Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

The so called science says two things: 1) if we keep up the co2 emissions it will become so hot that it will send us into an ice age and, 2) when we arent even adding significant co2 it gets really hot then sends the planet into an ice age. How does this even add up to anthropogenic global warming?

There isnt an equilibrium and there hasnt been one since our planet tilted 23.5 degrees. There has only been an illusional equilibrium due to our lack of history and selective memory.

The cycles show an imminent freezing approaching fast. From what I recall there is no prediction about warming the planet so much that it stays warm. Either way its going to freeze naturally, or were supposedly going to send it into an anthropogenic freeze. The only difference is whether you can be taxed for it and have the UN telling you what you can and cant do as a nation to the environment or whether govt bodies will actually admit it and start helping everyone prepare.

Besides the last time it stayed warm the globe was a hot swampy mess.

Another excuse to cull the populace. Don't buy it and never will. Maybe for a Mil and an early retirement, anyone??

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by winnar

 

I think you have difficulties interpreting the data within that graph.

First off, look at the graph CAREFULLY at the left. Notice that since we started deforestation after the agricultural revolution, the spike doesn't follow the sharp descent as it did in the last several cycles. Also note that it ALREADY peaked a while back. We thwarted a decline in temperature in this great cycle, ALREADY.

Note the CO2 in the graph. The high end is at 280PPM. Where are we right now

Also note that anything which has happened post industrial revolution isn't showing up as a perceptible data point in the graph. How do I know this? Look again at the CO2. Pretty sure that's close to per-industrial revolution readings.

Well ok I went and looked up the agricultural revolution to get some date context and as far as I can tell you are reffering to the neolithic revolution? Well that was between 5000 and 8000 BC. So between 7 and 10k years ago. This time period corresponds to the a rise in the peak that we are still in. As far as thwarting a decline I am pretty sure you are hallucinating things that the data simply does not show. At the most all I can make out is an extension of a peak, but this is the same period where the graph starts looking like a seismograph recording a small earthquake. That period started 10k years ago, still well before the industrial revolution. And that 10k year period is probably showing so much fluctuation because its so near to the surface and simply isnt subject to the same environment as the rest of the ice. That should smooth out some once another 10k-20k years in ice is added.

Either way read my post above, the Alarmist Anthropogenic Warming advocates say if we keeep this up it will warm so much that it will freeze and the data says if things follow their natural evolution things will warm up then freeze.

What is the difference?

Climate change due to area we r in the galaxy

I've never seen it explained how humans can be the cause while only releasing ~5% of total CO2 (the rest released by nature). Anyone got info on this?

If water vapor is included humans release only about 0.28% of total GHG emissions. I have a hard time believing that the balance is so sensitive that we are the straw that broke the camel's back.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

The Earth's land has warmed by 1.5C over the past 250 years and "humans are almost entirely the cause", according to a scientific study set up to address climate change sceptics' concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

For the mainstream climate science community - this "new" study is of course hardly groundbreaking, and simply belongs in the #tellussomethingwedontalreadyknow department...


However it is interesting because the Berkeley analysis team not only consists of a few prominent (or I guess now - former) climate skeptics like Richard Muller, but it was also notoriously funded by some extremely shady sources like the Koch Brothers (I wonder if they can get their money back?):

The funding for the project included $150,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate and key backer of the climate-sceptic Heartland Institute thinktank.

So it was for these reasons that last year, before the team announced their findings, they were the venerable darlings of the online climate "skeptic"/blog science community, with prominent blogger Anthony Watts going so far as to state:

I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.

Of course when the Berkeley team made their results (that showed global warming to be real) public last year, he immediately changed his tune - attacking them for anything he could throw at them.


Watts list of grievances on why the study was "flawed":

- it had only been accepted for peer-review at the time, but not yet actually peer-reviewed (even though Watts notoriously posts and promotes non-peer-reviewed "science" on his blog every day - as long as it's skeptical of AGW). *PS the Berkeley analysis has since been peer-reviewed and published.

- it examined data over a 60-year period rather than the 30-year window Watts preferred to cherrypick focus on. (So analyzing a larger sample size and doing twice as much work apparently makes it less robust).

- the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper had spelling errors. (seriously)



Many other skeptics at the time seemed to accept the results, going so far as to say "duh, we already knew it's been warming" but then immediately pointing out that their beef is with the idea that humans are the cause.



...
So now that the Berkeley team has done supplementary research and announced that -

humans are almost entirely the cause

...it will be interesting to see what sort of back-pedaling excuses the remaining camp of so-called skeptics come up with. I'm not saying they have to accept this result (or else!) - but it provides for an interesting benchmark in separating real skeptics from phony ones.

Real ones will need to take this evidence into context with the enormous pile already in place that shows modern warming to be primarily man made. While the rest will no doubt ignore all that yet again, and try to deflect focus on spelling errors and tinfoil conspiracies.



(Then they'll probably cry something about how unfairly people label them 'deniers', while muttering what a 'religion' belief in AGW clearly is) [/quote

CRAP

The reasons I would be classed as a sceptic regarding global warming/climate change/whatever is not that humans have escalated the process but that it's detrimental to the safety of the planet.

The data suggests that in the last 250 years humans have warmed the planet and that's a no brainer really as we came through the industrial revolution and then the energy revolution. We have came a long way since then and we are a lot cleaner with our energy and industrial production so we will steadily decline the amount of gases being pumped into the atmosphere.

I personally don't see a problem with the planet warming up, all the doomsday prophecies like "The day after tomorrow" scenario etc.. are just fear mongering IMO. The planet wasn't always in an ice age and the planet survived without ice for millions of years.
Yes it may not be a rosy future for those ice based animals like the polar bears etc.. but the only reason they existed in the 1st place was because they had to adapt to the change of the climate from a warm climate to a total freeze. It's called evolution and the planet evolves as much as the creatures that inhabit it.

reply to post by mclarenmp4


The climate may change and get more violent, that is evident by their research. It will effect us all through increased insurance costs and higher food prices and possibly shortages of grains and other plant based foods. That should be enough to justify slowing down our CO2, methane, and NO2 emissions. The bigest problem is the use of chemicals that are causing a collapse of our foodchain. Chemicals in food that increase our craving for food by blocking receptor uptake also cause us to over farm our lands causing soil depletion. We are also dumping a lot of chemicals in our sewers that can hurt the Ecosystem and most of these are allowed by our FDA. Maybe somewhat safe for us but not for the delicate system that supplies us with healthy food. Our slow evolution with our food keeps us sane and healthy, changing the chemical structure of foods too fast can destroy mankind through many action/reaction ways.

reply to post by mc_squared


Muller's paper's have not even been ACCEPTED. They were turned by down alarmists? Can't be. Maybe they recognize that there are massive problems with the surface station networks, and realized by accepting their paper, may have some culpability when the truth FINALLY comes out. For some you coming late to this thread, see my other posts in regards to NEW criteria for rating stations adopted by the W.M.O. and the Watts et al. 2012 paper coming. Maybe some of these "mainstream" scientists are waking up.

This is an excerpt from a story on WUWT, from a peer review referee for the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review

Whoa, this is heavy. Ross McKitrick, who was a peer review referee for the BEST papers with the Journal of Geophysical Research got fed up with Muller’s media blitzing and tells his story:

excerpts:

In October 2011, despite the papers not being accepted, Richard Muller launched a major international publicity blitz announcing the results of the “BEST” project. I wrote to him and his coauthor Judy Curry objecting to the promotional initiative since the critical comments of people like me were locked up under confidentiality rules, and the papers had not been accepted for publication. Richard stated that he felt there was no alternative since the studies would be picked up by the press anyway. Later, when the journal turned the paper down and asked for major revisions, I sought permission from Richard to release my review. He requested that I post it without indicating I was a reviewer for JGR. Since that was not feasible I simply kept it confidential.


Read the rest here:

wattsupwiththat.com...-68366

reply to post by mc_squared


I am still struggling why a report which is based on data only from the last 250 years would change anyones mind. Seeing as this fairly much covers only the period from the Industrial Revolution onwards, it's not going to show variations in at least the last couple of millennia is it?

reply to post by mc_squared


Lol so let me make sure I understand you correctly. The earth realeases more co2 in one volcanic eruption than man in his entire history but the apearth can survive this just fine? Even though it happens thousands of times in our short history? Or that every day rotting vegetation in the wilds produces more co2 than man in its history but olce again that is ok? Every once in a while a comet/ meteor hits this planet and causes abosulte devestation, but this is ojce again ok? But man making a small one ten thousandth of one percent of a barely present trace gas in our atmosphere is somehow not ok? The earth survives and deals with just fine all these other events, but cannot deal with our almost nonexitstant contribution of co2?

I would think that when your standing next to a giant nuclear fireball that is known to fluctuate in out put, would be looked at, instead of blaiming the fact you grew an extra chest hair as causing to much insulation and warming you.

Just saying, I have been studying this for years, and have never seen anything actually scientific to change my mind, to obvious nature of the obsurdity of their claims is just to blatant to ignore. If you actually know the science that is.

reply to post by mc_squared


Okay - First off, Robert Muller has NEVER been an AGW "Skeptic" or "Denier" - he has ALWAYS been on board with the Gore-ites and the scam that is Anthropomorphic Climate Change...the NEW and improved version of "Man Made Global Warming"...the name haiving been changed no doubt so that ANYTHING that happens weather-wise on the planet can be blamed on Human Beings - too hot? AGCC is to blame - too cold? Defintely AGCC's fault! Not enough rain? AGCC. Too much rain? AGCC.....its all a shell game to allow for the UN and other governing bodies can take more of our money.

Secondly, it is laughable that ANY "scientist" can claim to draw a firm and resolute conclusion about the weather patterns of a BILLION YEAR OLD planet using a study that only includes SIXTY YEARS of climate data!
That would roughly be equivalent to a researcher saying they would be able to know the personal behaviour patterns of a 60 year old person after having studied that person's behaviour for .0036 seconds ! (less than half of one one-thousandth of a second!)

I think it would be appropriate here to remind everyone about the HISTORY of climatology - the reason that climatologists (glorified weathermen who can't be relied upon - even with all their NEW technology - to tell us when or even IF it will rain on a given day or at a given time) only have recorded weather data for about 200 years (including Farmer's Almanac data - which they used almost exclusively prior to 50 years ago). The father of modern weather forecasting - Benjamin Franklin - was the first person in modern times to realize that weather HAD patterns......and that was only in 1743 ! See link: earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Third, my personal belief is that this bogus "epiphany" on Mr. Muller's part is simply another attempt on behalf of the Gore-ites to rebuff things like this recent article showing tree ring data that proves that the Earth was more than 1 degree C warmer in the 1st Century than today : www.dailymail.co.uk...
- This information was published just recently and the OP's post appears to be nothing more than damage control and perhaps a rush to "get something out there" to contradict such information. This would not be the first time this has happened - let us not forget that these "climatologists" have already been caught skewing data to support this PURELY POLITICAL scam: www.huffingtonpost.com... its okay to be a "Skeptic" or "Denier" given that information!

Fourth, given that climatologists only have about 200 years of data about our BILLION YEAR OLD planet - it falls to those interested parties to look at other Discliplines to get answers about what's going on. Archaeologists have LOADS of climate information based on uncovered writings from different periods of history, geologists and Solar Scientists have something to say on the subject as well.

My suggestion is that anyone who wants to REALLY get a handle on this subject should STOP getting their information from so called "scientists" who are being PAID to skew data, or from bloated, greedy politicians who fancy themselves to be scientists (remember, this is STILL the guy who said he INVENTED the Internet !)....I suggest you look up "an inconvenient truth" on IMDB or other such database - it clearly states that this movie is NOT a scientifically valid or supported feature - it is listed as a documentary on Al Gore's campaign to make global warming recognized worldwide. This is a PROPAGANDA piece, NOT a scientific documentary !

Lastly, let's talk COMMON SENSE for a moment - shall we? Do you realize why a land filled with snow and ice named "Greenland" is called "GREEN-land" ? Historians will tell you - based on the Archaeological evidence - that its because when Vikings began colonizing it 1000 years ago, it was NOT full of snow and ice - it was full of green fields! The Vikings THRIVED there, had livestock, grew crops....and they lived there for 400 years....www.archaeology.org... until they experienced a rapid climate change, that came to be called the "Little Ice Age" which covered the beautiful land of GREENland with snow and ice - forcing the Norse settlers to leave or die off. Their settlements were covered with permafrost over the hundreds of years that followed - was this because the Vikings' SUV's didn't get good enough gas mileage? No - it was because of a NATURAL cycle of the Earth. The Geological Record is FULL of instances of rapid climate change!

This whole global warming debate sucks. It is steering us away from a much more critical problem. I think global warming is a veil thrown over our eyes. The biggest problem we face is changing the chemistry of the soils and waters which will affect our future ability to manufacture food. The floods created by the increasing volitility of the weather is causing these chemicals to move and could cause severe consequences in the longrun. The dumps create lots of bad chemical releases during flooding. It is tied together but the most critical problem is our changing concentrations of the chemistry of things. The Chemical companies have lots of power in the world and every sect of society is now dependant on them. This is bad. This is really bad. We are changing our ecosystem and the bugs and germs are adapting faster than us bigger longliving creatures. The poisons to control the pests will soon be toxic to us and we will be at the mercy of nature.

The argument is so simple its sad. The claim is CO2 is causing global warming, in a nutshell. Lets see, trees absorb and consume CO2 and release Oxygen. This kills the global warming theory cause by humans. How about our planet just goes through a natural process of change and there isnt a dam thing we can do about it

reply to post by TSZodiac


I like the last part about the vikings not getting good gas mileage in their SUVS. You are correct and if u read my only posting on here you will see the most simple statement that destroys the global warming theory

Originally posted by surfnow
The argument is so simple its sad. The claim is CO2 is causing global warming, in a nutshell. Lets see, trees absorb and consume CO2 and release Oxygen. This kills the global warming theory cause by humans. How about our planet just goes through a natural process of change and there isnt a dam thing we can do about it

Again, this shows the very weak reasoning of the denialists.

The amount of CO2 which trees can absorb is limited. Obviously, because the CO2 in the atmosphere is going up year by year, the forests have reached their maximum potential.

Fail.

reply to post by winnar

Simply cutting trees doesnt release their carbon. They'd have to be burnt. I'd say there's a lot of forest tied up in housing and other structures. Maybe a few rainforests worth. People are sequestering carbon and then regrowing forests sequestering even more. The state forest around here is almost all new growth because it was basically all cut down and used for building, lots of it was floated down the river to Pittsburgh.

signature:


You are correct in what you said, although it would be interesting to know the percentage of trees that are replaced with new sprouts in deforested areas around the world. I would wage a bet that it is not too high in some areas of our planet...although I will be researching this. I also wonder how quickly these newly planted trees take to grow, and how the other species of the forests are affected by the initial deforestation of the particular area? The components that make up the ecosystem are delicately balanced by temperatures,soil, water and the sunlight itself....so I would imagine these components would be greatly affected by any disturbance from deforestation, whether replanting or not...and that can't be good. (Maybe THIS is "true in itself")?

reply to post by mc_squared


In the Eighties scientists (and most of the general public who believe whatever they see on television) laughed at people who "denied" we were experiencing a new Ice Age.

Today it is people who "deny" Global Warming, er I mean, Climate Change.

I am looking forward to next decade where people are laughed at for not believing the temperatures have stabilized, or maybe will go back to the new ice age thing.

Point: We don't have a clue what's going on with this planet and the Sun has a lot more influence then any "greenhouse gases" we create.

Science is in the business of continually proving itself wrong.
This ensures funding for the next go-round of "studies".
If they didn't do this, scientific "knowledge" would remain static and unchanging.
What it boils down to is what they believe currently.
Give them another 10 years and a few million dollars and AGW will once again be "disproven".
If they didn't get us alarmed they wouldn't get funding.
Scientists are the masters of self-delusion and take much of the public along for the ride.
Truth and facts are as transitory as the weather.

Yes, I believe most scientists are full of you-know-what.
Rationality is not the end-all for the human mind and technology is no better than those who control it - which makes a rather good argument for ending the scientific priesthood class.
Flame away

reply to post by unityemissions


Once again, a Gore-ite attempts to use flawed logic to support their scam, and then makes a BOLD statement with no supporting documentation as if it were fact: "The amount of CO2 trees can absob is limited. The Forests have reached their maximum potential. "Obviously", YOU fail, Sir - witness please, as I will assume that you - unless you're a shill, are under-informed:
First - The OCEANS of the world absorb 50% of Carbon Dioxide: news.nationalgeographic.com...
(yeah, I'm sure NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC is wrong - and Al Gore is right! He invented teh internet, y'know!)
Interesting little quote from this article - "Today's current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is only around half of what climate scientists have predicted atmospheric levels should be, based on estimates that humans have contributed 244 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to Earth's atmosphere." - hmm.....so the Climatologists say that there should be TWICE as much CO2 in the atmosphere than there is...it took a dicslipline OTHER than climatology to "discover" this......sounds like SOMEBODY (cough cough - AL GORE) is trying to cook the books!
Secondly - Forest absorb a hell of a lot more CO2 than was previously thought (by Climatologists! The US Forestry Service sets them straight): www.csmonitor.com...

Third - Trees and oceans aren't the ONLY plants on Earth, and EVERY plant absorbs CO2 !
CO2 is LIFE to ALL plants on the Earth !
Fourth - GEOLOGISTS will tell you - carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net... - that Climatologists (either by DESIGN, my personal bet, or Ineptitude - also certainly a possibility) have their facts wrong because they've set up CO2 monitoring stations near ACTIVE volcanoes.....skewing the data that incorrectly identifies Volcanic CO2 as MAN-MADE CO2. Geologists are also puzzled because when Krakatoa erupted in 1883, they estimate that it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere than all the man-made CO2 since! Know what happened after THAT eruption? you got it - the earth COOLED by an estimated 1.2 degrees C (see same link above!)

Lastly, more COMMON SENSE - imagine for a moment that you ARE Al Gore. You are 100% convinced that AGCC - caused by man-made CO2 production - is (as he stated in his fictional movie account) "The Biggest Threat to the survival of Mankind".....would YOU still be jetting around the world in private Gulfstream jets? Would you still be traveling with an entourage in convoys of SUV's? Would YOU still be living in a Mansion in Tennessee the size of a Super Walmart, with monthly electric bills to match? Would you have houses all over the world with the same electric consumption?
Al Gore has a larger "Carbon Footprint" than everyone I know COMBINED ! If you believe as he does, that its SUCH a big problem - why aren't we BANNING AL GORE??
More common sense - how many soda cans/bottles or beer cans/bottles opened every day in the world? Just a reminder here that the sound you hear when you open those containers .....you guessed it, that's CO2 !! Escaping into the atmosphere - where are the calls by Mr. Gore to ban CARBONATED beverages???

Its a scam folks - its just a new way for the "Elite" to make money on our backs....the biggest scam ever attempted ! I urge you to read some Australian Newspapers, and how they feel about the impact of their new UN "Carbon Tax" ! Just to give you a little hint.....its ILLEGAL in Australia for a business owner to tell his or her clients that prices at any particular business has gone up because of that new TAX : www.dailytelegraph.com.au...

Get ready America - if you re-elect your current President, THIS TAX is coming to your hometown !