Global Warming Pie Chart

[jon_berzerk]

Your grasp of Occam Razor, current global warming and past global warming is seriously deficient.

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

actually it is not documented world wide

it is assumed by many world wide

if you look at the charts closely C02 follows warming periods

 

[Derideo_Te]

Describe these changes in detail please....

Extensive use of fossil fuels.
Massive engineering projects.
Deforestation and destruction of natural watersheds.
Paving and building projects.
Air conditioning and heating.
Pollution of air, water and land on a global scale.
Factory farming for both meat and grain sources.

None of those are climate changes

Perhaps you should read what what was actually posted. All of the above are man made changes and they have had an impact on the climate to varying degrees.

 

[westwall]

Occam has a double edged razor. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution there have been extensive worldwide man made changes. To ignore the impact of those changes is to deny reality. Simply because we cannot see CO2 does not mean that it is not increasing. Equally we are blind to how our own behavior impacts the environment.

Describe these changes in detail please....

Extensive use of fossil fuels.
Massive engineering projects.
Deforestation and destruction of natural watersheds.
Paving and building projects.
Air conditioning and heating.
Pollution of air, water and land on a global scale.
Factory farming for both meat and grain sources.

Other than the pollution, none of your listed changes is a negative. The pollution is localised only, there is some inter continental impact from Chinese pollution for sure, but it is for the most part benign.

And I have never once stated that pollution is good or should be ignored. In fact most of my career has been directed at cleaning up mans environmental damage. But that is local for the most part. There is zero empirical data that shows any worldwide pollution cauing problems other than where it is created...your fevered attack on CO2 excepted.

And all evidence shows that CO2 is the bottom rung of the food chain. Halt it and we all die. If that's your goal then stick with it. If on the other hand your goal is pollution control, then think globally, ACT locally.

 

[lynn63]

You don't have to believe in global warming but its hard to deny the fact that one Human species can completely change the landscape of earth without affecting the climate.

 

[mamooth]

.Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.

Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.

Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.

Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.

Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.

You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models.

Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.

 

[tjvh]

The OP's pie chart is as relevant as this one...

 

[mamooth]

Can I ask one question?

Sure, but if it's a dumb question, we'll mock it.

How can it be that CO2 concentrations lag the rise and the fall of temperature by about 400 years? That is if CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise and not the opposite.

Dumb question, as it assumes the present must act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are very different.

 

[JoeNormal]

Really? Here it is in a nutshell.....

"One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic"

Explain, in your own words, (I know this bugs you cut and paste drones but too bad) how this applies to the "theory" of AGW.

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

Oh, now it's 20 years. Westwall first claimed it was 10. That somehow became 16 and now 20.

 

[depotoo]

Global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 levels both past and present.

Man made activity is increasing CO2 levels. This is documented worldwide.

The "leaps of logic" are by those who are denying the man made activity and pretending that the increase in CO2 levels stem from other sources. They haven't provided verifiable scientific evidence to support any of their alternate theories to date.

Ergo Occam's Razor does not support your contention but rather the opposite. Try again.

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

Oh, now it's 20 years. Westwall first claimed it was 10. That somehow became 16 and now 20.

Tornado Alley (PROG): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-

 

[JoeNormal]

More CO2 is being emitted yet temperatures have ceased rising for 20 years...

Oh, now it's 20 years. Westwall first claimed it was 10. That somehow became 16 and now 20.

Tornado Alley (PROG): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-

I don't see how they can make the claim that the temperature rise hiatus has been 20 years when they also state the following:

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

If temperatures were rising fast in the 90's, there hasn't been a 20 year hiatus.

 

[Saigon]

Joe -

I don't think anyone really believes there has been a 20 year hiatus. It's just theatre. By next month people will be up to a 30 year hiatus.

What we know is the 2012 was the hottest year in American record, and the 9th hottest globally. That is some hiatus.

 

[depotoo]

so one of your favored Jim Hansen makes that claim yet you doubt him. Interesting...

 

[Foxfyre]

.Occam supports the declaration that what caused the warming in the past is also causing the warming today. In other words whatever is the easiest cause is also the most likely cause.

Bzzzzzzt. As expected, you failed hard at understanding Occam's Razor.

Occam's says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED DATA is most likely to be correct.

Among several other things, your cult's "it's a natural cycle!" explanation fails to explain:
-- the lack of any observable natural cause for this "natural cycle".
-- the observation of CO2 increasinglyl blocking outward IR flux.

Your theory does not explain the observed data, so Occam's doesn't apply. AGW theory is the simplest theory that explains the observed data, hence Occam's supports it.

You fraudsters have had to alter the actual observed facts to correlate with your incredibly flawed computer models.

Even you know by now what a lying sack you are, but you don't care. You've sworn allegiance to your liars' cult, and hating liberals is now the only thing you care about. You're a hate-addict, so you'll justify anything that gets you your hate-fix.

Occam's Razor applies in all things when there is no way to test the scientific theory. We have had satellite imaging for 33 years, not even a eyelash blink in the whole of the history of Earth. No honorable scientist I know would conclude that observing 33 years of satellite images or measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures proves a single thing re climate outside of those 33 years.

We have been using weather balloons and measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa for a little over a half century, still too short a period for any scientific conclusion outside of those years. Reliable temperature records on Earth have been kept for a little over 150 years. The only way we have to assess the paleontological record is via fossils and ice core samples and any conclusions drawn from that are based on very large blocks of time. And with no way to test it, scientists don't KNOW for sure what caused major climate change back then. The best they can do is conclude that it was due to sun spot activity, which we cannot control, or impact from large meteorites, or routine natural occurrences due to the wobble of the Earth's axis, seismic activity etc.

We can't build a dozen more Earths to test hypothesis of unusual influences that might affect this one.

More than a few scientists who have studied this conclude that man manipulated changes in water vapor due to release of steam, irrigation, deforestation, farming, etc. is a far more likely to affect the immediate climate than minute changes in CO2. But suggestions that farming and irrigation be ended wouldn't be too popular would it? And there aren't mega billions and trillions to be made suggesting that as is the case with those promoting the CO2 theory.

Honest science has to be something more than politically driven or based on peer review when the peers are the friends, associates, and colleagues of those producing the theories. Remember anybody with just a little bit of knowledge and a computer can produce a pretty graph or chart that will show just about any dang thing they want to show. And the gullible will just eat that up no questions asked. Makes it really easy to manipulate the great unwashed out there when there is incentive to do that.

 

[JoeNormal]

so one of your favored Jim Hansen makes that claim yet you doubt him. Interesting...

This sounds suspiciously like the 70's Time article supposedly quoting climate scientists. Show me anywhere in the article you posted that Hansen said anything about a 20 year hiatus.

It does however end with a warning:

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

 

[depotoo]

so one of your favored Jim Hansen makes that claim yet you doubt him. Interesting...

This sounds suspiciously like the 70's Time article supposedly quoting climate scientists. Show me anywhere in the article you posted that Hansen said anything about a 20 year hiatus.

It does however end with a warning:

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

his words in his paper Climate forcing growth rates: doubling
down on our Faustian bargain-

The growth rate for the total climate forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases
has remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has
been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001)
scenarios (figure 5)...
So is the new data we present here good news or bad news, and how does it
alter the ‘Faustian bargain’? At first glance there seems to be some good news.
First, if our interpretation of the data is correct, the surge of fossil fuel emissions,
especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is
‘fertilizing’ the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2.
Also, despite the absence of accurate global aerosol measurements, it seems that
the aerosol cooling effect is probably increasing based on evidence of aerosol
increases in the Far East and increasing ‘background’ stratospheric aerosols.
Both effects work to limit global warming and thus help explain why the rate
of global warming seems to be less this decade than it has been during the prior
quarter century. This data interpretation also helps explain why multiple warnings
that some carbon sinks are ‘drying up’ and could even become carbon sources,
e.g., boreal forests infested by pine bark beetles (Kurz et al 2008) and the
Amazon rain forest suffering from drought (Lewis et al 2011), have not produced
an obvious impact on atmospheric CO2.

and from an interview -

The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away.

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, "the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade."

The Economist

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled

 

[BlindBoo]

Seriously? Who was it that brought global warming to the forefront? Who was it that co-launched a company just before that to sell carbon credits? And who doesn't live by the screed it which he professes but does profit?

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire? - DailyFinance

OK, dumb fuck.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

now, now, getting testy are we?

Care to explain what happened to the ice age that was coming in the 70's proclaimed by many reknowned scientists?

It was studied and debunked and the link was posted earlier in the thread at least twice. Even back then in the 70's the concensus amoung scientist was that the earth was warming.

 

[depotoo]

OK, dumb fuck.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

now, now, getting testy are we?

Care to explain what happened to the ice age that was coming in the 70's proclaimed by many reknowned scientists?

It was studied and debunked and the link was posted earlier in the thread at least twice. Even back then in the 70's the concensus amoung scientist was that the earth was warming.

Why of course, even though some of those scientists were thought to know what they were talking about then. Sure it was debunked when it didn't pan out. Sort of like areas of AGW are now.

 

[BlindBoo]

now, now, getting testy are we?

Care to explain what happened to the ice age that was coming in the 70's proclaimed by many reknowned scientists?

It was studied and debunked and the link was posted earlier in the thread at least twice. Even back then in the 70's the concensus amoung scientist was that the earth was warming.

Why of course, even though some of those scientists were thought to know what they were talking about then. Sure it was debunked when it didn't pan out. Sort of like areas of AGW are now.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/285600-global-warming-pie-chart-11.html#post7015867

What was studied was the claim that there was some kind of consensus in the 70's that we were heading into another Ice Age. The opposite was true as more scientist, in peer reviewed periodicals thought that the earth was warming. The denying crowd always bring that global cooling or new ice age crap from Time or Newsweek up, but are strangely silent when the truth come outs. They just slink away and post thier "But Scientist claim and Ice Age meme" somewhere else.

 

[Antares]

Sorry Boo, temps have been flat for 20 ears.....sucks to think like you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Sorry Boo, temps have been flat for 20 ears.....sucks to think like you.

What does that mean exactly? Are you looking for an increase every year until it gets to boiling?