You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stephen Hawking on human extinction
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Let me see. facts and data huh?
you brought up Milankovitch. As well you should. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
Milankovitch cycles are 21000 years long.
Ice ages were --- "
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1]
from wikipedia
Ice core data goes back 100,000s of years.
And the global warming bozos are asking us to go back to 400 a.d. to determine a trend. Why? because if you go back more than that you get to see cycles. Cycles in which warming came before CO2 accumulation.
-------
Now.. I am not saying CO2 accumulation does not cause warming... I am just saying the data is at best inconclusive. Any real scientist or logical person has to agree.
Climate study, funded in part by conservative group, confirms global warming
The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate.'
A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming â in fits and starts â since around 1900.
Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities â burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.
The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
These previous efforts, however, came under fire from some climate-change skeptics who said they had detected serious flaws in the analytical methods and temperature records the three groups used.
The new research, which has yet to be formally published but which appears in four papers posted on BerkeleyEarth.org, uses new analytical techniques and a much larger set of records than the previous studies did.
Indeed, the new approach to analyzing temperatures records allowed the team to make use of partial and older records previous studies had rejected as unusable, explains Richard Muller, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coordinated the effort.
The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
The latest global warming results confirm those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA and elsewhere that came under fire from skeptics in an episode known as 'climategate.'
A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming â in fits and starts â since around 1900.
Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities â burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.
The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
These previous efforts, however, came under fire from some climate-change skeptics who said they had detected serious flaws in the analytical methods and temperature records the three groups used.
The new research, which has yet to be formally published but which appears in four papers posted on BerkeleyEarth.org, uses new analytical techniques and a much larger set of records than the previous studies did.
Indeed, the new approach to analyzing temperatures records allowed the team to make use of partial and older records previous studies had rejected as unusable, explains Richard Muller, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who coordinated the effort.
This guy's revisiting the NAS criticisms of Mann's graph (2005, 2006?), but the article just posted, summarizes papers published more than a year later, by three different journals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html
So what are the end results? Mullerâs team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was âexcellent.â He went on: âWe see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.â And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the teamâs two-page summary flatly concludes, âGlobal warming is real.âHereâs a chart comparing their findings with existing data:
So what are the end results? Mullerâs team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was âexcellent.â He went on: âWe see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.â And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the teamâs two-page summary flatly concludes, âGlobal warming is real.âHereâs a chart comparing their findings with existing data:
I know a guy. He told me "I will never believe in man-made global warming no matter what".
Quote from jem:
how do you know that Co2 would not be accumulating, just like it did in response to previous warming cycles?
Carbon from fossil fuels has a certain isotope signature. The ratio of this isotope to the natural atmospheric isotope proves it's man-made.
The levels of CO2 started increasing rapidly at the start of the industrial revolution.
Was natural atmospheric CO2 increasing prior to the start of the ID?Quote from futurecurrents:
Carbon from fossil fuels has a certain isotope signature. The ratio of this isotope to the natural atmospheric isotope proves it's man-made.
The levels of CO2 started increasing rapidly at the start of the industrial revolution.
Edit: nevermind, I see that it's not quite so simple.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Carbon from fossil fuels has a certain isotope signature. The ratio of this isotope to the natural atmospheric isotope proves it's man-made.
The levels of CO2 started increasing rapidly at the start of the industrial revolution.
ok lets say there is some science to the idea that science can distinguish between man made vs natural...
- we know the earth off gasses CO2.
- we know the earth releases CO2 from the oceans.
- we know warming precedes CO2.
- it is therefore likely as we warm... more CO2 is released.
- man is also creating more CO2.
---
Can we prove CO2 causes warming? how?
- If not... does it really matter if some of the CO2 accumulating is man made
- Do we know that the earth is not off gassing extra CO2.... given where we are in the cycle?
- Do we know that accumulating CO2 might not cause the cycles to moderate - modulate?
In other words... maybe by accumulating more CO2 faster... the earth will not have to get as warm has it did in the past?
---
The one conclusion you should have for us --- Is that CO2 causes warming... yet the data is completely inconclusive on that issue.
The next conclusion you would need data for is that man made CO2 is doing damage in excess of the damage which is done by natural CO2 release in response to warming.
Could your speculation be correct... it could be.
Does the data show it... no.
Do we wish to preserve the environment yes.
Did I do something about it... I was did, I was once a plaintiff's environmental lawyer.
Unfortunately much of the conservation movement has been hijacked by politicians and money suckers.