you do if predictions of global warming due to CO2 continue to hold true. With what excuse will you then come up?”
Your statement is just plain wrong!
CO2 atmospheric levels are all but irrelevant to what the climate does, numerous studies show this, history shows this. Maybe you have an example of when a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels irrefutably cause the atmosphere to warm up — have you? Or are you living in the dank, depressing, and irrational world where correlation is evidence of causation? (Ha, ha, ha, so far it appears so!) As far as I am aware NOT such evidence has ever come to light in more than 30 years of looking for it. I am in no doubt that because of your irrationality on this matter, you can ascribe virtually any natural disaster to this myth of human generated CO2 causing global warming, and that is your problem.
As I explained, YOU can not conceive of a rise in atmospheric CO2 being anything but bad for the planet, and yet at no point in history has this every held to be true. Therefore YOU are living in a delusion. YOU choose to ignore this reality because YOUR delusion can not allow YOU to see life otherwise. YOU are irrational on this point. YOU are unscientific on this point.
Unlike Kenneth, I do not wish to argue with a delusional person. You keep you beliefs. I am not trying to convince you of anything. However I don’t mind goading you into making more irrational statements, or displaying just how illogical you are. It means the rest of us has laugh!
Just to reinforce the message —
Maybe you have an example of when a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels irrefutably cause the atmosphere to warm up — have you?
Until you do I’m laughing at you, as your belief (for that is all you have) is in an world where correlation is evidence of causation.