What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists

[jem]

on a longer term chart we see that co2 levels have at times spiked up to 400 ppmv. And guess what.... there was glaciation.

I just looked this up on the al gore sponsored agw nutter site they say the sun was responsible for the glaciation in that it was 4 percent weaker.

They also advice that there are uncertainties with past data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm




Perhaps the co2 helped contributed to the massive glaciation.

Quote from gwb-trading:

Why don't we plot the CO2 range on earth over the past few million years - which would make it obvious that the range over the last 10,000 years is easily within the normal range for the planet.

 

[jem]

that was co2 spiked up to 4000 ppm.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

on a longer term chart we see that co2 levels have at times spiked up to 400 ppmv. And guess what.... there was glaciation.

I just looked this up on the al gore sponsored agw nutter site they say the sun was responsible for the glaciation in that it was 4 percent weaker.

They also advice that there are uncertainties with past data.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm




Perhaps the co2 helped contributed to the massive glaciation.

This is the longer term chart you've posted many times:

<img src="http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg">

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Why don't we plot the CO2 range on earth over the past few million years - which would make it obvious that the range over the last 10,000 years is easily within the normal range for the planet.

Because we are not interested in what happened 40 million years ago. For one thing, it was very different world. We are interested in the sudden spike of CO2 out of nowhere as soon as man started burning fossil fuels and with no corresponding increase in solar. I would have thought that obvious. Guess not.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

...We are interested in the sudden spike of CO2 out of nowhere as soon as man started burning fossil fuels and with no corresponding increase in solar....

Funny...I thought someone posted several charts showing there had been an increase in solar.

 

[futurecurrents]

Perhaps this will help piejoe, jerm and gwab to understand. But I doubt it.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Perhaps this will help piejoe, jerm and gwab to understand. But I doubt it.

either that or the oceans warming... or other natural variability or a combination.

you have a a causation problem fc.

until you solve it... every time you make a statement... you are full of shit.

you are full of shit... because you can't show that the earth is warming outside of natural variability and you have no science showing co2 causes net warming on earth.

if you could... you would be famous.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

This is the longer term chart you've posted many times:

<img src="http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg">

true...

it does show the cycle pretty well.

are you going to ask if a breakout over the co2 line causes me to want to know more... yes it does.

I want to know more. I also prefer we pollute less.
I also do not appreciate bullshitters telling me they know things they do not.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

either that or the oceans warming... or other natural variability or a combination.

you have a a causation problem fc.

until you solve it... every time you make a statement... you are full of shit.

you are full of shit... because you can't show that the earth is warming outside of natural variability and you have no science showing co2 causes net warming on earth.

if you could... you would be famous.

Just like I thought. You don't understand it. Amazing


Gee. I guess CO2 just decided to suddenly jump to mulitthousand year highs out of the blue as soon as we started emitting lots of CO2. I guess CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

You're an idiot.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

...You're an idiot.

GWB, has the "debate" started yet?