E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Thomas Bauska / Oregon State University
Scientist Brian Bencivengo of the National Ice Core Laboratory examines an ice core from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Samples from these cores provide information about past air temperatures at the location from which the core was obtained.
Temperatures are rising faster today than they have at any point since at least the end of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago, according to a new study.
The finding is based on a global reconstruction of temperature records inferred from ice cores, fossils in ocean sediments and other sources. While previous studies reached similar conclusions, they covered only about 2,000 years. The new reconstruction extends the global record through the Holocene, the most recent geologic epoch.
"Another way to think of it is the period where human civilization was born, created, and developed and then progressed to where we are now," Shuan Marcott, a climate scientist at Oregon State University who led the study, told NBC News.
In that time humans discovered bread and beer, learned to farm, cobbled together cities, linked them together in a web of global trade, fought wars, and, in the last 100 years or so, burned mountains of fossil fuels that filled the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, a heat trapping gas.
As the fossil fuel-burning ratcheted up, the global temperatures rose 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit. That rise, Marcott said, "Is unprecedented compared to what we are showing in our reconstruction."
The reconstruction paints a picture of Earth gradually warming during the first half of the Holocene, and then, about 5,000 years ago, temperatures steadily dip to the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. Over these 5,000 years, the planet cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
Courtesy of Science / AAAS
This graphic of the temperature reconstruction shows the rise and fall global temperatures throughout the Holocene epoch. An earlier reconstruction of the past 2,000 years is shown for comparison.
This gradual rise and fall of global temperatures are governed by Earth’s orbital position relative to the sun, Marcott explained. Other studies attribute the warming since 1950 to human activity.
Overall, Marcott and colleagues note Thursday in the journal Science, the planet today is warmer than it has been for about 75 percent of the Holocene. Given the rate of warming projected by climate models, the planet will be warmer by 2100 than at any point since at least the last ice age.
Nick Pisias / Oregon State University
Researchers prepare to deploy a core barrel off the side of the Reseach Vessel Melville to collect sediments from the ocean floor. Samples from these cores provide information about past sea surface temperatures at the location from which the core was obtained.
Michael Mann is a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University whose 1,000-year global temperature reconstruction published in 1999 resulted in the iconic "hockey stick" graph that shows the unprecedented warmth of the past century. He said the new reconstruction is "important."
"The real issue, from a climate change impacts point of view, is the rate of change — because that’s what challenges our adaptive capacity," he said in a statement to NBC News. "And this paper suggests that the current rate has no precedent as far back as we can go with any confidence."
The resolution of the reconstruction is averaged into 100-year segments, which means yearly or every-decade variability fails to show up in the new study. There could have been a period sometime in the past 11,000 years that was warmer than today, but if so it wasn’t sustained for at least 100 years.
"That is a drawback," Marcott acknowledged, though he said the resolution is sufficient to show the rapid change between 1900 and 2000 and the change projected by climate models between 2000 and 2100.
Mann’s only concern with the study is that the temperature records are biased toward higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where a known long-term cooling trend due to Earth’s orbital position was pronounced.
"It suggests that the true conclusions might even be stronger than their already quite strong conclusions regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warming," he said. "It may be that you have to go even further back in time to find warmth comparable — at the global scale — to what we are seeing today."
John Roach is a contributing writer to NBC News. To learn more about him, check out his website.
Leave a Comment:
I like that graph, cuz it shows how dumb deniers are
Blah blah blah. That's all I hear from everyone, no matter what they think. And the idiot in the White House concentrates on building roads and bridges instead of public transportation.
If you don't bother to do something about it then st... yeah, that's right. Either poo or get of the pot. Park your carbon emitter and walk or ride a bus to work. Oh, but that's too inconvenient. I'll have to leave earlier. I'd rather just flap my lips and whine and moan and be a hypocrite. And there it is. The real problem.
Didn't you read the news article a few days ago. He is not a dictator like you think, see, we have a Congress that makes laws and could very easily create public transportation without Obama's input.
The UN’s odious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a prime driver of the global warming hoax, even stooping so low as to win a Nobel Peace Prize for its shrill and pernicious propaganda. But now the IPCC admits that the jig is up. A leaked draft of its report AR5 confesses that it is the sun that makes the earth warm, not SUVs or affordable light bulbs. Via Watts Up With That:
The report also admits that despite all the hysterical lies “journalists” shriek in the mainstream media, the warming predicted by IPCC models has not occurred.
However, due to the state of abject ignorance in which the media keeps the American public, these revelations are unlikely to stop Obama and his crony capitalist pals from inflicting economically crippling carbon taxes in the name of a “crisis” now admitted to be a fiction.
ssmithlg - That's right! And to top it off they are always trying to shove that evolution crap down our throats too! You spew it brother. Educate us all on the BS that these stoooopid PH'D havin' 'scientists' keep try to tell us is fact. I say this...fact is what I believe it to be not what they not really smart people are telling me it is. Dumb scientists and their facts. They can't make me beleive global slightly warming is caused by monkey men. I'm not a monkey. I didn't cause the warming.
We all know it's a giant UN conspiracy to keep scientists in their cushy jobs out there in the freezing cold on those uncomfortable ships in the icy waters. We know. And we know it's just a way for them to sell their peer-reviewed papers.
Yes! It's all lies straight from the pit of hell!!! Hallelujah!
@ssmithlg Please check your references. The assumption that solar activity is responsible for current and obvious global climate change was "leaked" from the draft of AR5 WG1 that is currently in review. The person who "leaked" this information is a known climate change skeptic who cherry picked phrases from the report to support his own claims and to gain him attention and publicity. The other scientists participating in the review deemed this unethical and misleading and state that the final determination of the study supports the conclusion that human CO2 emissions are the major factor in global warming. In fact the sun has been going through a period of unusually slow activity for the past couple of decades which corresponds to the fact that the earth is supposed to be heading into a period of cooling prefacing another ice age. Not only has human activity spurred historic warming but it has actually forced earth out of the natural heating and cooling cycles determined by our elliptical orbit. Please try checking your facts further than FOX News and Rush Limbaugh next time before you run screaming through the streets.
I'm sure ssmithlg is part of the same crowd that a decade or so ago was buying the "no global warming happening here" nonsense being spewed by the oil and gas cartels. But when the evidence that it WAS happening became so glaringly obvious that even the knuckle-draggers could no long deny the evidence of the own eyes- like that Arctic ice cap shrinking to less than half it's original size and the oceans rising by a foot- then suddenly they "discovered" natural long-term climate trends and astronomical influences on climate- as if scientists themselves hadn't already known about these things for decades or in some cases even centuries.
It's almost comical the vast amount of influence they attribute to the fledgling solar and wind energy industry and the effect that a few thousand dollars for a research grant who have on a scientist while completely ignoring the impact of the multi-trillion dollar oil and gas industry.
You go, Mountainlady! Unfortunately, the Kool-ade tasters in the KooKoo Kamp will continue running and screaming anyway. You see, it's simple really: you can't HEAR someones facts if you're screaming and if you're a NUT you won't believe what you hear IF you hear it. THAT is because they KNOW that Shaun Hannity & dire company get their information directly revealed from Jesus himself (or so I've heard). You cannot fix Stupid.
The thing about this study that is interesting is the fact that global warming HAS occurred before the end of the last ice age. The "funny" thing about comparing the global warming now "since the dawn of Civ" is that the Earth is over 100,000 times older than that at least.... Glad they're paying attention though.
The leak of the draft of a report that won't come out for another year indicates that the global warming is occurring at even faster rates than the models predicted, and a noted denier says it's because of the Sun, even though there are no indications of that.
Let me translate this. It is even worse than they thought.
What this means is that the models are too conservative and that a steadily increasingrate appears to now be moving at some exponential rate. Meaning it is no longer looking linear. They have pretty much always anticipated that at some point things really start accelerating in this manner. They didn't anticipate that coming so quickly, but that is what is indicated by the evidence. That is entirely consistent with what this article is saying.
Yes, I suppose it is theoretically possible that some unobservable and unknown force from the Sun, that is different than any known phenomena and it can't yet be measured scientifically, is what is to balme. Yes, I suppose it is possible. Likewise it is possible that it has absolutely nothing to do with science of any kind and is the result of some ancient voodoo curse that has been put on the Earth. Or maybe it's just that God is pissed off. Of course if indeed it is something supernatural, we wouldn't be able to find the cause or be able to quantify it, let alone do anything to change it in any way. So just shut up already and leave everybody alone.
So I guess that pretty much says that climate change and global warming is all some kind of hoax because science doesn't count when supernatural forces are at work.
Or maybe the models are too conservative and need to be adjusted.
But even if they were wrong because it is actually worse than predicted, they're still wrong, so case closed!
Although when you quote something from a website dedicated to denying climate change, would you expect them to say, "Oop, looks like we might be wrong after all."
Well ta de dah, …. we already knew that ……. that 4,000 years (25%) out of the past 12,000 years of the Holocene was a LOT, LOT WARMER than present day temperatures are.
And even General Hannibal said it was a lot warmer then, …. than it is today, … when he decided to march his army and herd of war elephants across the Alps to attack the Romans in 218 BC because he arrived in Italy accompanied by 20,000 foot soldiers, 4,000 horsemen, and several of his war elephants, a feat that no one could even hope to accomplish today because of all the snow pack and glacier ice that has since reformed after it began seriously melting during the height of the Roman Warm Period from 300 BC to 100 BC. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal
Ahhh, what type of thoughts should one expect from somebody who names their self, pullmyfinger13.
I work 45 miles from my house,and in the last 20 years I've not had a job within walking distance. The "solution" you outline is not inconvenient, it is impossible.
Your source, SamC, says nothing about it being so much warmer and easier to traverse the Alps in Hannibal's day. Moreover, nowhere does anybody claim that he crossed the Alps in the height of winter. In summer there are passes through the Alps though which you could walk from France to Italy, or ride an elephant.
More importantly, whatever the climate may have been in 18 BC., the point of the article is that today our climate is warming rapidly, as in very quickly, and although the article does not relate this, there are no other factors to which one could attribute this warming except the rise in carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
People such as yourself, who continue with their illogical assertions that there is no connection between human activity and the recent rise in global temperatures, sound very much like those who continued to deny smoking was bad for your health back in the 1960s.
History has shown who was correct on the subject of smoking and health hazards such as lung cancer and emphysema. History will do the same for global warming deniers.
They are not only dumb they are afraid and dont want their lifestyles to change
ssmithlg - The only people who speak the truth are those who get all their information from Rush Limbaugh who, incidentally, gets paid $40 million per year to deliver 20 million low income, low education level Evangelicals to the polls. And who pays for that 10-year contract totalling $400 million - certainly isn't the oil companies. They would never lie just just for a few hundred billion in profits.
No, AlextheBlade, the interesting fact today is that there is no other reason for the rapid rise in global temperatures, except human activity and the green house gases it produces.
It is all very good to speak of past ages of the earth, when the climate was warmer, but then, as now, the climate does not just warm or cool without a cause. If global temperatures were warmer during the first half of the Holocene, then either the sun was emitting more energy, or the earth was retaining more of the heat energy received. The same is true today. We know that the sun has not grown hotter during the last 50 years, yet temperatures have risen.
Why?
"And the idiot in the White House concentrates on building roads and bridges instead of public transportation." I believe it's more along the lines of maintenance and repair.
dman-353357, there are several sources that say it was warmer then, than now. To wit:
dman-353357, you are simply mimicking things that you apparently know nothing about or understand. The only human activity that is contributing to rising temperatures, primarily night time and winter temperatures, is the Heat Island effect.
Human activity has absolutely no effect on the increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm which is confirmed by ..... This Keeling Curve graph ..... which disproves CO2 caused AGW ... because it proves that the warming/cooling cycle of the ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere is the "driving force" behind the varying amounts (ppm) of atmospheric CO2.
And ps, dman-353357, there is no actual, factual scientific proof or evidence that confirms that cigarette smoke can, does or will cause cancer. Those claims are nothing more than associated, correlated and/or insinuated pure BS. To wit:
Cows and Methane...
I found a consensus at 250-500 L per day so given the range of cow sizes and so forth, lets settle on 350 L/day.
So it’s actually around 4.5e11 liters per day… times 365 days.. 1.6425e14… times… let’s just look at the last 20 years gives us
3.285e15 liters of CH4 added to the atmosphere just by cows in the last 20 years.
Now Jerry gives us 4.2e21 liters total for the atmosphere…
And, currently, the atmosphere on average is about .0001745 % methane… (note: Methane levels were stable until about 100 years ago when they started to rise from 750 ppb to 1,800 ppb in 1993, so this number is already skewed)
(4.2e21) * .0001745% = 7.329e17 liters
So, there is 7.329e17 liters there now… and we added 3.285e15 over 20 years… that’s .04%!
Don't forget about those 80+ million buffaloes that use to roam the western plains.
Now they were BIG methane outgassers.
Love it! The graph clearly shows that GW is saving us from the impending ice age. I'm going to eat more cabbage in order to increase my methane generation... I still remember when in the 1970's the scientists were predicting the coming of ice age...
makesmewonder: Just wondering myself, have you given up your car and electrical and/or gas heating and air conditioning? If you haven't, then don't worry, you are in good company. It seems that all the global warming bigwigs are out there flying all over the place as if it's no big deal. I'm sure it has never dawned on you that they do it because they really don't believe it themselves.
Let's see what the Book(KJV) has to say on the subject:
Malachi 4:1, "FOR, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stibble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."
Isaiah 30:26, "Moverover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days..."
Global Warming is coming according to the Word of God!
Al Gore must have read the Book(KJV)!
This will happen in the Great Tribulation(7 yrs) after all of the Believers are "raptured" out of here. All HELL is going to break loose on this earth, 1/3 nof the population is going to die! You better get saved!
Antichrist is coming, He's going to set up the New World Order! That is why they want your guns & ammo!
I'll be in Heaven watching all this mess below!
Have a good day.
LOL.. They don't have the ability to say in year X the temperature was Y. They lack the resolution and ice doesn't form that way. They know it and they even said it in the report. Spikes are not observable in the ice core. WOW. To think they report that and you guys aren't bright enough to understand it on your own. Furthermore the model quoted in this article is proobably just like the model that said manhattan would be feet under water in 2010. They picked the worse case model with the poorest accuracy(the model for manhattan was <60% accurate) to hold out observations and reported it probably because the 90% accurate model probably said .002 rise or something and that's not news. One prediction after the other after the other fails to come to pass and yet people still don't get it, they swear these scientists are right. To be fair the scientists are right when they show the models that are accurate but they allow the press access to the crap ones and then the press reports it and real people go wait... Manhattan isn't underwater. No wonder why no one believes in "climate change"
The whole problem with global warming or not is that liberals have seized on it as a TAXABLE event.
The fact is we need population control in a big way.
One thing history has taught us is the planet has checks and balances and if we continue to grow in numbers we will be checked and balanced in a brutal and effective manner like any other species which becomes too successful. Easter Island is our current model and things ended badly there.
Witch runner you are right and it is coming no matter what but i try to be as green as possible but i do know we are doomed there will be no change
Ted, the resolution is adequate for studying long term climate change. Spikes can be interesting but not ultimately important.
SamC, you shouldn't expect us to take you seriously when you use wikipedia as a reference source.
Here in America at least, even school kids know that listing wikipedia articles as a reference is a sure way of getting an F (FAIL) grade on a paper.
Not sure what your point was anyway. The fact that it may have been as warm (or even warmer) in our planet's past is NOT in dispute. Indeed, 290 million years ago, massive volcanic activity released huge quantities of CO2 and resulted in global warming with temps much higher than today. Unfortunately, these high temps also resulted in the worst Extinction-Level Event in our planet's history, wiping-out about 96% of all species of life on Earth!
That global warming nearly wiped-out all life in the distant past, hardly seems a good reason for us to attempt a repeat performance!
In any event, you attempt to actually try to claim, NOT in 1960, but now in 2013, that smoking does not cause cancer, tell me everything I need to know about the scientific validity of your statements. ;)
I know our collective memories are short.....but does anyone remember when the global warming people lied and fabricated FACTS? They got caught because of a squealer and their own e mails. People with agendas do lie. The GREEN business has billions coming in and they sure don't want that to go away. Al Gore is an example.....and has enriched himself by multitudes off of our dime. ALWAYS be SKEPTICAL.....we are easily bamboozled......good example.....electing Obama....AGAIN
eg
Being skeptical is good. That is exactly why you should revisit that story about "fabricated facts". Your research, which you have never done, would demonstrate that facts were never fabricated and the e-mail scandal has no bearing on the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global climate change.
Al Gore donated the entire monetary award that accompanied his Nobel Prize to the IPCC, demonstrating that he is not in this for the money. The sale of his television station, which had nothing to do with climate science enriched him far beyond any of his climate change activities, most of which have been done without compensation.
It's not surprising that you follow a bunch of boneheaded and unsupportable allegations with an insult to President Obama and his supporters ..... it goes with the territory.
makes me wonder: Interesting thing about being green, it is so poorly and inaccurately defined. And, it also differs from one place to another. I've learned a long time ago to not trust anyone's definition of what is green. And quite frankly most people don't really know what being green is. I think that being told they are being green makes people feel good and feel like they are doing something positive. But, the reality can sometimes be a heck of a lot different from the hype.
Case in point on the green stuff: You may remember when the green movement decided to vilify paper bags at grocery stores because of all the trees that were cut down. Now, there's been a movement back to paper bags in some places because paper bags are biodegradable and plastic bags just sit around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Plus, with the practices of the lumber industry to plant new trees in the place of the ones cut down, the evils of cutting down trees isn't so bad any more. So, you have quickly biodegradable bags and you have the cutting of older trees that aren't that efficient at doing what they do to purify the air in favor of younger trees that are much better for the environment. So, if you were a "greenie" then you were actually not environmentally friendly, but only did so because you were told to and you trusted those who told you.
We have lots of those types of situations now. Take pretty much all recycling. Is it better to recycle or not recycle? Again, it depends on where you are and for what purpose. In New York City it would make sense to recycle as much as you can to keep as much garbage out of the local landfills as possible due to the limited space there. But, out in the boonies, it wouldn't make as much sense because running out of landfill space isn't a concern. Yet, all of the extra hauling that has to be done in order to conduct the recycling programs out in the boonies ends up putting more exhaust into the atmosphere and burns a lot more gas. Burning gas is considered evil by the greenies. Ask a plant and they'll tell you they love it, as that is what they feed off of. So, are you really being green when you recycle or whatever it is that you do that you think you are being green about.
Electric vehicles are said to be the ultimate green. Yet, what those who make that claim don't tell you is that there are other costs other than just what comes out of the exhaust pipe of a vehicle. To begin with, what do you think powers those batteries? In most places, it's coal. Yet the greenies want to stop people from using gas and they want them to stop using coal. So, what do you do?
Of course, there are other things to contend with concerning these electric cars. The batteries are highly toxic and they are a lot bigger than the small one on a gas powered vehicle. Any idea what it takes to produce those batteries and get them into a vehicle? If you are a greenie, you would scream about it, and not with praise.
I realize I get very analytical about these things, but it is very frustrating what politicians think they should have the right to control every aspect of my life and they don't have a clue what the hell they are talking about.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I have all the answers. But, I do know to ask the questions, which apparently, with way too many people, it doesn't even dawn on them to ask any questions.
It's the same thing with a heck of a lot of things we face in our lives. You have the "don't drink caffeinated coffee, drink decaf." And a few years later, oops, you're better off drinking caffeinated rather than decaf. Same with eggs, eggs are evil, oops, sorry, they aren't that bad for you and in some ways they are good for you. The list goes on and on.
Add to all that the fact that just a 30 years ago the "expert, all knowing scientists" were shouting about global cooling, you can understand my skepticism of the global warming. With all the money and fraud involved in the global climate community, not to mention the absurd conclusions reached based on what is clearly insufficient data, it amazes me that anyone would trust these people. Seriously, has our "science" really come so far in the last 30 years out of possibly a billion plus years (at least millions) of history of the Earth that all of a sudden, they really understand it? And before you get on the bandwagon of "isn't it better to do something now rather than wait" crowd, just look at our history when we've tried to alter the environment. Our track record is very poor indeed. If fact, the only guarantee if we are to follow the greenie scientists by force is that our economy will go into the tank so bad that even if we wanted to do something about it, we wouldn't have the money to do so. But, that's another subject.
Oh, but I am glad that you do recognize the hypocrisy of the influential in pushing for all this "green" stuff.
witchrunner
What you don't understand, among other things, is that most of us who accept the science of anthropogenic global climate change know why we believe what we believe. We have examined the arguments and the arguments make sense.
Conversely, you oppose the science but you do not do so based on an alternative explanation of the presented facts. Your opposition comes from a combination of junk science about totally unrelated ideas and an obviously conservative political bias. What you argue is mostly about news stories that have appeared in the popular press (and the conservative media) and you use your misguided general distrust of those stories to dispute actual science.
An example of your wrongheaded attempt at a rational argument is your statement
This was a minority OPINION ..... not a theory or even a hypothesis ..... of a small minority of scientists that was covered in Time and Newsweek magazines in the early 1970's. It was never accepted science. It was never rigorously tested. It was never a majority opinion. In fact, at the time of the article more scientists believed that the temperature was rising and more scientists believed that the temperature was stable. In other words, decreasing temperature was the third most popular opinion among scientists of the time.
Obviously, green is not your favorite political point of view and it may not even be your favorite color, but the reasons for your point of view are bogus. When I taught high school science I often reminded my students that it was important to know why you believe what you believe, to be both skeptical and open-minded, and to accept scientific theories based on the evidence rather than because their teacher or their parents or anyone else told them what was true. I suggest you follow that advice, witch runner.
don: Nice try! But, claiming that your arguments are somehow well thought out only means that you believe it so it must be true. The scientists that have disavowed the idea of man-made global warming are numerous. But, they obviously can't get their research into the global warming publications because they disagree with them. And, as I've said, it's obvious that most of the people who are pushing the man-made global warming theory really don't believe it. But, they are certainly using it to push an agenda. For example, take your beloved President Obama. Does he believe in global warming? To find out, ignore what he says and watch what he does. He flies all over the place to play golf, to have photo ops (including sending the Prez's plane to New York to take pictures). So, do you really want someone who acts like he doesn't believe a word he says dictating policies, imposing taxes and destroying industries because he's lying? And, that's the same thing with all of the leaders of the global warming movement. Every year they fly all over the place to some convention or other. In other words, they are causing a humongous carbon footprint that they say we shouldn't cause. And, the scientists do it too.
So, you are free to believe what you want. But, don't tell me that these people who are the primary force behind the movement actually believe it. They don't! It's that simple. Al Gore doesn't believe it. Obama doesn't believe it. And, these are the facts that are indisputable.
Personally, I don't care whether you or anyone else "believes" in man-made global warming as long as you leave it at that. Unfortunately, it's used to control me and others. And it's always those on the left who are socialists or socialist inclined that seem to believe it. That's why global warming is called the new socialism. It gets the gullible to buy into the theory so that they are willing to give up their freedoms.
I realize you can goggle global warming and find a bunch of stuff that supposedly supports it. But, google "global warming wrong predictions" or "global warming fraud" and you will come up with just an many hits. Well, maybe less hits because articles are only written in the "main-stream" media if it condemns humans.
I don't care if your left, right, middle of the road, black, white, yellow, red, purple, whatever......the bottom line is our climate is changing and we (humans) are standing on the gas accelerating this change. Like it or not it's happening right before our ignorant eyes and at this point in the game there is not a damn thing anyone can do to reverse the effects so, hold on to your ass, this is going to get really ugly in a couple of decades!
witch
Clearly you are not bright enough to separate science from you selfish, conservative politics. I am not surprised.
Well, Samc, I did not say it was not warmer then. I said your vaunted source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal) offered absolutely no evidence of such conditions, and contrary to your ridiculous assertion of Hannibal crossing of the Alps was "a feat that no one could even hope to accomplish today because of all the snow pack and glacier ice that has since reformed", it is quite possible today, to traverse the Alps in summer, on foot. They are not, and have never been an absolute barrier to human traffic. Armies, merchants and pilgrims have crossed the Alps innumerable times since the time of Hannibal, even during the peak of the mini ice age (from 1500 to approximately 1850), when the climate in Europe was considerable colder than it is today.
As to your sources, and their relevance to the climate in Hannibal's time:
So 3 of your 4 vaunted sources prove nothing except that you don't seem to comprehend the links you access, as one of them is a graph correlating CO2 levels to rises in sea level.
Your saying that the "heat island effect" is the only impact of human activity on global climate does not make it so. You need to prove such things, not just say them.
The Keeling Curve graph shows nothing of the kind. If you actually read about it, and the research which produced it, it shows a year on year increase in CO2 levels since 1958:
The Keeling Curve, by the way, should you ever trouble to look at it, shows a steady, year-on-year increase in CO2 levels.
Honestly, I cannot fathom how anybody can make your remarkable assertions and then provide "proof" which actually contradicts your own statements.
Not in your world perhaps. But here's a source reporting just such scientific evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/18/us/direct-link-found-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer.html).
Here's a direct quote from the article:
Against this you offer some disembodied quotes from a man named Stratton, and, most puzzling of all, a link to an article on breast cancer.
Samc, I am at a loss. I never seen such a collection of unrelated facts and contradictory pieces of information offered in support of any theory or point under discussion. Your sources don't support you, and, in some cases contradict you.
I have to correct myself, SamC's second source, http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/global36.gif, does have a time component, but it runs from -10 to +2, which may refer to thousand year intervals, measured before and after the start of the "Christian Era". But again, it is without context or adequate labeling.
Nor does it change the fact that there remains no other probable cause for our current climate changes, other than human activity.
dman,
Sam has been posting the same points for many years now. He's one of the first deniers I came across on the Vine when I joined in 2008.
Let's just take this one:
Indeed. If the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) were responsible for the rise we see in global temperatures, than the most heavily-populated areas of the globe would be warming fastest.
But that really isn't what we see. The fastest-warming area of our planet - by far - is the Arctic. It's warming more than twice as fast as any other region on Earth. Temperatures in the Arctic permafrost have risen by up to 3.5 degrees in less than 30 years. Snow cover in May and June has decreased nearly 20%. The winter season is almost two weeks shorter - in just the last few few decades.
The UHI effect really can't explain that one, can it? Not a lot of cities in the Arctic (yet).
Physiscist-retired - thanks, I'm not a scientist, retired or otherwise, but I do try to pay attention to the actual facts underlying any point at issue.
You're doing great, dman.
Thanks for working to set the record straight on climate change. It really is kind of important after all, isn't it?
witchrunner - I want to point out a very, very important element of the scientific method that you unknowingly reference in your 1.30 post. You mention all of these positions that the green movement or science has altered over the years and you use that to sow distrust in the green movement and science. I want to point out that it is the ability to alter a position in light of later more relevant facts that is the number one strength of the scientific method. Change is not a weakness; it is what makes science great. Compare that to the inflexible position of religion and you see my point.
StMiller,
I looked at witchrunner's first point (a movement back to paper bags) - and could find no evidence of it. The movement away from plastic involves a movement towards reusable bags, not back to paper ones.
Other points are equally invalid. Recycling involves much more than landfill space. Electric cars are quite 'green' - unless one's only electric source is 100% old coal plants. Etc. Etc.
But a fundamental flaw in witchrunner's argument is the conflation of environmentalists and climate scientists. They really aren't the same thing.
Not even close.
Dman-353, it is obvious that you DID NOT look at the Keeling Curve graph that I cited via that “hyper-link”
in my Post #1.17. Here it is again, this time “click-it” and study my included notations in reference to the
bi-yearly CO2 cycle and the March/September
Equinox ,
to wit, the hyper link: .....
This Keeling Curve graph .....
And Dman-353, if you are as smart as you think you are …… then
you will know that the CO2 plotted on the KC graph is being recorded at Mona Loa, Hawaii, …. which is in the Northern Hemisphere, …… and that the bi-yearly increase in CO2 ppm always begins shortly after the September Equinox …. which is the start of Spring in the Southern Hemisphere and the ocean water
begins to warm up (and obey Henry’s Law in the process by out-gassing CO2)…. and which those
southern oceans have been doing that
EXACT same thing, …. just like “clockwork”, … every year for the past 55
years …. irregardless of what the hell us humans were or were not doing.
And the bi-yearly decrease
in CO2 ppm always begins shortly after the March
Equinox …. which is the start of
Fall in the Southern Hemisphere
and the ocean water begins to cool down
(and obey Henry’s Law in the process
by in-gassing CO2)…. and which those
southern oceans have been doing that
EXACT same thing, …. just like “clockwork”, … every year for the past 55
years …. irregardless of what the hell us humans were or were not doing.
And they were doing that same exact bi-yearly cycle "thingy" long before Keeling started recording CO2 ppm quantities.
And Dman-353, your above Wikii quote is little more than obfuscating
“junk science” garbage.
First of all, by 1960 Keeling realized that all his local CO2
measurements were FUBAR and that is why he moved to atop Mona Loa. And here is
the link to the “facts” of the aforesaid:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And exerted from that link is the same problem Keeling had,
to wit: “A Scandinavian group accordingly
set up a network of 15 measuring stations in their countries. Their only
finding, however, was a high noise
level. Their measurements apparently fluctuated
from day to day as different air masses (temperature & H2O vapor content) passed through, with
differences between stations as high as a factor of two”.
And secondly Dman-353, you can’t make accurate CO2 ppm
measurements at near surface levels, …. and it would be foolish and asinine to
try to figure out the sources of the two
carbon isotopes in the near earth atmospheric CO2 …. in California … because of its close proximity to
the Pacific Ocean and the fact that the “air masses”
move in and over California from the Pacific Ocean side and they contain varying amounts of out-gassed CO2 as dictated by Henry’s Law.
And thirdly Dman-353, local plants and soil have the same ratio of carbon isotopes as fossil fuels do, because “DUH”, fossil fuels are the product of said plants and soil.
dman,
I've explained all of that to Sam many times in the past. It's your call if you want to pursue it - but I think Sam just likes arguing.
And ps, Dman-353, be very careful of what you believe that
Physicist-retired tells you or anyone else, ….. cause he “snookered” you in his post #1.37 ….. and you didn’t even realize it.
In reference to the “heat island effect”…. P-r quoted the
phrase “is the only impact” …. and replied with “were responsible for” …. to make you believe that I was claiming that the HIE was totally responsible for “the warming of
the earth’s climate”.
"DUH", the earth is currently in an Interglacial Warming Period and has been for the past 23,000 years. And the climate will continue to "warm" until the NEXT "ice age" commences.
Impacting or adding to ….. is a far cry from being ….
responsible for.
And Dman-353. …. believe it or not, your choice, …… but,
like you, …. Physicist-retired is not a Degreed scientists, retired or
otherwise. He is a highly vocal PR (public
relations) proponent of CO2 causing AGW.
P-r …. “has a
dog in the AGW fight” …. and he will attempt to discredit anyone that offers actual, factual science that is contrary to what he is promoting, …. by
personally “attacking” their creditability instead of the contents/context of their
commentary.
Citing/quoting "opinions" .... and posting "weazelworded" pffle .... does not prove or justfy the "junk science" of CO2 causing AGW.
I think people like SamC have a larger motivation than just liking to argue. I wouldn't presume anything, but anyone who spends that much time and energy has a vested interest in the matter, even if it is only emotional. Perhaps he could tell us what his motivations are, although true zealots are not likely to be open about such things.
P-r, mimicking, paraphrasing and/or quoting commentary and/or opinions authored by other persons does not constitute your "explaining" of anything.
You make a lot of "claims" ..... but then you run n' hide ..... instead of defending or proving them.
And jock59801, just what is your motivation .... for "attacking the messenger instead of content/context of his message"?
Testify, ... jock59801, ...... prove that you are not one of those "true zealots" you speak of.
SamC, even if I knew nothing about AGW I would be inclined to believe dman and physicist overy you because they make sense and argue point by point, whereas you throw miscellaneous poorly formatted and largely irrelevant material out (and then accuse others of doing the same thing).
But fortunately I know enough about the science of AGW to know that you are completely misguided in your attempts to discredit it with details about temperature records, heat island effects, or the Keeling Curve. The fact remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and whether or not we can prove that we already see an AGW signal, we know we will soon enough.
SamC, of course I looked at your link, and it shows precisely what I said it did: a yearly upward progression in measured CO2 levels. Yes, there is an annual cycle, with CO2 levels peaking in April, and falling to a low point in October. But, as any high school science student could point out to you, these annual peaks and low points have been rising since measurements began in 1958. The peak CO2 level measured in 1959 is higher than the peak measured in in 1958, the peak in 1960 is higher than that of 1959, and so on up until the present.
How is it you can look at this graph and not see this element point?
Once again, your link does not say what you claim it says. It does relate the following:
You post the same information above, but somehow fail to note that in the full text it references the 1950s, not 1960, and that it is a group of Swedish researchers who reported this finding. Charles David Keeling is a native born American.
Back to reality. It was in 1958 that Keeling began his observations at two locations, one at the south pole, and one in Hawaii. The only change in the 1960s was that lack of funds forced him to abandon his work in Antarctica.
So we both read the word stating that Keeling and his successors have been measuring CO2 levels in Hawaii since 1958, and we both seen the Keeling Curve Graph. Yet somehow, amazingly, you just don't get it.
Like recent research linking smoking to lung [not breast ] cancer, you have apparently not heard that Hawaii is not in California, or any where near it. You have also not noted that the Mauna Loa Observatory, where these observations were made, is not at sea level, but is located at an elevation of approximately 11,000 feet.
Possibly true, and all carnivorous pigs eat meat.
So what?
SamC, not only do I remain unconvinced by your arguments, I find it hard to believe that you believe such tripe.
Please, post a smiley face and admit you've been pulling my leg.
I really try not to attack people unless the get really annoying, and then I can slip. My main motivation is defending science and scientists. I am also extremely pissed off at how the denial industry has succeeded in their mission of sowing confusion and delaying action on things that really do need to be addressed. But I am not as interested in the policy as the science.
Thanks, I like arguing too, retired physicist. How else can one test one beliefs except in honest argument with those who see things otherwise.
But I get annoyed when somebody's arguments seem so completely out of synch, both with logic and with their own "evidence". SamC's contentions and his methods of arguing are actually painful to read; it is much like hearing a song sung out of tune.
If you have the time, just glance at his link to the Keeling Curve graph and confirm that I am not losing my mind, that the larger graph does, in fact, show a steady rise in CO2 over the last 55 years.
Since we are only discussing your, unsubstantiated claim that the only effect on climate is that of urban heat islands, I'm not too worried as to whether retired physicist has misrepresented your views. I did not believe you to begin with.
Again, your assertions are not accepted in all circles as facts. He may or may not be a scientist, but his arguments show a mastery of logic, and knowledge of cause and effect. To date, all I've heard [or rather seen] from you is a bunch of disjointed statements, often asserting the ridiculous. Your arguing methods seem to consist of throwing as many purported facts at your opponent, regardless of their relevance, along with links to web sites which rarely support your contentions.
I'm mystified.
Do you think everyone is so stupid that they won't notice?
SamC: "local plants and soil have the same ratio of carbon isotopes as fossil fuels do, because “DUH”, fossil fuels are the product of said plants and soil."
Yes, that's the whole point. Plants and fossil fuels have a similar ratio, which is different from that in the atmosphere, because plants preferentially take up the lighter isotope. Therefore the fact that the proportion of the lighter isotope has been increasing over the last century to record Holocene levels, is more evidence that the increasing CO2 concentration is caused by burning of fossil fuels (in case it wasn't already obvious through common sense).
don: Can't think of anything dumber than believe those who don't believe what they are saying. But, libs are good that way. It really manifested itself during the Clinton years. During the Lewinsky years, I found it amazing how many libs admitted that Clinton was a liar, but time and time again, they liked what he had to say. That still baffles me.
Regardless, the fact is that the "science" just isn't there. It's been soundly repudiated. The same scientists have made so many predictions based on their science and almost all the time, they are wrong. Something's bound to be right just as an ape can make a prediction by occasionally selecting among several answers. There predictions have usually been off by !00% to 1,000%.
But, I must admit, and have always argued, that I like your idea of not making the global warming issue political. So, let the scientists who want to study it proceed to study it, but not at taxpayer expense. And let the libs stop pushing political agendas based on the phoney global warming "science." Obviously, that means that things like the Keystone Pipeline should be immediately approved, since it has been determined to be environmentally safe. The cap and trade should be abandoned by the politicians. The push to get everyone into sardine cans to drive from point a to point b should be abandoned. But, something tells me that you think that only people who disagree with you should abandon the politics of the issue. So, can we agree to leave the politics out of it?
Witchrunner....I have a question. Do you believe in evolution?
He shouldn't. The "science" just isn't there. The same scientists have made so many theories, and they are almost always later proved wrong.
Can't think of anything dumber than to believe those who don't believe what they are saying. Conservatives are good that way. They continue to revere George W. Bush, and his decision to lead us into Iraq, to neglect Afghanistan, to leave Osama bin Laden living in peaceful retirement in Pakistan, and to turn a balanced budget into a quagmire of debt with his pandering tax cuts.
Yet, to this day, they still revere him, and castigate the current President for his efforts to deal with those problems. That still baffles me.
Your mind is just fine, dman.
I've had the very same discussion with Sam - I think the last time was about 3 years ago. But I'll say this: people who don't spend several hours a day reading climate research (like I do) can actually benefit from debating with Sam. Those debates mean that you have to do a little research on your own - and the research will always support you when you debate a science denier.
jock59801, common sense is good, up to a point, but without a Science education one is severely handicapped in their ability to understand or discuss the Earth Sciences and/or Climate Science.
Now jock59801, your above comment “sounds” kinda common sense-ickle, except for the fact that you failed to include at least four (4) critical factors, anyone of which would NEGATE your “common sense” derived conclusion.
1. Where does that lighter CO2 isotope go each year, after the plant bio-mass that “took-it-up” rots, decays or is burned? Is not 80+-% of it re-emitted back into the atmosphere?
2. Humans are releasing vast amounts of CO2 each year that are derived from sources other than fossil fuels (beer, wine, concrete, etc.)
3. The increase warming has exacerbated the rotting and decaying of centuries old bio-mass that has been lying dormant in the previously COLDER northern latitudes.
4. The world’s oceans are the greatest “CO2 sink” on planet earth and their waters have been “warming” up since the mid 1800s (end of the Little Ice Age)
jock5980, the 1st thing you should attempt to learn is the fact that liquid water (H2O) does not discriminate between the different isotopes of CO2, ... like some plant life does, ... but H2O will readily absorb and emit all isotopic forms of CO2.
Now jock5980, you have severely badmouthed and criticized many of my previous posts, by claiming that my knowledge in/of science is limited, lacking, foolish and/or laughable.
But your having done so, jock5980, you are now obligated to express your same “common sense” judgment upon your very favorite government entities that you have previously held in great esteem with 100% confidence in their scientific expertise and factual knowledge …. because they confirm and attest to the very same things that I have been telling you, to wit:
(note) the titles of the following 3 references are “hyperlinks” to the source document.
---------------------------
----------------
When the temperature of the water (H2O) decreases during Fall and Winter, atmospheric CO2 in-gassed. When the temperature of the water (H2O) increases during Spring and Summer, CO2 is out-gassed into the atmosphere. Thus explains the bi-yearly cycle of the Keeling Curve graph relative to the Spring-Fall Equinoxes.
Given the fact that the temperature of the ocean waters have steadily become warmer each year ever since the early 1800s as the Little Ice Age was ending, there has also been a steady decrease in the amount of CO2 being absorbed or in-gassed from out of the atmosphere. Thus explains the steady and consistent 1 to 2 ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 as defined on the Keeling Curve graph.
There is no other scientific and/or common sense explanation.
Religious beliefs and conjectures are neither scientific or common sense-ical.
CHEERS
witchrunner
"Repudiated" is a Sarah Palin word, and Sarah Palin types are the ones who have been doing all of that "repudiatin'". All of the organizations of scientists have come out in support of the theory of anthropogenic global climate change (except [surprise] the American Association of Petroleum Geologists ....... who are not climate experts and maybe, just maybe, have a financial conflict of interest). Over 97% of climate scientists support the theory.
When it comes to science you choose not to believe scientist, but rather to believe the Koch brothers who have put $70 million into the disinformation campaign since 1997 [and who clearly have a financial interest in convincing people to use even more fossil fuels]. You are a dupe of the right wing media, who also denied the human cause of deterioration of the ozone layer [No worries ..... we ignored them and fixed the problem]. You have decided in your decidedly weak, irrational mind that it is better to ignore scientists in matters of science and instead listen to college drop outs Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ..... to the Fox News Clown Posse ...... to the failed Republican presidential candidates who decided that playing to the low information, anti-science conservative base who still rejects the theory of evolution ..... to that science icon Sarah Palin.
And what do those sources you provide attribute that warming to, Sam? The 30+ Gigatonnes of annual human-caused CO2 emissions.
EPA:
NOAA:
QED.
I'll give you this, though - warming oceans really do absorb less CO2. We've avoided most of the consequences of our careless behavior so far, because the oceans have acted as a huge buffer - removing a lot of human-caused CO2 (at the cost of acidifying the oceans, of course).
But last year, the oceans absorbed far less CO2 than in past years. Anyone who thinks that losing that buffer isn't seriously bad news is mistaken.
Physicist-retired, it is not the “hours of reading” that counts, ….. it is the “understanding of what you are reading” that actually counts. And in my opinion you fall far short in the latter of the two.
Physicist-retired, given the fact that you are in a bragging “mood” this Sunday morning, ... by touting your fantastic amount of scientific knowledge and expertise, …. why don’t you partner with both dman-353357 and jock59801, and the three (3) of you figure out how you are going to DISCREDIT the content/context of Post #1.58 in general …… and/or DISCREDIT myself, the EPA and NOAA specifically, …. either individually or as a group.
Do it, … do it, … DO IT, …. Physicist-retired, …. and don’t “run n’ hide” from your obligations, …. like you usually do.
Prove to your buddies that the EPA employees are dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks.
Prove to your buddies that the NOAA scientists are clueless learning disabled.
And reiterate to your buddies that SamC has absolutely no aptitude, learned knowledge or experience in any Science discipline.
SamC
None of us knows whether or not you have " absolutely no aptitude, learned knowledge or experience in any Science discipline." What we do know is that you like to argue and that the points upon which you stake your argument are standard denier junk science that has been put to rest long ago.
Here's how it works.
Is that about right, SamC?
But you're willing to quote them when they support your argument, Sam? I think that's called cherry-picking. Didn't know it was already 'cherry season' in West Virginia...
Physicist-retired, it appears you are getting both desperate and hilarious ..... at the same time.
P-r, maybe you would like to tell me, … and your buddies, ….. just what segment of humanity was responsible for the emissions of said "30+ Gigatonnes of annual human-caused CO2" …. during the 100 years between say 1880 and 1980?
Here are some population/CO2 statistics iffen it helps you any.
World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year -- # people ------ % increase _— CO2 ppm - % increase --- avg ppm increase/year
“DUH”, …. Physicist-retired, …..
The world’s population has been quickly increasing exponentially since 1870s.
Annual human-caused CO2 emissions have been quickly increasing exponentially since 1870s.
Atmospheric CO2 has been slowly & steadily increasing (avg 1.4 ppm/year) since 1840s.
The temperature of the ocean water has been slowly & steadily increasing since 1840s.
Global average temperatures have been slowly & steadily increasing since 1840s.
SamC
In #1.60 above, Physicist tried to explain to you the buffering phenomenon regarding CO2 uptake in the oceans. Once again in your willful ignorance you failed to heed his attempt at educating you.
SamC, once again, I am mystified as just what your are trying to prove with your latest assortment of purported facts. In past posts, I've responded to you point by point, examining the websites beneath your links, untangling your assertions, and attempting to apply logic to your fanciful view of the global warming issues.
I've responded to...
In return, you keep turning to subjects, apparently related in you mind, which are introduced without any indication by you as to where they figure into the discussion...
I'm done. You'll no doubt go on believing as you do, long after the majority of the people on the planet have accepted the obvious truth that human activity is having a measurable and increasing impact on our global climate.
I'm sure there still people on this planet who are convince the Earth is flat. I don't argue with them, neither will i continue to debate this subject with you.
Aloha. (That means both hello and good bye in the Hawaii region of California, wherever that is).
It was fun, dman. Well, maybe not fun for you (writing it), but certainly fun for me (reading it).
Aloha.
SamC,
Just ask them:
1. Since the worlds populations & CO2 emmissions have been INCREASING since the 1880's...
Why did the CO2 data stay almost Flat Line between 1880 & 1949, if you rely on the IPCC data???
There is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations. Between 600 and 400 millions of years ago (Ma) of over 6,000 ppm. When the surface plants started growing and the continents started to form, due to volcanic/tectonic activity. Between 200 and 150 Ma of over 3,000 ppm. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 is found to have been about 760 ppm,[38] and there is geochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 Ma...
But what the heck, they love to IGNORE the historical FACTS and think than mankind can cause it...
don97524, P-r never tried to nor did he explain anything whatsoever about a "buffering phenomenon regarding CO2" because there is no such thing ...... except in the minds of the Science illiterate. If you think that "shaking" a can of warm soda pop, .... then opening it up, .... creates a phenomenon ... then "go for it".
don97524, if you believe everything posted by Physicist-retired you will soon be taking back things that you never took in the first place.
don97524, in post #1.60 above, Physicist-retired posted the following quote and IMPLIED that NOAA was the source of it via his included “hyperlink” ….. which was a devious, dishonest, disingenuous act on his part, …. to wit:
don97524, the actual source for Physicist-retired’s FAQs piffle n’ tripe garbage is, to wit:
Dman, that doesn't surprise me any. The avid Bible believing Creationists have the same problem when arguing with a non-believer in/of their Biblical beliefs.
In both cases, it is a problem that is rooted in and resulting from inadequate and/or wrongful nurturing and which is exacerbated by "fear and ignorance".
AC Robertson, they don't like to be asked questions ....... and usually become irritated and p-faced if they are asked, ...... resulting in a "personal attack" response.
"Warming fastest since dawn of civilization, study shows"
No worries...it will cool off at the twilight of civilization.
Yamal tree rings would be my guess. More sky is falling crap.
When did civilization ever start?
Chicken, are you suggesting they should NOT use all of the available evidence?
If you have better data, publish it. But you don't get to declare scientists wrong just because you want them to be wrong, without even knowing what they did.
Funny given your screen name. Just hang around for awhile. The truth will set you free.
RoastedChickenLittle
Judging from your screen name this is your primary, maybe your only, trolling subject. I have seen many of your comments, none of which demonstrated any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. If you are really trying to enter into an intellectual debate or win others over to your side of the issue you have gone about it in a very ineffective manner.
In short, your screen name is the only clever aspect of any of your posts.
Oh all these attacks from a bunch of gullible alarmists. How will I sleep tonight? Really I could care less if you like my posts or screen name. Your failure to ask any questions critical of people like the dis-credited hocky stick graph scientist M.M. Who works at the oh so to be trusted in all areas, Penn State just goes to show any reasonable person that your personal attacks on me are nothing more than your political bias at work.
Your pseudoscience does not measure up to examination. Michael Mann has NOT come forward to explain his actions to the world as he needs to.
HIDE THE DECLINE!
This is all about "hide the decline?" LOL. Do you even know what he was talking about there?
Smearing one scientist will not change decades of research by thousands of climate scientists arounf the world. I know you really believe you are right, but that is your problem, not ours.
@RoastedChickenLittle
FYI, the "hockey stick graph" has NOT been discredited but has, in fact, been confirmed by multiple independent researchers.
Yes jock, I know exactly what hide the decline means.
Oh gimme a break. Still trying to claim that tree rings is all they have? Science is wonderful and fascinating and very in depth. Why don't you give it a try? Start with basic chemistry and biology and move on from there.
I worked in petro-chemical labs for >40 years. Accurate temperature measurement +, -, 0.2 C is extremely difficult in lab conditions, much less looking at an ice core. Even if it were possible, how would a measurement of several 6" spots on the earth relate to the entire globe? Comparing the temperature of Rio and Nome makes good sense? ANY average is ONLY as accurate as its least accurate measurement; significant digits!
I assure all, your digital thermometer is not accurate to 0.1 C.
The thing of it is, the laws of physics could care less what we think. And to discover what laws are driving this we record data and then apply some corrections as necessary. From this corrected data we then draw conclusions. If there is any question by a skeptic they can go back to the original data and look at it themselves, which any good scientist with integrity would not object to.
Unfortunately with global warming much of the original data was deliberately destroyed because it was more important to keep the revised data. That begs several questions.
Why couldn't the original data be kept and re-run through the analysis if there was ever a question?
The gigabytes of gigabytes of storage available to the scientific community would not have been filled up by the original data.
No one with a significant discovery has ever destroyed their original data. We still have the writings of original data from earlier than the 17th century.
If you want me to believe you then you must be honest with me.
You are not only not honest, you have been caught in lie after lie. Especially considering that the earth has not warmed for the last 10 years!
It may be true that humans cause global warming, but YOUR dishonesty makes your words lies. And it takes a long time to overcome dishonesty!
You can guess all you want or you can look at the actual study and learn what they used.
"Unfortunately with global warming much of the original data was deliberately destroyed"
Who told you that? LOL.
OK, here's a dumb question. I could probably find the answer, but I'm here, now. So, a 1.3 degrees drop in temperature is enough to cause an ice age? That seems totally illogical.
I love the deniers. They refuse to look at solid evidence and hang on every word spewed by Rush, Hannity and company. Good forbid they listen to people who actually know what they're talking about.
This is typical of the gaggle of low information types. Show complete disdain for education and educated people but believe every word that comes out of the mouths of paid huskers. They do depend on the weak minded to keep them in the forefront and the weak minded are more then happy to oblige them.
Unfortunately, the denialist crowd is still claiming its just part of the natural cycle. I don't think their children and grandchildren will be making that claim.
Yeah, kind of hard to do when you're buried under a mountain of ice, er, water. No worries. New York City and LA, gone. That takes care of a big chunk of the problem.
The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science -- and Reality
Excerpts:
New research shows that conservatives who consider themselves well-informed and educated are also deeper in denial about issues like global warming.
Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well—and are confident they don't need any more information on the issue.
Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. In a recent survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselves—they considered themselves "very well-informed" about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they "do not need any more information" to make up their minds on the issue.
But it's not just global warming where the "smart idiot" effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.
The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government "death panels." According to research by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were "paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not." Well-informed Democrats were the opposite—quite certain there were no "death panels" in the bill.
The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.
On global warming, [Rick] Santorum definitely has an argument, and he has "facts" to cite. And he is obviously intelligent and capable—but not, apparently, able to see past his ideological biases. Santorum's argument ultimately comes down to a dismissal of climate science and climate scientists, and even the embrace of a conspiracy theory, one in which the scientists of the world are conspiring to subvert economic growth (yeah, right).
But there are also reason to think that, with liberals, there is something else going on. Liberals, to quote George Lakoff, subscribe to a view that might be dubbed "Old Enlightenment reason." They really do seem to like facts; it seems to be part of who they are.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/the_republican_brain%3A_why_even_educated_conservatives_deny_science_--_and_reality?paging=off
Figure out a way to fix things that does not involve extra taxes and you will get a LOT more support. Right now this just looks like another money making scheme to me and hence is not getting much support. We lack current tech to fully replace fossil fuels at this time and breaking our economy will only thrust us back into war and use of dirtier technologies. A usual liberals believe we need to tax our way out and the rest of us believe we need to grow out of it.
"the rest of us believe we need to grow out of it."
And how is that working out for you?
The graph demonstrates the point that the earth should be COOLING right now and is instead, WARMING.
The GOP and the corporate global warming deniers will kill us all.
Accurate thermometers were not developed until 19 May 1743, the design of a mercury thermometer, the "Thermometer of Lyon" built by the craftsman Pierre Casati that used the Celsius temperature scale.[7][8][9]
EVERYTHING prior to this is a SWAG or speculation based on some other measurable data that coensides with temperature...
Michael Mann formally of UVA (fired) and his 'Hocky Stick temperature graph', was based on Oak tree rings in the UK. Ignoring the TWO other main factors that also influence these rings (water & nutrition) and the scientist that did the original study. BTY - Mann's graph has not tracked any temperature anywhere on Earth... see Mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
If you use the ice core temperature data:
1. Oct. 2, 1998 — An analysis of Antarctic ice core data indicates an abrupt climate warming occurred there about 12,500 years ago, it was 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. This data also corresponds withthe ice data from the Arctic & Greenland... see ref - .sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981002082033.htm
2. The warmest period was during the last interglacial period, which is an interval of warmer global average temperature that separates ice ages. At that time, around 130,000 years ago, it was a balmy 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today... see ref - news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
3. In today's online journal Science, the team showed that the coldest period occurred around 20,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum, when the ice sheets were at their peak. It was about 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than today... see ref - news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html
4. The Earths temperature averages have been DECREASING for the last 12+thousand years according to the same Antarctic ice cores... see ref - das.uwyo.edu/geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/iccore.html & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
5. Data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab show that, the December average, snow covered the most area on record in 2012, from data dating back to 1966. This was OVER 1+Million Sq kilometer higher than the average anomalies and has been INCREASING in coverage since the lowest recorded in 1980. During Jan 2013, the Northern Hemisphere snow coverage was @ the HIGHEST levels on record...
6. The ARGOS sea surface temperatures have returned to the 2003 averages. This is from the 3k+buoys spread across the World's Oceans. Not the limited temperature data from ships engine intake water or a few sea water data stations or satellite data that is effected by many things (clouds, wind, waves, defective sensors, etc)...
AC, none of that changes the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
In terms of global warming potential, one pound of methane is 21 times more potent than one pound of CO2, and one pound of N2O is 310 times more potent than one pound of CO2.
The largest NATURAL CO2 source is the peat fires in Indonesa. It is estimated that in 1997, peat and forest fires in Indonesia released between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon; equivalent to 13–40 percent of the amount released by global fossil fuel burning, and greater than the carbon uptake of the world's biosphere. These fires may be responsible for the acceleration in the increase in carbon dioxide levels since 1998.[36][37]..
The largest manmade CO2 source is the manufacture and use of CONCRETE. Cement production is an important source of CO2 emissions, accounting for 1.8 Gt CO2 in 2005...
The under-ground coal-fires in China produce more CO2 & pollution that ALL the cars and Lt trucks in the USA... BTY - UG coal fires exist around the World, including the USA...
When you can do anything about these, then the World will see a notacable change in CO2 emmissions...
To take just one of your points, the sea surface temperatures are strongly influenced by the ENSO (El Nino) cycle; if you look at the ARGOS data down to 2,000 meters depth, it is very clear that the oceans have been gaining heat for years.
Doomed
@ SRS, so you think an ice age would be better than global warming? If global warming suppresses an ice age I'm all for it. When the natural cycle continues, after our suppressed ice age, that's what we should be concerned with. So, the way that humans procrastinate, I'm with you, try to get the ball rolling now, and maybe, just maybe, in ten thousand years, when it will really count, we'll have CO2 under control.
@ AC Robertson
Yeah...but the issue is that the peat fires in Indonesia are natural sources of CO2, meaning it's part of the carbon cycle. The issue with fossil fuels is taking oil/natural gas that has been out of the cycle for thousands of years and reintroducing it via combustion, gasification, etc. While peat fires are a rare occurrence (like volcano eruptions), we persistently add CO2 into the atmosphere.
Time and time again, people always tend to focus solely on CO2 or CH4 or NO2. What about all the CFCs, HFCs, and HCFCs compounds (created by man) that have global warming potentials thousands to tens of thousands times greater than that of CO2 and persist in the atmosphere for upwards of a century? I see these as more of a threat than CO2 emissions, despite it's importance.
EricH-3359508,
Show us your historical data for this 'Deep Water' heat content that is INCREASING...
Oh - That is right it does not exist and this new data from ARGOS is about 5+years old. So much for a historical prespective on a cycle that last 120k+years...
The sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean are influenced by the ENSO cycle (El Niño and La Niña) which have been occurring ever since the Pacific Ocean has existed. A warming or cooling of at least 0.5°C (0.9°F) averaged over the east-central tropical Pacific Ocean. Typically, this anomaly happens at irregular intervals and lasts nine months to two years...
According to NOAA, La Niña conditions were in place starting in 1995 and from 1998–2000, and a minor one from 2000–2001. An El Niño started in Sept 2006 and lasted until early 2007. From June 2007 on, data indicated a moderate La Niña event, which strengthened in early 2008 and weakened before the start of 2009. El Niño started Jun 2009, peaking in Jan/Feb. Positive SST anomalies (El Niño) lasted until May 2010. SST anomalies then transitioned into the negative (La Niña) and have now transitioned back to ENSO-neutral during April 2012...
BTY - Researchers have discovered a link between the 11-year solar cycle and the tropical Pacific weather patterns that can influence the La Niña and El Niño events. Co-authors Gerald Meehl and Julie Arblaster, both affiliated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, analyzed computer models of global climate and more than a century of ocean temperature records. Arblaster is also affiliated with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Read article - .universetoday.com/35133/solar-cycle-triggers-la-nina-el-nino-like-climate-shifts/#ixzz2N1iTQRY6
Know-how,
"While peat fires are a rare occurrence (like volcano eruptions), we persistently add CO2 into the atmosphere."
The Indonesia peat fires have been burning EVERY year for 30+years...
Peatlands are found in at least 175 countries and cover around 4 million km² or 3% of the world’s land area. At 106 g CO2/MJ, the carbon dioxide emissions of peat are higher than those of coal (at 94.6 g CO2/MJ) and natural gas (at 56.1) (IPCC).
Indonesia - 11 Nov 2004 - As they have every dry season for the last 20 years, once lush tropical peatlands in Indonesia smoldered for weeks this year, leaving the region cloaked in a thick, carbon-rich haze... see article - //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1111_041111_indonesia_fires.html
Russia's peat marshes which have caught fire regularly since 1981 and after a drought a major fire occurred in 2010. Russia had a similar peat fire in 2002 and these haven’t been extinguished completely and come back after winter as they can smolder undersurface during the colder months. The world's largest peat bog, is located in Western Siberia mading it the largest contributor to carbon emissions from peat followed by Indonesia...
Okavango Delta, Botswana: The lower Nquoga River Systems have a dense layer of vegetation covered peat deposits. The region comprises of segments of mosaic burning fronts. These segments have been burning for decades in the region...
BTY- They do not have to catch fire to release CO2, methane, etc. A cubic meter of peat will release around 150 cubic meters of carbon dioxide into the air. A hectare, which is ~2.45 acres of drained peat land in central Europe, emits about 25 tons of Carbon dioxide a year from continuing decay and a hectare of wet peat emits about 10-15 tons of carbon dioxide annually...
Hopefully the CO2 will build so fast that it will cause the release of all the seas methane hydrates and overheat the Earth so fast that 99% of mankind is exterminated which would be good for planet Earth in the long run. And maybe the remaining inhabitants will be more logical and more willing to listen to reason next time. If not, well, we can leave a message for future inhabitants or ET. And if it wipes out religions so much the better as what a cancer on mankind.
As a cartoon I saw years ago said: "If God wanted the planet to be saved he wouldn't have created man". 'Nuff said.
Of all the religions I know of, only YOUR extremist environmental religion hopes for the extermination of "99%" of mankind. That's not just a "cancer on mankind," it's a highly aggressive, stage IV cancer that only miserable, self-loathing Gaia worshipers would ascribe to.
Lou
That is an absurd statement. Climate science is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination and if you believe that the flippant comments of someone like more2bits is a reflection of the science community you are living in a dream world.
We are not the first to wreck our climate. Plants killed their own climate in the Carboniferous epoch because they ate up all the CO2. The reduced CO2 levels cooled the climate, killling off the vast swamp forests of the Carboniferous. The plants stored the CO2 as cellulose in their stems and leaves, fell into the swamps and oceans, were buried under layers of sand and silt, deformed into long string carbon/hydrogen chains (AKA Oil,Coal) and now we pump and dig their remains out of the ground and burn them thus putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere, warming it again, and so we are wrecking our own climate. The plants didn't plan very well, but then, they didn't think. We have the ability to think, but do we have the ability to act? Not sure.
The trouble is, we don't know IF there will be any survivors, so it's short-sighted to wish for terrible things to happen so that an assumed minority would survive.
Actually, the first folks to wreck the climate for others were the cyanobacteria that changed the atmosphere of the planet by producing oxygen. Of course oxygen was poison to all the existing living one cell life forms but it proves the point that it only takes one species to change the future of an entire planet. The difference between cyanobacteria and today's modern humans (at least most of them) is that modern humans can choose for themselves. Modern humans have apparently chosen to render their planet unsuitable for human life.... bye bye.
UrbnPrsn: So one solution would be to plant more more plants. Because of Global Warming, there is more land available that will support those plants. One more solution would be to develop CO2 scrubbers. One more solution would be to throw serious money behind the clean-HEATING of coal that was just developed that creates 99% less CO2 than burning it. One more solution is to somehow put out the underground coal fires in China.
4 viable solutions to what appears to be a legit issue.
But instead, the Global Warming worshippers get behind Al Gore, who's solution is to trade Carbon Credits. Where it is only OK to build that factory, if it is done in Nigeria where their CO2 output is low, rather than Cleveland who puts out too much already. Gore wants a global tax, global socialism, and prefers to pollute our landfills with mercury from CFL lightbulbs rather than actually doing anything about SOLVING the issue of high CO2 in our atmosphere.
Think about it. Do you and others offer solutions, or just prefer to cry out the sky is falling and nobody will listen to me. Yes, humans think, so think and offer solutions.
@ StunnedByTheAge
Right...so apparently everyone who believes in global warming is on the Gore-train? Just to name a few solutions that are in fact renewable as opposed to improving coal (which is a finite resource):
1. Pyrolysis
2. Waste-to-Energy
3. Transesterification
4. Cellulosic Ethanol
5. F-T Gasification
6. Biomass Direct Combustion
7. Biomass CHP
8. Biomass Gasification
9. ICE/Transportation Fuels with Landfill Gas
10. ICE/Transportation Fuels with Anaerobic Digestion
And that's all just some of the Biomass energy technologies out there. Don't get me started on all the hydrokinetic, geothermal, solar, and wind technologies that are present/in development right now. So there are solutions out there (many of them) that are underutilized and underfunded because of our dependence on coal/oil/natural gas.
Know-how,
The USA is sitting on 500-years of hydrated methane...
US NG reserves has grown every year for DECADES...
“We estimate that the national inventory of gas reserves is approximately 300 trillion cubic feet,” said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of AGA. “This ‘on-the-shelf’ inventory is the foundation along with growing national resource estimates that may point to as much as a 100 year natural gas supply in America..."
The previous domestic reserves record of 293 Tcf was recorded in1967...
You can view the report here...
Keep chasing those windmills/HSWT that self-destruct. Just ask the Hawaii developers who have abandoned their facilities or the UK and their sinking HSWT...
Hydrated methane deposits in USA...
The EIA has projected that the USA has 500+years of methane hydrates, in the US Continental Shelf. Last year (2012) the EIA/Japan in conjunction with ConocoPhillips had developed a viable commercial process to SAFELY remove this resource. An estimated 40 Tcf of methane hydrates could exist offshore Japan, Alaska alone could hold 600 Tcf according to the EIA... see article - .huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/methane-hydrate-alaska-north-slope-climate-change_n_2113828.html
Take a look at the graph. Does anyone really believe that "average global temperature" has varied within a range of less than 1 degree C for the last 11000 years? That would include the "Little Ice Age," the "Medieval Warming" and numerous other natural cycles. This looks suspiciously like Michael Mann's original "Hockey Stick" plot which has been thoroughly debunked. And if human's were responsible for such a sharp spike in a few years, how is it that there has been no discernible global warming for over 15 years now? Who actually believes this stuff? How much of my tax dollars were wasted on this propaganda? Perhaps sequestration will at least decrease the rate of increase of this waste by a few percent.
Yes, it was already well known the temperatures varied within only about a degree or so in the Holocene.
"Who actually believes this stuff?"
The vast majority of climate scientists around the world and every major science academy on the planet.
Neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age created temperature differences greater than 1 degree C. Meanwhile, the reason this looks rather like the hockey stick graph is because the hockey stick graph, rather than being "thoroughly debunked", has repeatedly been vindicated as accurate.
@Clyde-564780
It has actually been confirmed multiple times. Google it.
Ah, see the problem here is the definition of "debunked". For those familiar with the scientific method, that means strenuous peer review identifying faults which upon further investigation were found to invalidate the conclusion leading to re-evaluation of the data in an attempt to better describe the phenomenon in-question.
To the ignorant "debuned" means a story they agree with was posted on a site they like or on Fox news.
The temperatures we are moving towards have not been seen for 800,000 years. Humans have been around for about 10,000 years, modern humans for about 250 years. 800,000 years ago our planet could be correctly described as "Swamp World". Plants, big bugs and aquatic reptiles did very well. We are adapted to "Cool and Dry World". Could humans handle "Swamp World"? Maybe. Could humans handle a rapid change from what we have now to "Swamp World", in say 100 years? Not without extreme misery and a high death rate.
During the quaternary period the CO2 levels never exceeded some 330 ppm...
Currently the CO2 levels are around 390ppm, but they used to be very much higher. When the dinos came, the levels were 4-5 times higher than now. When multi-cellular organisms appeared 500 million years ago, the levels were even 20x higher than now...
The temperatures were just 3°C higher than now in the Jurassic period...
If you read Lovelock's Gaia you must surely know, that if carbon wouldn't get released from the underground, life on Earth would have stopped billions of years ago. So far carbon was regularly brought back to circulation due to tectonics and volcanoes...
In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated:
Yes - but you're ignoring the evolving nature of the Sun, AC. The TSI (total solar irradiance) of the Sun has never been a 'constant' - 4.7 billion years ago (when the Earth formed) TSI was about 70% of what it is today. At the time of the dinosaurs (300 million years ago) it was about 2.5% less than today.
In other words, Earth was cooler then, in spite of higher CO2 levels, because the Sun was cooler.
It's time to stop grasping at straws here. Human-caused CO2 emissions are warming the planet at an alarming rate - case closed.
Physist, the REASON for opposition to the whole global warming thing is that is has been seized on by the left as TAXABLE event. At this time we lack the tech to adequately replace fossil fuels and worse our political structures which are largely corporate funded do not allow for much in the way of alternative exploration.
Most Americans are unaware EU cars are largely clean efficient diesels getting roughly twice the mileage of US cars. Why don't we have access to this tech? Because some smart Lefty back in the day placed huge taxes on Diesel as a tax on the trucking industry and it is not an economical fuel today.
The biggest issue I see is liberal policy ALWAYS suffers from the law of unintended consequences.
We need to grow out of fossil fuels and doing so means a vibrant PRIVATE SECTOR economy and more importantly a vastly reduced government. Right now the barriers to new tech from oil and energy companies paying off our elected officials ON BOTH SIDES is insurmountable so what good will more taxation do?
Let me give you an up close and personal example of why the liberal tax policy fails
1. Additional taxes mean less revenue for my business because my customers have less to spend
2. I am forced due to higher taxes and less revenue to drive an old and dirty car
3. I cannot afford solar etc because my customers are taxed and do revenues are way down so I am forced to burn paid for electricity and fuel.
The fact is high taxes increase CO2!
I remember it differently, GHX. Cap and Trade was a GOP idea - and it worked well with ozone (for example).
Here's what some on the Left are actually proposing to address CO2 emissions:
It could work - but I agree with you that our elected official are very unlikely to even entertain such an approach (for varying reasons).
It certainly hasn't had that effect on the countries that actually take such an approach. See, for example, Denmark. Denmark will get 50% of it's electricity from renewables in just 7 years (they've been working on it for some time now).
The per person CO2 emissions in Denmark are less than 11.5 metric tonnes per year. In the U.S., we exceed 23.5 - more than twice as much for every man, woman, and child.
Yet Danes pay a carbon tax of $18 per metric ton of CO2. And their effective income tax tops out at 57%. Americans don't pay anything close to that.
It simply isn't true that higher taxes mean more CO2. Far from it.
"the REASON for opposition to the whole global warming thing is that is has been seized on by the left as TAXABLE event"
So you deny the science because you don't like a proposed solution? Yeah, that makes sense....
Actually, both diesel and gasoline in Europe is much higher taxed and much more expensive in Europe than it is here in the US. The result has been that fuel economy in both types of vehicles is higher in Europe than in the US. Additionally, they have used that tax money in Europe to fund the great mass transit systems they have.
The technology for higher fuel efficiency has long been within our grasp. It is not magic and it is not rocket science. But the continuation of inexpensive fuels in the US makes it a moot point. Why invest in better fuel efficiency when the fuel is so cheap?
Using your reasoning, the left in the US simply did not view the big picture, and should have placed big taxes on both the diesel and gasoline. Diesel would then be on parity, we would have cleaner more efficient vehicles, and more money for a better mass transit system.
OK - that last part was a bit tongue-in-cheek. But I think you get the idea. Using Europe (high-taxes all around) to blast the U.S. left for taxing diesel seems little cock-eyed to me...
As far as taxes Europe appears at least on the surface to be less corrupt than America. Higher taxes here quickly manifest in the form of more government workers and higher pensions etc further fueling the need for higher taxes so I am not convinced ANY of the money would go to furthering tech to reduce CO2. Also consider our legendary medical costs which form a tax paid directly to the medical industry rather than being collected by the government and redistributed for you. I believe our overall taxes in the US are higher than in Europe when ALL is considered!
As for public transport, America is a vast geographic region and is too sparsely populated in general for public transport to really work. Areas like Los Angeles do not have sufficiently stable ground for underground rail etc. I personally would like to start small and allow the same diesel tech used in Europe to be available here and that is not a technical problem but a political one. We could reduce emissions by a huge amount right there saving Americans money and without a cent of tax!
Physicist-retired,
Get back with us when you know something about CFCs and their supposed decreasing amounts in the atmosphere...
The Treaty was not fully effective until 2030, while many nations never stopped producing them...
India, China & Brazil are currently producing 70% of the Worlds CFCs. And they have no intention of adopting the replacements...
What is funny is the measured Ozone-depleting gas trends and equivalent chlorine effect started decreasing PRIOR to the regulations starting...
BTY - The original CFC's have a half life of almost 100+years and the old systems using them are still releasing more CFCs...
I'm going to raise your taxes to FORCE you to convert to a product that;
1. Uses MORE Energy to produce the same results...
2. The NEW CFC gases are corrosive and cause the systems to fail & release ALL their CFCs into the environment...
3. The new systems are twice as expensive and their service life is HALF of the previous systems...
Now tell me about how ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly they are...
BTY - I was CFC certified over two decades ago and have a college degree in HVAC system design. Care to buy 25+kilo of R12???
If the earth began warming long before fossil fuel use then perhaps fossil fules aren't contributing to warming as much as is believed.
"Who actually believes this stuff?"
Clyde, just libtards do. Everyone else sees the snowjob. Speaking of snow, ironically, today’s hearing on “Policy-Relevant Climate Issue in Context” will be postponed. DC is pretty much shut down.
Yes I already know it's just weather & not climate. (unless of course it is extreme weather, then it is climate)
someguy, that logic shows that fossil fuels are not the ONLY thing that affects climate change, which everybody understands. It says nothing about how much fossil fules are contributing to warming.
Again, educate yourself Chicken: It is not just "libtards," but rather 95+% of all climate scientists on Earth. Out of more than 13,950 peer-reviewed journal articles published on the matter of global warming between 1991 and 2012, only 24 rejected the idea of anthropogenic global warming; 24, which equates to 0.17%.
Apparently you are unaware that peer review is presently under scrutiny within the scientific community because it oppresses contrary opinions. In other words there is no way to present a new idea because the review process guarantees the paper will conform to presently taught ideologies.
As a matter of fact, that is one of the criteria for a "proper" peer review. The material must not deviate in any significant manner from presently accepted conciseness. You can present slightly varying "discoveries" one item at a time. But if you present anything greatly different, it is rejected not because it is right or wrong, but just because it is not in the mainstream.
RealityCheck, you can get anything published if you have good enough evidence. There is always some resistance to new ideas, of course, but if they are backed by good logic and evidence, they always win out in the end.
Any scientist is free to publish his/her own work - as Richard Muller did with his recent BEST study on climate change.
That study was published on his site (and in the MSM) more than a year before undergoing Peer Review. A great deal of research is handled that way now.
Having said that, Peer Review is not the end of a process - it's the beginning of one. Published, Peer Reviewed research is available to all scientists, who are free to evaluate, and then confirm (or refute) it's findings.
We're still 'testing' Relativity more than 100 years after it was published, for example.
There's no Grand Suppression of dissenting science. That's Conspiracy Theory nonsense.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
Lets just table the argument about whether man is the cause of warming for a second. Read that statement, and check out the detailed statistics that lead to it's conclusion.
The article said the temperature trend is due to the Earth's variable orbital distance, and the graph shows we were headed back to temperatures equal to the end of the last ice age, and probably on the way to another one. If the peaks and valleys of these trends are 5,000 years off the median, then we have about another 5,000 years of the earth trying to get colder and colder. Meanwhile the only thing keeping us from something even worse than what happened to man during the little ice age is the CO2 we keep pumping into the atmosphere. We really need to stop and ask, "Is this a bad thing?"
A little bit of extra CO2 (say going from 280 to 320 ppm) is probably a good thing for the reasons you mention; going past 400 ppm is entering into dangerous territory.
The "hockey stick" graph was shown to be a fraud years ago.
Actually, no it wasn't. But that was only one of thousands of paoers on the subject, so it wouldn't matter either way.
Someone claiming it to be a fraud and it being proven a fraud are two very different things.
It has never been shown to be false. Various parties wanted to believe it was false, but it has been proven to be true. Even the Koch brothers felt that Global Warming was a hoax commissioned a $150,000 study with hand picked scientists and mathematicians and their own money (they have plenty) to prove once and for all that it was wrong. The scientists ad mathematicians worked hard for about a year and came out with the conclusion that the world was warming and that the conclusions of the other studies were correct. The Koch brothers stated that they believed their scientists and mathematicians.
someguy
You are completely wrong and with each passing year the hockey stick graph is more obvious.
Mann based his Hockey stick graph on 'Tree Rings' and then conveniently LOST/miss-placed most of his research data. Mr. Mann's global warming projections were rooted in fundamental errors of methodology that had been cemented in place as 'consensus' by a closed network of friends."..
To validate your research, your research & conclusions have to be DUPLICATED by INDEPENDENT Researchers. Mann's model was based on highly selected data and conveniently ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Later reconstructions have found ERRORS in Mann's historical data presentations and current temperature data does not support their CONCLUSIONS...
Tree rings are influenced by; water, temperature, nutrition, moisture and cloudiness. Again this was conveniently ignored...
Can mankind influence their LOCAL environment??? YES - Just ask anyone living in a concrete city or down wind/stream of a large dam...
The world surface is currently 29.2% land and the remainder WATER. Of this 29.2% man has Urbanized less than 1.5% of the TOTAL earths surface...
If you take ALL the electricity produced by mankind compaired to the energy supplied by the SUN in one day it is about 1/12,000...
When the earthquake hit Japan 2+years ago, it MOVED Japan 8+feet closer to the USA and shortened Earths day...
Not tell me about how powerful mankind is compared to NATURE...
Does it matter any more if Mann lost his original data in light of confirming evidence from other scientists?
Yes, nature is more powerful than mankind, but that's not the issue; the issue is that decades of greenhouse gas emissions are influencing nature, and that influence will likely result in events (such as rising sea levels) that seriously disrupt human civilization.
EricH-3359508,
Rising sea levels???
Holland has the longest historical records for sea levels. The average rise is 0.040" a year...
Australia has 150+years of data, the average rise is 0.060" a year...
But after you compensate for tectonic plate movement and Continental Rebound... What is the change??
The Pacific Island data that the IPCC used - Started during a major cyclonic event, which depressed the oceans levels. These same sites after their sensors were calibrated using satellites, has indicated nominal changes in sea levels...
Quote: "There could have been a period sometime in the past 11,000 years that was warmer than today, but if so it wasn't sustained for at least 100 years."
Neither has the present day warming been "sustained" for 100 years. It stopped warming over 15 years ago while CO2 has continued to increase. The models did not predict this long of a pause. So nobody really knows if warming will pick up again or if we are beginning a natural cooling phase. Only time will tell. We are about as warm now as we were in the 1930s during the dust bowl era. James Hansen of NASA had to make slight downward adjustments to "official" temperatures from the thirties just to make recent temperatures appear warmer. This Hansen is the same scientist who preached global cooling in the 1970s. Now he's preaching catastrophic global warming. Was he motivated by science or by his religion of extreme environmentalism to become a prophet of doom? I don't know. But if these scientists were being truthful, they would admit that 1.3 degrees of global warming is well within the margin of error when it comes to calculating an average global temperature today, let alone 50 years ago.
Man, have you ever swallowed the denier narrative whole.
Jock, which denier narrative have I swallowed, the one that denies global cooling or the one that denies global warming? (Or do you subscribe to both theories at the same time?) I get the impression that some commenters here just want to see a major catastrophe destroy mankind. It doesn't matter what it is, so they will jump on board the latest fad theory de jour, as long as it predicts enough doom and gloom.
Lou-
I think you may be spot on here. Notice how I cite the devastating effects of the Little Ice Age, and postulate that "man-made" global warming may actually be the savior of civilization, and they won't touch that with a 10 foot pole. Some people just want to see the world burn.
I have two reasons for making this argument. To defend science and to limit human suffering. Whatever other "impression" you have is your own problem.
There was talk of cooling in the 1970's because there actually had been a mild cooling trend for the previous 30 years. Some of this was likely due to the accumulation of particulate pollution, but there could be any number of other reasons as well. But even then more scientists than not thought that CO2 warming would win out in the end. Now that we have learned a lot more abot the climate system, cleaned up a lot of the particulate pollution, and accelerated CO2 emissions, the science of anthropogenic global warming is well established.
We do still have to put up with a lot of uninformed contrarians, however.
"To defend science and to limit human suffering" are worthy goals. But I suspect that you believe putting higher costs and severe restrictions on the use of fossil fuels will somehow "limit" human suffering. It will do just the opposite. It's not science to kill millions and impoverishing the rest of humans in a vain attempt to stop climate change that may or may not happen, may or may not be preventable, and may or may not be more harmful than beneficial. It's fanaticism. As I said before, there has been no evidence of further warming in the temperature data for over 15 years. Wouldn't it be better to wait and see if warming is actually going to start up again before spending trillions of dollars to try to prevent it? Life thrived in past ages when CO2 was higher and conditions were warmer than they are today. Every generation thinks they know it all; that science has reached its pinnacle. But the truth is, those who are in complete agreement with the science of today will be out of step with the science of tomorrow, just like those who clung to the science of the past fell out of agreement with the science of today.
Lou, you raise a good question - are we to preserve the planet as best we can for future generations, at the cost of our standard of living? This applies not just to climate change, but also to overfishing the oceans, killing off wildlife on land for development, corporations outsourcing high paying jobs to low paying nations, and on and on. Any way you look at it, there's just way too many people on the planet, and they all want a better life right now. Can't happen.
Lou
You are completely wrong. The past 15 years are significantly warmer than in the past and only three of those years failed to be among the hottest 15 years of recored history. When you deny accepted facts there is no possibility that you understand, let alone have the status to criticize, the science.
Lou, I don't know where you get your data, but the warming hasn't stopped. Yes there was a time when some thought that in 97, warming have stoped, but that was picking data. That has been proven to be false. We continue to warm, with the recent years the warmest on record.
Several years ago Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi presented a paper on his theory of global warming. The question he asked was.
1. With all the positive feedback from GHG's, why does the earth cool off after an El Nino? Shouldn't all the much more powerful H20 feed back and really warm the earth up (warmer-more ocean evaporation-more H2O-so on and so on)?
With a bit of fundamental physics he found some simple principles such as - if you get warmer, whats to keep the air attached to the earth? It already extends to the point where gravity can no longer hold it. And heat = expansion. Combined with some other simple physical principles it seems there is a limit on how hot a certain mixture of gasses can get before they naturally cool themselves.
This explains why there can be major ice ages with a variety of gasses, but only certain temperature maximums with certain gas mixtures. This all boils down to even doubling the CO2 will only change the temperature by 10% of what the IPCC claims. Really good reading for the staunch supporters. Especially those that are so convinced that anyone that opposes present consensus is a bought off dummy.
Sometime after this when everyone noticed the EARTHS temperature wasn't rising any more, the scientific community went from promoting global warming to promoting climate change.
Reality
El Nino occurs only in limited areas of the globe ... the overall average temperature has continued its upward trend whether or not it is an El Nino year.
The temperature readings are near ground level .... you are talking about air tens of thousands of feet above the surface of Earth.
Rather than asking a bunch of silly questions, why not spend some time learning about the theory?
Miskolczi? Really? He is one of the more ridiculous deniers. But he has a PhD so he can make it sound all fancy and stuff. How does he explain that the climate has been maby degrees warmer than this in the past?
According to who? Most published research supports an "equilibrium climate sensitivity" to CO2 in the range of 2 to 4 degrees C. The amount of warming that's already taken place in response to half a doubling of CO2 is consistent with this, when we account for the lag due to how long it takes the oceans to warm.
Alternative Reality Check
This statement is absolutely ridiculous. The terminology changed only because the warming does not occur on 100% of the Earth's surface ..... it's more like 99% ...... and the warming is not uniform, more in the Arctic region than at the equator, for example. The "climate change" nomenclature also better describes aspects of climate other than temperature ..... like storm frequency and severity .... drought and other aspects of moisture distribution.
Which basically means "we think this is what it was". Heck just this week the news came out about another radiation belt around the Earth. We thought we knew all about the Van Allen belts.
Considering that it isn't just temperature that affects the growth of tree rings (moisture, etc) and we don't know everything about how shells form (maybe there was more or less food those years and temperature had nothing to do with it) and we know there is migration of gases in snow as it is compressed into ice this is really just a guess on what the temperatures were.
And you can't use moisture (rain) as a proxy for temperature either when looking at tree rings. there is no correlation between temperature and rainfall.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/michaels_pdsi-vs-gistemp_scatterplot.png
inferred - past participle, past tense of in·fer
Verb
Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
If you're argument is that maybe, just maybe, all of the scientists in the world are wrong and we won't have to worry about the consequences of our own actions after all, it seems a pretty weak argument to hang a lot on.
Using someone's blog as 'evidence' is hysterical.
Infer is just a scientific word for using proxy data because you can't directly observe, because it was in the past. It does not mean guess. Scientists don't guess, they figure out the best way to determine what truth is, make a valid test, and then measure. The past has to be measured by things like ice cores, pollen counts in sediments in oceans and lakes, Oxygen and Carbon isotope ratios from gasses trapped in old ice, or in the undecayed bones of ancient animals, plant and animal fossil patterns around the world in rock that can be dated by various methods, tree ring examinations. This is not guessing. This is like examining a crime scene to catch a criminal, it's good observational methods done by respected professionals. Sometimes we don't want to really know the answer, but it's the professional's job to tell us.
if this space is for placing blame,
as we see so many posts from the left placing the blame, (their finest skill set)
then let the blame be on the left,
they should have sold all their cars, swore off planes and trains 30 years ago.
That would have been a 50% reduction. The left say they believe but their actions say otherwise.
It has always been people on the left who have pushed for energy conservation. It is a pretty sad argument to fault them for not being sufficiently far out ahead of everyone else.
So people like Al Gore can fly around the world on private jets and have a carbon foot-print that is orders of magnitude greater than the average person, and it's all fine by you as long as they share your beliefs. Right?
Lou
How dumb must one be to believe that anyone who accepts the current scientific thinking about global climate change must necessarily condone Al Gore's life style. Yours is a childish remark and adds nothing to an adult conversation.
Blame is useless. People driving to see Grandma and Grandpa for Thanksgiving are not doing anything wrong, neither are people who give their children a nice warm house to live in. There is no blame here. The only useful thing to do is figure out how to do all the good things a different way. Perhaps that means not doing some less necessary things as much for a while.
UrbnPrsn -- Perhaps one of the necessary changes would be expecting to make money from alternative energy instead of oil and gas. The deniers start off by attacking the science but sooner or later let down their guard and admit their real concern is how will these climate change studies affect their lifestyles and their stock payoffs. It won't kill them to drive more efficient cars and make other adjustments and it may kill us if they don't. It isn't up to the climate change believers to give up everything while the deniers continue with business as usual. It's too bad the deniers can't have their own planet they can move to and destroy however they want and the rest of us can act in our best interests without having to spend so much time trying to convince them of the bleeding obvious. We're wasting precious time here, folks.
Amazing how they can find different things that are b.s. and how some people believe it. LOL!!
It's amazing how many ignorant people will call BS on ideas they do not understand.
Draw a line from about Washington DC to Seattle. 20,000 years ago everything north of that line was under ice. As much as hundreds of feet of ice. While it wouldn't surprise me if human activity has had a (barely) measurable effect on the climate, don't y'all understand that the earth's climate is NOT a steady state system, and has in fact changed markedly, both warmer and colder, in the 5 odd billion years of its existence? Study up on plate tectonics a little bit. Humanity is far more likely to be frozen out than roast.
Not with atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm. Ice ages are correlated with a CO2 level down around 200 ppm. Of course there are other causes (such as the Earth's orbit and axis tilt) associated with ice ages, but greenhouse gases are believed to play a major role.
Ok, nice report. And exactly what are we supposed to do that we are not already doing??
Our cars are more fuel efficient, solar power & wind is being used more. People are still arguing over nuclear energy.
So lets say the US does everything right.
What of the emerging powerhouses of the world?? The ones where the citizens need to use masks to walk home from work?? By the way, those are the same places which have our manufacturing jobs of the past.
What exactly is the point?? What must be done??And how do you get world wide cooperation??
You can't. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
China has double the production of solar panels, and is investing heavily in alternative energy. Everybody wants to say the other guy isn't doing anything, but they actually are. I'm no big fan of China but they are not doing nothing.
UrbnPrsn: Show me a US city that looks like this....
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/china-pollution-bad-visible-space-article-1.1253838
It's been in the news repeatedly.
Your point is good on the production of solar panels. As well as the production of wind turbines . That was our promised green jobs exported to China.
I do not blame China, rather our crooked politicians of both parties.
I don't think this warming is due to just one factor. There has been an increase in temperature of ALL planets in the solar system. The only thing we know of that can make that kind of effect on the entire system is the sun and the sun has been acting quite strange in it's minimum and maximum cycle. In particular, it has been vary quiet compared to where it should be at this point.
I have no doubt at all that man has had a significant influence on the planet, but I also think the sun's strange behavior is sign of a possible cause as well. I also think that the sky is not going to fall and that we will have to look back quite a bit more then we have to see anything like this in the past.
We will have to change our ways, but we will not be able to keep the planet from warming. This is something that on large time scales will likely be someday seen as normal as soon as we start doing research further back.
Should I remind people that the poles used to be rain forest 10s of millions of years ago? This suggest that the planet may actually have been much cooler of the last few 10's of millions of years that it should be.
Ether way we do need to change and be more mindful of what we are doing here on this planet, but we are likely to find this planet was supposed to be warmer anyway.
Granted continental drift plays some roll in the polar rainforest situation, but the planet as a whole was much warmer 70 million years ago.
Coldsun.org is very interesting.............Our presence on this earth has been anything but beneficial to the planet...the most dangerous thing in space now is our trash left behind....speaks volumes
"the most dangerous thing in space now is our trash left behind" really Maureen? Your lack of perspective....speaks volumes. I wonder what the chances are a space vehicle travelling 238,0000 to the moon or 34,800,000 miles to Mars would come in contact with any "trash" we've left in space?
That's one of the myths that circulates around the Internet (so I'm not blaming you for it) ... look it up on skepticalscience.com for a detailed explanation.
or you could look at the original, published NASA article that says that the other planets warmed. Th einternet has 'proof' on both sides.
Yeah, I follow NASA on both my planet warming data and the activity of the sun. Point is that over all, we have been in existence as a species for to little a time to know what long term cycles look like in this solar system. The warming is likely normal to an extent and it is likely that all man has done is increased the speed of warming on earth.
I am still in favor of being far more responsible with what we put in the air even though I think the planet would be warming up no matter what we do. We just need to make sure the warming that happens dose not happen so quick that nether we nor other life on this planet have no chance to adapt. I think that is where being careful with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is important.
There is also the fact that water vapor it's self is a greenhouse gas. So the more melt from ice, the more water and the more water the more warmth we will have.
None of this is going to destroy life on this planet, but we are in for big changes much faster then they have ever happened before and all of it needs to be taken seriously by all of us.
According to well-known NASA senior scientist David Morrison, "I am fascinated by the false astronomical rumors that many people believe, fueled in part by Internet conspiracy websites. There is no cloud of energy (whatever that phrase means) and no warming of all the planets."
I love all the BS the science-hating conservatives come up with to show that humans couldn't possibly have an impact on climate. The sad thing is that their ignorance prevents them from helping work on solutions, which condemns our children to a miserable future. What I think needs to be done is give all low-lying coastal property and islands to the science-haters. The climate change they don't believe in will then take care of them.
Accepting the science would imply that they should do something about it, like support alternative energy technology, or conserve - like quit driving the SUV that you don't need. They don't want to change their lifestyle so they make the intellectually dishonest step of rejecting science that they don't even attempt to understand.
Many also reject another even more established theory - evolution for a similar reason. To accept that science they would have to reject the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, so they reject the ideas of people much more educated than themselves and reject established science in order to protect the most medieval aspects of their religion.
The UN’s odious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been a prime driver of the global warming hoax, even stooping so low as to win a Nobel Peace Prize for its shrill and pernicious propaganda. But now the IPCC admits that the jig is up. A leaked draft of its report AR5 confesses that it is the sun that makes the earth warm, not SUVs or affordable light bulbs. Via Watts Up With That:
The report also admits that despite all the hysterical lies “journalists” shriek in the mainstream media, the warming predicted by IPCC models has not occurred.
However, due to the state of abject ignorance in which the media keeps the American public, these revelations are unlikely to stop Obama and his crony capitalist pals from inflicting economically crippling carbon taxes in the name of a “crisis” now admitted to be a fiction.
Oh, ssmith, you really do believe everything you read on the internet, don't you? LOL
ssmith
If you actually believe that thousands of scientists in well over 100 countries would enter into a conspiracy of false science for no discernible gain you are a moron.
and we would know this because we have so much weather data since the dawn of civilization. Anyway, once we can get China, India, Mexico, etc. on board with the whole "warming" thing, let us know.
Rodney
If you knew even a little bit about climate science you would know that scientists have temperature data for the past half billion years, not from thermometers, but other methods of determining temperature. The only thing your comment conveyed was your ignorance.
Don97524, did you know that despite playing a key role in advancing climate change hysteria, the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service, known as the Met Office, quietly released a report last conceding that so-called “global warming” actually stopped more than 15 years ago. The startling admission shows once again that United Nations theories and climate models are wildly inaccurate at best, experts say, meaning multi-trillion dollar schemes to deal with alleged human-caused “climate change” are at the very least severely misguided.
ssmith
Look at the @!$%#ing temperature chart. National Weather Service?? I admit I didn't see the report, but the job of the National Weather Service is to report the weather conditions and make short term predictions. You make wild claims that dispute established science based on secret documents time after time, which only identifies you as a conspiracy theory crackpot. Your "startling admission" proves exactly nothing.
ssmith, the Met Office said no such thing. That was the interpretation of the denier journalist at the Daily Mail. You can't get a result of insignificant trend unless you dishonestly cherry-pick the anomalously warm year of 1998 as a baseline. If you use 1999 it becomes significant. Oops.
That's BS. There was 300 feet of ice over North America at one time according to the "experts".
This is true. Go hiking in the Rockies and Appalachians and you will see much evidence of this. If you can't see it, go to the Cascades Mts where glaciers are prevelant, or the Canadian rockies first and then back to the more southern mountains and you will see glacial patterns in the rock where there are now no glaciers. That was the ice age. I cannot understand why you don't make any effort to see thing for yourself! The history of the earth is written in the rock, all you have to do is look! It's fun!
The data reported in this story begins shortly after the last ice age ended.
a mile in some places, at at some times
NYC, the West Coast and the Great Lakes have been proven to have been under much more than 300ft
Not only does the right wing deny the impact of 7 billion people on the warming of the planet, the other element of this article also baffles the right wing, where temperature change is compared over 11,000 years . I say this because many on the right believe the Bible that the earth is just 7000 years old.
Quest4us, only idiots would condescend to those they know so little about about.
warming is not allowed by this or any administration.
this administration is subject to change. but the overall message remains. we are pawns in a game they will never allow us to figure out. party affiliation?
Let's talk chemistry. Gasoline is 8 carbon atoms, and 18 hydrogen. Propane 3 carbon 8 hydrogen, motor oil is around 15 carbon 32 hydrogen. Where did all that carbon come from? From plants that lived during the Carboniferous epoch around 300 million years ago. That was the age of swamp forests, the reign of plants. The plants took the carbon from carbon dioxide CO2 in the atmosphere, and turned it into cellulose, which contains carbon, oxygen and hydrogen in proportions of aprox 6C, 6O and 12 H for carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms respectively. The plants then sank into the oceans, lakes and swamps and did not decay totally, they piled on top of each other, and were covered by silt and sand from erosion. Pressure from the silt and sand and heat from the earth's interior squeezed out most of the oxygen leaving the hydrogen and carbon as coal, and oil in vast underground tracts. Now we are pumping and digging out those stored carbon sources and burning them. Burning joins oxygen to the carbons, freeing oxygen and hydrogen as the gas water, and carbondioxide CO2. It is high school chemistry. The CO2 then is building up in the atmosphere and creating thee same warming conditions of 300 million years ago, only we are undoing the chemistry extremely fast, it's not the warming that will kill us, it's the speed with which we are making the change, and the instability that will accompany, is accompanying the speed. that's the story, there is no blame, there is no "belief" it's all just chemistry.
sorry UrbnPrsn, but you started your paragraph with chemistry and then moved into alarmism claiming you know what will kill us when you don't.
It's not going to kill us. It's just going to make a big mess.
jock, so you mean it's not as bad as we thought?
We don't know exactly how bad it is going to be. But a great many things will change very rapidly, and that will nake a big mess. Probably cost us many trillions. Which doesn't bother me so much because it is no more than what we deserve, ignoring the warnings. But I am sad about the increased human suffering. So many people are hurting already; it doesn't take much to push them over the edge.
"We don't know exactly how bad it is going to be."
jock, many people have been called deniers for words just like that.
Wrong. I'm talking about the details, not the basic fact of anthropogenic global warming.
so offer a 'chemistry' solution. Design a CO2 scrubber for the atmosphere. Be productive rather than alarmist
If that chart show nothing else it sure looks like global warming has saved us from another ice age. But, I don't think it is the CO2 and the greenhouse effect deserve all the credit. Every time you burn a lump of coal or light a match, heat is generated. And where does it go? It dissipates into the atmosphere and in so doing it raises the temperature of the atmosphere just a little bit.
There certainly is some heat given off, especially when we do things so inefficiently, but it really doesn't amount to much when it dissipates in the entire atmosphere. It's miniscule compared to the effect of the CO2 given off.
..... and increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes more of that small amount of heat to be captured.
And the heat would dissipate into space if it weren't for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere causing a Greenhouse Effect and trapping the heat. Thanks for proving the point that it IS the CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.
A small amount of extra greenhouse-induced warming might be a legitimate method of avoiding another ice age; the problem is we're going way too far in a dangerous uncontrolled "experiment."
My father reckoned our planet could support around 1 billion humans for the long haul. A milestone reached around 1800.