Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
You want to debate policy? Fine. I don't particularly like cap and trade. Better solutions must exist. But if you deny the problem you can't very well find a solution.

I just would like the deniers to explain why 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that the planet is warming, human activity is a major cause, and the rate is increasing. Disagreements over some details, which always happens in science, but not the basic fact. Nothing to do with how deep the San Francisco Bay was 7000 years ago. Dragging in irrelevancies does not cover up ignorance.

Facts:
Human activity is a major cause of climate change in the past 200 years, with rapidly increasing effects.
Evolution of species did happen.
The Nazis did kill approximately 6 million Jews (and others).
HIV is the causative agent of AIDS.
People (well, male people) did walk on the moon.
There is a major association between tobacco use and early death.

No amount of billionaire money can change facts. Facts don't give a damn if you believe them or not. Galileo forced to renounce his planetary model did not cause the sun to travel around the earth.
 
so co2 levels are the highest they have been in 400,000 years (at least)? and rising faster than they have in 400,000 years (at least)?
 
crandc said:
You want to debate policy? Fine. I don't particularly like cap and trade. Better solutions must exist. But if you deny the problem you can't very well find a solution.

I just would like the deniers to explain why 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that the planet is warming, human activity is a major cause, and the rate is increasing. Disagreements over some details, which always happens in science, but not the basic fact. Nothing to do with how deep the San Francisco Bay was 7000 years ago. Dragging in irrelevancies does not cover up ignorance.

Facts:
Human activity is a major cause of climate change in the past 200 years, with rapidly increasing effects.
Evolution of species did happen.
The Nazis did kill approximately 6 million Jews (and others).
HIV is the causative agent of AIDS.
People (well, male people) did walk on the moon.
There is a major association between tobacco use and early death.

No amount of billionaire money can change facts. Facts don't give a damn if you believe them or not. Galileo forced to renounce his planetary model did not cause the sun to travel around the earth.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that 97% figure? It's bogus. And why are these shamen more believable than scientists with similar disciplines, economists, and statisticians?

A good read:

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
 
Denny Crane said:
Look at the blue line, it's not any higher than many times in the past. Temperature rises before CO2 does, so it's not tied to CO2.
Click to expand...

Wow, Denny... You actually think that? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning as its concentration increases, the amount of heat it traps increases and the temperature increases. You don't see the blue line at the very end because the time scale is too large. The temp will continue to increase as the CO2 increases.
 
noknobs said:
Wow, Denny... You actually think that? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning as its concentration increases, the amount of heat it traps increases and the temperature increases. You don't see the blue line at the very end because the time scale is too large. The temp will continue to increase as the CO2 increases.
Click to expand...

Wow, noknobs. I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I don't think the concentration is enough to make a difference. Like spit in the ocean.

The evidence is there for you to refute. The red line is to the right of the blue line. That means CO2 rises after temperature. It's not the cause of higher temperature, but a side effect of it.

2014-06-19%20at%203.15%20PM.png
 
But see, mapping CO2 and temperature on the same graph is a mathematical and logic trick.

pop_v_emiss_fig1.JPG
 
Denny Crane said:
Wow, noknobs. I think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I don't think the concentration is enough to make a difference. Like spit in the ocean.

The evidence is there for you to refute. The red line is to the right of the blue line. That means CO2 rises after temperature. It's not the cause of higher temperature, but a side effect of it.

2014-06-19%20at%203.15%20PM.png
Click to expand...

It's not to the right of the blue line Denny, it's under it... LMAO!
 
I also think there's an issue with frame of reference. If we happened to be in a downward trend cycle, the alarmists would be warning us of ice age and telling us to blow enormous sums of money to prevent that. See left green arrow.

We are near the peak of an upward cycle (something like the right green arrow), so we think the apocalypse of fire and brimstone is upon us.

2014-06-19%20at%203.19%20PM.png
 
noknobs said:
It's not to the right of the blue line Denny, it's under it... LMAO!
Click to expand...

It's to the right of it. Along the time axis. The red is AFTER (in time) the blue.

2014-06-19%20at%203.22%20PM.png
 
Lots of incurious flat-earthers here, and Denny isn't one of them. It's sickening to see how the AGW crowd has bastardized real science. Anybody still throwing around the thoroughly debunked 97% figure has no business trying to pass themselves as being educated on this topic.

Stating without any embarrassment that AGW is a "fact" is someone who can't be reasoned with.
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
It's to the right of it. Along the time axis. The red is AFTER (in time) the blue.

2014-06-19%20at%203.22%20PM.png
Click to expand...

You're completely wrong. You have no idea how to read a simple graph. Why are you capturing an image of the red and blue line at different points in time? You need to find a point on the blue line, then go DOWN to see if the red line is rising or not.
 
noknobs said:
You're completely wrong. You have no idea how to read a simple graph. Why are you capturing an image of the red and blue line at different points in time? You need to find a point on the blue line, then go DOWN to see if the red line is rising or not.
Click to expand...

No, I'm completely right.

As temperature rises, CO2 follows. That's why the CO2 line is to the right.

It lags.

Even the alarmists acknowledge this.
 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth’s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years.
 
Discussion of the math tricks (how you set the scales on the two graphs):

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, here and here, and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

vostok-ice-cores-150000%20med.jpg
 
crandc said:
You want to debate policy? Fine. I don't particularly like cap and trade. Better solutions must exist. But if you deny the problem you can't very well find a solution.

I just would like the deniers to explain why 97% of the world's climate scientists agree that the planet is warming, human activity is a major cause, and the rate is increasing. Disagreements over some details, which always happens in science, but not the basic fact. Nothing to do with how deep the San Francisco Bay was 7000 years ago. Dragging in irrelevancies does not cover up ignorance.

Facts:
Human activity is a major cause of climate change in the past 200 years, with rapidly increasing effects.
Evolution of species did happen.
The Nazis did kill approximately 6 million Jews (and others).
HIV is the causative agent of AIDS.
People (well, male people) did walk on the moon.
There is a major association between tobacco use and early death.

No amount of billionaire money can change facts. Facts don't give a damn if you believe them or not. Galileo forced to renounce his planetary model did not cause the sun to travel around the earth.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are in error with 97% . I sort of like to go from Scripps since I did a bit of work there myself. Woods Hole does good work too.

I picked up some info from Scripps that maybe of interest.

Micro view

Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png


Macro view

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png


Is Sea-Level Rise Accelerating?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Maybe not. Surely not 97% for sure.
 
Last edited:
100% of scientists agree that water boils at 212 F.

Facts aren't up for debate. When can we start a thread about the boiling water deniers? Are there any?
 
Careful. Water doesn't always boil at 212F.
 
Did anyone else catch NPR report yesterday about a NOAA study that showed year to date the planet has been cooler as well as wetter?
 
DaLincolnJones said:
Did anyone else catch NPR report yesterday about a NOAA study that showed year to date the planet has been cooler as well as wetter?
Click to expand...

All part of GCC. You see they have that covered now, easy, just change GW to GCC. Everything fits the narritive of the model.
 
I think I've stumbled onto another cause of global warming.

hadcrut_12ma_3year_fwd.gif
 
Denny Crane said:
Perfect! No consensus after all.
Click to expand...

However you want to think about DC.

I know you think any expert that doesn't agree with you manipulates data or uses manipulated data but experts that agree with you do not manipulate data or use maculated data. To be fair, most probably feel that way.

Answer seems clear me . . . but doesn't matter. No one is going to change someones mind here because truth is no one here is an expert and we are just regurgitating what experts we believe.

I guess you also think the consensus term is manipulated . . . so the discussion on this topic is going no where.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top