Global warming LOL part 2

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

This is not about politics. This is about a large-scale scientific 'climate change' fraud that is offensive to anyone with a scientific or engineering background. The AGW fraud undermines the integrity of the entire profession.

So gwb. Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has gone up some 40% over the last hundred years....how could that NOT raise temps?

And if you think that virtually entire world's science community is in on some massive fraud you are simply crazy, and all the science in the world won't change that.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from blah12345678:

I don't know... How about this...

Age of Earth: 4.2 Billion years

Temp extremes experienced: -200 degrees to +2 million degrees C

Purported GW changes: 1-2 degrees C over the last 40 years

Number of datapoints for every 100 years = 42 million

Number of datapoints for every 200 years = 21 million

Liberal recognition of verifiable temp readings on Earth - 50,000 years (250-500 datapoints)

Statistical significance (100 year datapoints) = 500/42,000,000

Statistical significance (200 year datapoints) = 250/21,000,000

Temp change significance = 2 degrees C / 2,200,000 degrees C

Conclusion #1 - any person with basic math skills can understand that the GW argument is statistically irrelevant.

Conclusion #2 - the argument that GW is "bad" for the planet is patently false. If humans were to disappear tomorrow, in less than 1,000 years, all evidence of our existence would be wiped out.

Conclusion #3 - the real concern is that as the human population continues at its current rate, then it stands that at some point, we'll run out of the resources needed for survival - water, food, shelter, ability to withstand/defend against newer, deadlier diseases, etc.

The reality is that Homo Sapiens are biological systems subject to the same conditions and challenges as other biological systems. Biological systems are in a constant battle to achieve equilibrium between population and resources. When resources are plentiful, populations increase. When resources become scarce, populations die off.

It's safe to say that the human population will greatly contract in the future. Be it from meteorite impacts, volcanic eruptions, disease, or lack of food and/or water. But it certainly won't be due to alleged GW due to fossil fuels.

Conclusion #3? GW will make all those things worse. Rising seas will take care of a lot of shelter. Droughts and melted glaciers will cause water problems, elsewhere flooding will be a problem. Disease vectors multiply in the warmth. Heat waves will kill millions. They are already currently the largest cause of mortality of all weather events. There is no question that temps are going to continue to rise. Current heat waves in the nineties will be over a hundred within a hundred years.

But yes, the earth and man will survive.

 

[jem]

you could not be more deceptive.

in order to know if our current temps are outside the norm... you need to reference a full cooling and warming cycle.

Why do you think scientists study the ice cores.
It was through that study that we learn that co2 accumulation and dissipation has lagged temperature by 200 to 800 years throughout the earths history.

It is how we learned that the oceans release co2 as they warm.
Its through the study of history we learn that co2 lags temps.

Its through the study of history that we are seeing that the sun and tides impact temperature far more that co2 which just a tiny component of greenhouse gases.

The really question is why anyone would believe a tiny component of greenhouse gases would force temperatures in such a complex system as the earth.

You would have to be a mental midget to fall for such a simple idea. As if the earth does not cycle and does not moderate itself.

You should also note the temps on on your chart are a result of smoothing and all sorts of other questionable manipulation.

There is a great deal of evidence now that temps in the 30s were as high as the high in 2008.

Plus you agw nutter scientists are now admitting that temps were really warming in the midieval warm period with the glaciers in greenland far more recessed than they are now.

So your current data is shit.
Your timeframe is too short.
And co2 lags temps.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Jerm. We are really most interested in the last thousand. It was last two hundred we have been adding CO2. The data is most reliable for that far back. Beyond that the confidence factor drops. The only thing that can explain the rise is CO2.

 

[jem]

97% claim exposed / debunked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/


“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.