Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

? asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 2 weeks ago

How do global warming deniers explain this plot?

The warming follows the logarithm of CO2 concentration, as expected, and the natural variability can be rejected as the cause of the warming at greater than a 99% level of significance.

Update:

Troll: you've been claiming that I DON'T teach, that I am paid for posting and that I have sock puppet accounts for two years. Yet you have never produced evidence to support ANY of your claims,  By the way, by posting the snippet from my teaching contract (not my teaching schedule, as you claim in your question) I have shown that you have no idea what a full-time teaching schedule even is.

Update 2:

The troll (Clown Crusher) has given two answers to this question so far, and neither one even attempts to address the implications of the plot shown. He simply can't discuss the science--c'mon troll, show how good you are at science.

Update 3:

Solar Wind, my plots can't be "debunked" by ice core data, because (1) they cover different time periods and (2) they are plots of actual data. It's like you're claiming that ice core data "debunks" what thermometers read! Maybe you'd like to try again, this time thinking about the actual plot.

Update 4:

Troll with the stupid snake flag: first, it was not a "teaching schedule" you idiot--that is part of my teaching CONTRACT--you don't pay any attention to detail. Second, my post was just minutes after yours, where you made your ignorant claim about teaching load. So you're saying I raced to construct a Word document to show that you were wrong, and managed to do it almost instantly? You really are a clown. It was also not intended to prove that I teach, it was intended to prove you...

Update 5:

...don't know what you're talking about in regard to teaching load--and you don't.  You underestimate the time it would take fake a document and you overestimate the effort it takes to teach three identical online labs. Perhaps it is because you've never held a real job? I've always suspected you joined the military but washed out with a disability pension due to mental problems. Close? Somehow you're on the public dole.

Update 6:

Looks like the troll deleted his snake flag post--I guess he didn't like evidence of him being shown up.

Update 7:

Daro can't explain the plot, so he asks us to dismiss the data based on scan of a clipping of a news article from who knows where. Not the way science works, Daro--and your claim has been investigated and shown not to have affected global temperature trends. As for you claim that I reported your answer to another question of mine so that it was deleted, that is a lie.  I have no such power to remove answers, and why would I? Your "evidence"  is that I responded to your question...

Update 8:

.which suggests the exact opposite of what you're claiming! Why would I respond to your answer then get it deleted? That makes no sense, it leaves my comments hanging. I have no magic powers to delete Q&A anyway, I only have this single account.

Attachment image

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 days ago

    Burning oil raises the temperature and produces co2. It is not shown in which way the temperature was higher.

    If something blocks the sunlight, the world will always begin the ice age.

    I hope it's not covid.

  • 1 week ago

    Your charts may be accurate but they are relying on the correlation is causation idea.

    How do those graphs not show that the temperature is affecting the CO2 levels rather than vice versa?

    As $@!ar W!nd pointed out, science has clear evidence that temperature "causes" CO2 and not the other way round. Your charts do not address the causality issue at all as far as I can see.

  • 1 week ago

    Restoring naturally sequestered CO2 levels just restores the ORIGINAL climate.

    Several times in Earth's history the whole planet was ice free, and diverse life flourished.Any time there is an alteration in nature, there are bound to be hiccups for the interim.

    Now if you believe that humans are the proximate of climate 'disaster', then what do you propose is the fix?

    There can be only ONE fix - reduce the world's obscene overpopulation. Less people = less CO2 generated.

    Less people = less methane generated too.

    Altering our habits just DELAYS any purported human caused climate change.

    And that is just treating the symptoms, not the problem.

    The Earth goes through natural climate change at certain intervals, usually every 25K years or so.

    We also have pole reversals that directly affect our climate.

    Not a thing we can do about either of those.

    Look up the year without a summer - one VOLCANO altered the planet's climate.

    Right now, there is one in Alaska spewing ash, CO2, etc 20,000 feet into the atmosphere. Coincidentally, there is an unusual cold spell in the upper midwest, which follows the same Jet Stream.

  • 1 week ago

    armoror2000 just contradicted himself, he said:

    ''Here is the Fact

    the worlds Temperature in the Past 150 years has only Risen by 0.7 degrees C

    That is NOT global warming'' 

    I still wish armoror2000 well though. 

    xx 

  • 2 weeks ago

    that is Right a Plot to deceive

    Here is the Fact

    the worlds Temperature in the Past 150 years has only Risen by 0.7 degrees C

    That is NOT global warming

  • ?
    Lv 6
    2 weeks ago

    yes , isnt demand for modern things on the rise , after all 50 years ago we where a 1 car family and no aircoditioning , now you wouldnt buy unless its airconitioned . its them same as the demand , 

  • ?
    Lv 7
    2 weeks ago

    After reading the answers, the only one that even made an attempt was solar wind. Kind of pathetic.

    'But but Dirac is a paid alarmist' But but everyone that asks a question here pertaining to global warming, and is not a denier of AGW, is one of his sock accounts!' Sorry guys, but... P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

  • 2 weeks ago

    The NASA ‘global’ temperature record is a fraud just like you Dirac. See if your tiny brain can figure out why. 

  • ?
    Lv 6
    2 weeks ago

    Your graphs are debunked by the Vostock Ice Core analysis that verifies by scientific research that CO2 follows Earth's temperature levels, which are governed by the Sun's activity level. The greenhouse effect is thus a bad hunch. 

    Attachment image
  • 2 weeks ago

    EDIT: Poor Clown Crusher, he doesn't even know which of his lies to defend. In another question, he accuses me of forging the redacted snippet from my teaching contract below. I guess he's seen too much television and he thinks something like that can be faked--which it certainly could, if you have the time and ambition. He doesn't seem to get that I posted it almost immediately after he posted his answer--furthermore he doesn't get that regardless of whether you believe it's real, he was caught in a lie about what is full-time as far as teaching goes. Does he seriously think that I invented the concept of a "weighted teaching unit" and chose just the right values to prove him wrong? The guy is a lunatic. You'll notice that he has never--not once--provided any evidence that shows I don't teach or that I have multiple accounts. He really doesn't have the faintest idea about building a logical case regarding anything, not global warming and certainly not about me.

    I apologize for "answering" my own question, but the troll says "He claims he is teaching 3 classes this semester, which is around the equivalent of full-time teaching gig."  In fact it isn't. This is a slightly redacted image from my contract as a lecturer.  I am teaching 3 labs, each of which is considered to be 2 "weighted teaching units", for a total of 6 WTUs. If you look at the fine print of the image you'll see that 15 WTUs is considered full-time, so this is 40% time. In fact, the labs only take about 2 hours each in (Zoom) class, so that amounts to a total of 6 hours teaching in a regular work week.

    He has lied about me from the time he got here, this is more proof.

    Attachment image
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.