Turns out that even the skeptics agree, the earth is warming abnormally

[paulitician]

Gawd, are the usual suspect Socialist/Globalists still here pushing their Global Warming scam? Man, give it a rest. It's over. Your 15 Minutes are up. No one cares about your scam anymore. Now you're just beating a dead horse. Fear Monger all you want, but bullshit is still bullshit. It's over. But hey, there's always 'Global Cooling.'

Blanket denial...

Unsubstantiated, vague claims of some sort of "scam"...

and insults.

Really, this post isn't worthy of a response. So I wonder why I'm writing this?

The truth stung you a bit. You couldn't resist. It's over. No one's buying your scam anymore. You'll have to come up with a new one. May i suggest 'Global Cooling?' I'm sure Millions of Dummies will fall for that one too. But hey, good luck with all that. See ya.

 

[Katzndogz]

Global warming was exposed as a fraud some years ago. That's why it's not global warming, it's climate change so they can use global cooling as well as global warming.

For those who remember the expert studies of the 70s when it was global cooling this makes so much sense.

 

[Vast LWC]

Seriously, you people are clearly insane.

I don't mean because you doubt global warming. I don't really have an issue with that. At all. Everyone has their opinion.

I mean because your completely convinced that global warming is not only definitely 100% false, but that there's a giant global conspiracy to perpetuate the "lie".

Seriously. Seek help.

 

[paulitician]

Seriously, you people are clearly insane.

I don't mean because you doubt global warming. I don't really have an issue with that. At all. Everyone has their opinion.

I mean because your completely convinced that global warming is not only definitely 100% false, but that there's a giant global conspiracy to perpetuate the "lie".

Seriously. Seek help.

It has been embraced and pushed by Socialist/Communist Globalists like you. And that's no crazy 'Conspiracy Theory." That's fact. But it's all over now. The People caught on. You guys are full of shite. Period, end of story.

 

[daveman]

Seriously, you people are clearly insane.

I don't mean because you doubt global warming. I don't really have an issue with that. At all. Everyone has their opinion.

I mean because your completely convinced that global warming is not only definitely 100% false, but that there's a giant global conspiracy to perpetuate the "lie".

Seriously. Seek help.

You'd have a point if we were actually saying the climate isn't changing.

But we're not. So you don't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are defending it as fact.

No sir, I did no such thing. My position is that it is highly probable, with room for doubt.

That is a far cry from "defending it as fact".

You are convinced there is human caused global warming.

Again, my position is "mostly convinced".

"Many studies"..Ok, show me. Unbiased only.
Have at it.

Well, of course there is the NASA study that you mentioned...
But NASA has actually had two separate departments conduct entirely separate studies. So there's that...

Then there's:

Berkeley Earth (The subject of the OP) in which several prominent skeptics were included and convinced of the accuracy of the data.

East Anglia's Instrumental temperature record which has not been disproven, despite the contents of the "ClimateGate" e-mails.

The Hadley Centre's Global Climate Model

MIT's Center for Global Change Science

The US Geological Survey

The NCAR's (in collaboration with universities and private industry) Nested Regional Climate Model

There's more... But I'm not going to sit here all day and find them for you.

There is still o proof only theory held for political reasons that climate change is caused by human activity.
Here is the disclaimer from the USGS Site....your link..
USGS Global Change Science

The earth's surface does not exist in a static, unchanging "natural" condition interrupted only by the work of humans, but instead it is a dynamic system of which humans are a part. Knowledge about changes to the Earth's surface and the underlying processes that induce them has enormous impact on how society responds to these changes and, ultimately, the cost of responding to change. USGS Global Change Research activities strive to achieve a whole-system understanding of the interrelationships among earth surface processes, ecological systems, and human activities. Activities of the program focus on documenting, analyzing, and modeling the character of past and present environments and the geological, biological, hydrological, and geochemical processes involved in environmental change so that future environmental changes and impacts can be anticipated.
I am still waiting for your solution.

 

[westwall]

You are defending it as fact.

No sir, I did no such thing. My position is that it is highly probable, with room for doubt.

That is a far cry from "defending it as fact".

You are convinced there is human caused global warming.

Again, my position is "mostly convinced".

"Many studies"..Ok, show me. Unbiased only.
Have at it.

Well, of course there is the NASA study that you mentioned...
But NASA has actually had two separate departments conduct entirely separate studies. So there's that...

Then there's:

Berkeley Earth (The subject of the OP) in which several prominent skeptics were included and convinced of the accuracy of the data.

East Anglia's Instrumental temperature record which has not been disproven, despite the contents of the "ClimateGate" e-mails.

The Hadley Centre's Global Climate Model

MIT's Center for Global Change Science

The US Geological Survey

The NCAR's (in collaboration with universities and private industry) Nested Regional Climate Model

There's more... But I'm not going to sit here all day and find them for you.

Take a look at the opposition some time when you have the time. This is just a small amount of what's available. Go ahead and read a few. Most of it is peer reviewed scientific papers that are referenced on the various blogs.


C3

RealClimate: Start here

CO2 Science

Climate Depot

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

MUST LISTEN: Alan Jones talks to Paul Sheehan for an update on the US presidential race. | Climate Realists

Real Science | Official Website

Welcome to the International Climate Science Coalition Web Site

Science and Public Policy

Global Warming Science

 

[westwall]

Seriously, you people are clearly insane.

I don't mean because you doubt global warming. I don't really have an issue with that. At all. Everyone has their opinion.

I mean because your completely convinced that global warming is not only definitely 100% false, but that there's a giant global conspiracy to perpetuate the "lie".

Seriously. Seek help.

The argument is not is the world warming, as it clearly is, and has been for the last 14,000 years give or take. But rather is man involved in the current rise in temperature. A fundamental axiom of science is Uniformitarianism. Which basically means whatever is happening today, has happened in the past, and will happen again in the future.

For the theory of AGW to win support they must show with empirical data (not computer models) that the climate is somehow different since man has had the ability to affect the globe.

So far they have not. They love to point to the correlation of CO2 rise during the 1980's and '90's along with the increased warming that occured at that time as evidence of mans affect. However, correlation does not equal causation (another fundamental axiom of science) and as has been seen over the last ten years, with the leveling off of temperatures despite the more rapid increase in CO2, that correlation has come to an end.

Now we get to see if it truly is the natural cycles of the planet driving the climate engine and as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation continues to drop the global temperature will continue to either level off further, or in a worst case scenario will fall one or two degrees.
This will continue for the next twenty to thirty years....just like it has for millenia.

You have to ask yourself. If CO2 is so powerful why is it that despite blowing through Hansens worst case scenario the temperature has stalled? CO2 levels are far, far above Hansens worst case scenario and yet the global temperature is just about where it was when he made that prediction back in 1988.

On the other hand, a volcanic eruption of any size at all, will cause an immediate and measurable COOLING of the globe. Major eruptions cause terrible disruptions to the climate. The cooling from one of those eruptions kill thousands. The last major eruption to have a dramatic effect was Tambora in 1816. It caused the "year without a summer and was responsible for the death by starvation of hundreds of thousands worldwide, 60,000 in France alone.

All you must do is look at the various excuses made by the AGW crowd to explain why there is no warming. They have now begun to say that "yes indeed the cyclic events can have a powerful effect that "hides" the warming of the CO2. I wonder how that happens.
There either is or isn't warmth. It can't hide. That violates a whole ton of physical laws.

Now the latest claim is that we have warmed the planet so much that we have prevented another ice age. Really? Well then hey that's FANTASTIC! A new ice age would kill billions so if we can prevent that then I'm all for global warming!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seriously, you people are clearly insane.

I don't mean because you doubt global warming. I don't really have an issue with that. At all. Everyone has their opinion.

I mean because your completely convinced that global warming is not only definitely 100% false, but that there's a giant global conspiracy to perpetuate the "lie".

Seriously. Seek help.

The argument is not is the world warming, as it clearly is, and has been for the last 14,000 years give or take. But rather is man involved in the current rise in temperature. A fundamental axiom of science is Uniformitarianism. Which basically means whatever is happening today, has happened in the past, and will happen again in the future.

For the theory of AGW to win support they must show with empirical data (not computer models) that the climate is somehow different since man has had the ability to affect the globe.

So far they have not. They love to point to the correlation of CO2 rise during the 1980's and '90's along with the increased warming that occured at that time as evidence of mans affect. However, correlation does not equal causation (another fundamental axiom of science) and as has been seen over the last ten years, with the leveling off of temperatures despite the more rapid increase in CO2, that correlation has come to an end.

Now we get to see if it truly is the natural cycles of the planet driving the climate engine and as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation continues to drop the global temperature will continue to either level off further, or in a worst case scenario will fall one or two degrees.
This will continue for the next twenty to thirty years....just like it has for millenia.

You have to ask yourself. If CO2 is so powerful why is it that despite blowing through Hansens worst case scenario the temperature has stalled? CO2 levels are far, far above Hansens worst case scenario and yet the global temperature is just about where it was when he made that prediction back in 1988.

On the other hand, a volcanic eruption of any size at all, will cause an immediate and measurable COOLING of the globe. Major eruptions cause terrible disruptions to the climate. The cooling from one of those eruptions kill thousands. The last major eruption to have a dramatic effect was Tambora in 1816. It caused the "year without a summer and was responsible for the death by starvation of hundreds of thousands worldwide, 60,000 in France alone.

All you must do is look at the various excuses made by the AGW crowd to explain why there is no warming. They have now begun to say that "yes indeed the cyclic events can have a powerful effect that "hides" the warming of the CO2. I wonder how that happens.
There either is or isn't warmth. It can't hide. That violates a whole ton of physical laws.

Now the latest claim is that we have warmed the planet so much that we have prevented another ice age. Really? Well then hey that's FANTASTIC! A new ice age would kill billions so if we can prevent that then I'm all for global warming!

During the last ice age, my neighborhood was under 1 mile of ice. If we need to burn more coal to keep the ice away, let's do it!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is it evident from the posted graph that the cause of the recent upward trend in Co2 is due to man's emissions of Co2?

As I have tried to point out, your top graph is a work of fiction. No one knows what CO2 emissions were in the year 1000. Someone just made up the numbers.

The numbers weren't made up you moron. The atmospheric Co2 is taken from direct measurement and ice core samples. Man made Co2 emissions are computed using data on fossil fuel usage going back to 1751 - at which point it was practically zero. unless you've discovered some new historical fact that the entire world's historians have missed, man burned less fossil fuels in 1000 than he did in 1751.

In fact, man, burned practically zero Co2 compared to today until middle 19th century.

Kinda funny how man burned so much Co2 into the air in the last 150 years - exponentially rising the entire time - and there also seems to be a sharp uptick of CO2 IN the air at the same time! Gee, I wonder if man putting more than enough CO2 in the air to account for the increase could have anything to do with the increase? DUHHHHHH

So, again, how did anyone measure CO2 emissions in the year 1000?

That's like asking how people measured how far airplanes flew in 1000. People didn't burn fossil fuels in 1000 except in extremely limited quantities primarily for warmth. Please stop being a total moron.

Again, how did they measure total CO2 emissions in the year 1000?

The graph does not depict total Co2 emissions, it depicts man-made Co2 emissions. Total man made Co2 emissions in 1000 is negligible compared to industrial age emissions. Unless you can think of a source of man made Co2 emissions in 1000 that we're missing. By all means.

All the while ignoring my question do you agree that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man's production of Co2 by fossil fuel burning?

 

[westwall]

Is it evident from the posted graph that the cause of the recent upward trend in Co2 is due to man's emissions of Co2?

As I have tried to point out, your top graph is a work of fiction. No one knows what CO2 emissions were in the year 1000. Someone just made up the numbers.

Man made Co2 emissions are computed using data on fossil fuel usage going back to 1751 - at which point it was practically zero. unless you've discovered some new historical fact that the entire world's historians have missed, man burned less fossil fuels in 1000 than he did in 1751.

That's like asking how people measured how far airplanes flew in 1000. People didn't burn fossil fuels in 1000 except in extremely limited quantities primarily for warmth. Please stop being a total moron.

Again, how did they measure total CO2 emissions in the year 1000?

The graph does not depict total Co2 emissions, it depicts man-made Co2 emissions. Total man made Co2 emissions in 1000 is negligible compared to industrial age emissions. Unless you can think of a source of man made Co2 emissions in 1000 that we're missing. By all means.

All the while ignoring my question do you agree that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man's production of Co2 by fossil fuel burning?

No, I don't. It MAY be anthropogenic. However, the Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag from warming and a corresponding rise in CO2. The MWP occured around 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we see now, could just as easily be related to that. We don't know because no one has actively looked at that possiblity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

i think the majority of scientists agree that the earth is warming. i, personally, don't know of any scientists who can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it's caused, or not caused, by man.

I don't know any scientists that can say anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

fact is, we're just not sure yet.

That's what a lot of folks - some with their own websites - have been saying.

You are demonstrating the disconnect Climate Change Advocates who happen to be Scientists have with everyday citizens and with those who lean conservative.

It appears you have no use for those people.

Its not a scientists job to connect with conservatives. Or liberals. Or everyday citizens. Scientists do science and connect with other scientists, its not their job to amuse you.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As I have tried to point out, your top graph is a work of fiction. No one knows what CO2 emissions were in the year 1000. Someone just made up the numbers.

Man made Co2 emissions are computed using data on fossil fuel usage going back to 1751 - at which point it was practically zero. unless you've discovered some new historical fact that the entire world's historians have missed, man burned less fossil fuels in 1000 than he did in 1751.

Again, how did they measure total CO2 emissions in the year 1000?

The graph does not depict total Co2 emissions, it depicts man-made Co2 emissions. Total man made Co2 emissions in 1000 is negligible compared to industrial age emissions. Unless you can think of a source of man made Co2 emissions in 1000 that we're missing. By all means.

All the while ignoring my question do you agree that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man's production of Co2 by fossil fuel burning?

No, I don't. It MAY be anthropogenic.

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

You're telling me that the rise in atmospheric Co2 in the last 150 or so years of about 800 Gigatons wasn't necessarily caused by man putting 1200 gigatons of Co2 in the air?

However, the Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag from warming and a corresponding rise in CO2. The MWP occured around 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we see now, could just as easily be related to that. We don't know because no one has actively looked at that possiblity.

Oh, well obviously, its so clear now. The rise of 800 gigatons of Co2 over the last 150 years IS NOT due to humans placing 1200 gigatons of Co2 into the air by burning fossil fuels, its due to it being warm 800 years ago. Yeah, that's truly plausible.

We wouldn't want to assume a causal relationship between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air, that would be a stretch.

 

[westwall]

Man made Co2 emissions are computed using data on fossil fuel usage going back to 1751 - at which point it was practically zero. unless you've discovered some new historical fact that the entire world's historians have missed, man burned less fossil fuels in 1000 than he did in 1751.




The graph does not depict total Co2 emissions, it depicts man-made Co2 emissions. Total man made Co2 emissions in 1000 is negligible compared to industrial age emissions. Unless you can think of a source of man made Co2 emissions in 1000 that we're missing. By all means.

All the while ignoring my question do you agree that the recent upward trend in atmospheric Co2 is caused by man's production of Co2 by fossil fuel burning?

No, I don't. It MAY be anthropogenic.

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

You're telling me that the rise in atmospheric Co2 in the last 150 or so years of about 800 Gigatons wasn't necessarily caused by man putting 1200 gigatons of Co2 in the air?

However, the Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag from warming and a corresponding rise in CO2. The MWP occured around 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we see now, could just as easily be related to that. We don't know because no one has actively looked at that possiblity.

Oh, well obviously, its so clear now. The rise of 800 gigatons of Co2 over the last 150 years IS NOT due to humans placing 1200 gigatons of Co2 into the air by burning fossil fuels, its due to it being warm 800 years ago. Yeah, that's truly plausible.

We wouldn't want to assume a causal relationship between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air, that would be a stretch.

No, it's not clear. There is just as much empirical evidence for my observation as there is for yours. And more importantly there is history backing mine. We can go back over 10,000 years and see the correlation between warming and the later CO2 rise.

The reason why I don't claim that my "theory" is the only possible correct one is because, unlike you and your group, I realise that correlation does not equal causation. It would be nice if the scientists on your side would figure that out. It is after all a fundamental axiom of science and has been for hundreds of years.

Why exactly did you guys forget that?

 

[bripat9643]

The numbers weren't made up you moron. The atmospheric Co2 is taken from direct measurement and ice core samples.

That's where you go wrong, nitwit. Your graph suggests a precision that just isn't possible. C02 diffuses through the snow before it becomes compacted into ice.

 

[daveman]

No, it's not clear. There is just as much empirical evidence for my observation as there is for yours. And more importantly there is history backing mine. We can go back over 10,000 years and see the correlation between warming and the later CO2 rise.

The reason why I don't claim that my "theory" is the only possible correct one is because, unlike you and your group, I realise that correlation does not equal causation. It would be nice if the scientists on your side would figure that out. It is after all a fundamental axiom of science and has been for hundreds of years.

Why exactly did you guys forget that?

The dollar signs in their eyes fogged their vision.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, I don't. It MAY be anthropogenic.

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

You're telling me that the rise in atmospheric Co2 in the last 150 or so years of about 800 Gigatons wasn't necessarily caused by man putting 1200 gigatons of Co2 in the air?

However, the Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag from warming and a corresponding rise in CO2. The MWP occured around 800 years ago so the CO2 increase we see now, could just as easily be related to that. We don't know because no one has actively looked at that possiblity.

Oh, well obviously, its so clear now. The rise of 800 gigatons of Co2 over the last 150 years IS NOT due to humans placing 1200 gigatons of Co2 into the air by burning fossil fuels, its due to it being warm 800 years ago. Yeah, that's truly plausible.

We wouldn't want to assume a causal relationship between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air, that would be a stretch.

No, it's not clear. There is just as much empirical evidence for my observation as there is for yours.

No there isn't. You've presented none. All you've done is conjecture.

And more importantly there is history backing mine. We can go back over 10,000 years and see the correlation between warming and the later CO2 rise.

The reason why I don't claim that my "theory" is the only possible correct one is because, unlike you and your group, I realise that correlation does not equal causation.

So you're telling me that there is no known causal link between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The numbers weren't made up you moron. The atmospheric Co2 is taken from direct measurement and ice core samples.

That's where you go wrong, nitwit. Your graph suggests a precision that just isn't possible.

No it doesn't.

C02 diffuses through the snow before it becomes compacted into ice.

Co2 is measured from air bubbles found in the core. What's your fucking point exactly?

 

[bripat9643]

The numbers weren't made up you moron. The atmospheric Co2 is taken from direct measurement and ice core samples.

That's where you go wrong, nitwit. Your graph suggests a precision that just isn't possible.

No it doesn't.

C02 diffuses through the snow before it becomes compacted into ice.

Co2 is measured from air bubbles found in the core. What's your fucking point exactly?

The CO2 measured is an average over a large number of years because the gases diffuse through the snow. Any CO2 spikes would disappear from the record. The current blip wouldn't even show up, and it doesn't.

 

[westwall]

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

You're telling me that the rise in atmospheric Co2 in the last 150 or so years of about 800 Gigatons wasn't necessarily caused by man putting 1200 gigatons of Co2 in the air?



Oh, well obviously, its so clear now. The rise of 800 gigatons of Co2 over the last 150 years IS NOT due to humans placing 1200 gigatons of Co2 into the air by burning fossil fuels, its due to it being warm 800 years ago. Yeah, that's truly plausible.

We wouldn't want to assume a causal relationship between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air, that would be a stretch.

No, it's not clear. There is just as much empirical evidence for my observation as there is for yours.

No there isn't. You've presented none. All you've done is conjecture.

And more importantly there is history backing mine. We can go back over 10,000 years and see the correlation between warming and the later CO2 rise.

The reason why I don't claim that my "theory" is the only possible correct one is because, unlike you and your group, I realise that correlation does not equal causation.

So you're telling me that there is no known causal link between putting Co2 in the air and Co2 being in the air?

No, there isn't. There are a lot of suppositions and assumptions but so far there is no peer reviewd literature that addresses the time lag between onset of warming and the hundreds of years later rise in CO2. Go study that and become famous.