NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

Actually the 97% consensus was already proven wrong. I posted an entire writeup earlier in the thread. It wasn't scientists who came up with that consensus, it was John Cook of skeptical science. A left leaning "scientific" blog maintained by a blogger who has no education whatsoever in climate science.

The media then ran with the 97% consensus.

wattsupwiththat.com...-112263
wattsupwiththat.com...
wattsupwiththat.com...

a reply to: redtic

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Greven
This is where some logical thought is needed and why this debate can rage.

Melting ice sheets do not indicate increased global temperatures. It is only caused by either an increase in local temperatures or from volcanic heat from under the ice sheet.

You're talking about one tiny place in Antarctica.

I'm talking about global glacial retreat. Look that up.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
As Ray already pointed out, the percentage of the carbon isotope that represents human emissions is not 40%, so a large part of the increase is from natural sources too.
...
Can you prove that CO2 stayed constant at 280ppm? You can't, because the records show spikes all over the place, some as high as 600ppm, so good luck with that.
...
Science is not decided by wide acceptance and consensus either. It is through experimentation and observation that leads to predictions that can be proven repeatedly. Global warming is still a theory, let's make that distinction very clear. There is no "settled science" as long as you have groups of scientists who keep opposing and presenting evidence that contradicts the claims.

Countless times, "laws" of physics and long-standing ideologies have been challenged and proven to be wrong, after being "widely accepted" or deemed true "by consensus". Everyone agreed that the Earth was flat. By your standards, it should be a FACT still. Yet, someone challenged it and it was PROVEN wrong, even though the ESTABLISHED, AGREED UPON AND CONSENSUS VIEW fought tirelessly that the proof was wrong when the evidence was staring them in the face.

I'd certainly like to know what these natural sources are. We are, indisputably, emitting more than 29 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. Yet, these papers claim that only around 29 gigatonnes of CO2 can be accounted for as human-emitted, when going by isotopes - in total. These numbers just don't jive with me.

I'd sure like to see this 600ppm CO2 datapoint, or at least the paper it's in.

Where did I disagree with the amount of CO2 being emitted? I never disputed that, only the measurements and the process by which those measurements are taken.

Did you read what I actually wrote even though you quoted me? I said the spikes could be as high as 600ppm, not that the atmospheric CO2 was 600ppm.

As for the paper - 180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS by Ernst-Georg Beck et al.

In this paper, I have assembled a 138 year-long record of yearly atmospheric CO2 levels, extracted from more then 180 technical papers published between 1812 and 1961. The latter year marked the end of the era of classical chemical analysis. The compilation of data was selective. Nearly all of the air sample measurements that I used were originally obtained from rural areas or the periphery of towns, under comparable conditions of a height of approx. 2 m above ground at a site distant from potential industrial or military contamination. Evaluation of the chemical methods used reveals systematically high accuracy, with a maximum 3% error reducing to 1% for the data of Henrik Lundegardh (1920 26), a pioneer of plant physiology and ecology [34, 35, 36].

Three popular techniques have evolved since 1812 for measuring the CO2 content of air (gravimetric, titrimetric, volumetric or manometric) The Pettenkofer titrimetric method – being simple, fast and well understood - was used as the optimal standard method for more than 100 years after 1857 [45, 46, 47, 48]. Different scientists calibrated their methods against each other, and by sampling gas with known CO2 content.

...

I investigated short-term variations in CO2 first, stimulated by Callendar and Keeling’s assertion that the historical data are unreliable because they reflect measurements made within an unresolved diurnal or seasonal cycle.

...

In his paper [38] Kreutz’s results delineate well both the seasonal cycle and weather events around the city of Giessen, and confirm strikingly the persistence of CO2 levels above 400 ppm over most of a period of 2 years.

Additionally, in "50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauana Lao - by Beck" -

The Mauna Loa measurements initiated by Keeling show a rise of the background since 1958 until today. In fact the CO2 concentration has been measured in the upper troposphere since the end of the 19th century by dozens of balloon flights and after the World War II by rockets. A literature research revealed [23] 63 single values since 1894–1973, from which 18 yearly averages can be calculated for heights of 1 –50 Km (stratosphere). The resulting graph is shown in figure 4. In most cases cryogen condensation had been used to separate CO2 from air using absorption in alkaline solution, by IR spectroscopy afterwards. A pronounced peak during the 30s of the 20th century is noticeable. The modern CO2 concentration is therefore not unique for thousands of years, as is stated repeatedly. This confirms the analysis by chemical methods near ground since 1812, which also show a maximum during 1930–1945 [19].

A strong variation in the atmospheric CO2 concentration since about 1800 is shown in figure 5 showing three maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942. This is in severe contrast to the publications by the IPCC and the ice core reconstructions. The pre-Keeling C02 data show, the CO2 curve lags temperature by about 5 years. A 19th century average of 321ppm can be calculated from these data. Combining the chemical and modern measured CO2 data a 20th century average of 339 ppm can be calculated, representing an increase of about 5 % within 200 years.

As for the 600ppm spikes, Dr. William Happer, at many of his speaking engagements, has said numerous times that CO2 fluctuates wildly under different conditions. In one such case he said: "The CO2 concentrations in a corn field can change from under 300 ppm or less at noon to 600 ppm or more at midnight, depending on wind conditions."

Researchers submit papers for peer review. That, in and of itself, is relying on consensus of the reviewers that the paper is acceptable for a journal. Other researchers might question those results and try to falsify them, based on how the experiment is conducted. They leap at the chance to disprove something, of course - but it's still a consensus system.
...
There are a great many theories in science that are widely accepted but not entirely proven. Evolution, Relativity, etc...

Peer-review is NOT consensus. It is the opportunity to disprove a paper or theory by reproduction of the experiment or observations. If there is disagreement, even by 1 scientist, and can be demonstrated equally through the same peer process, the theory is disproven. The widely accepted and not entirely proven theories are why they are still theories, and constantly being challenged.

Did you seriously just use the naive flat earth argument to justify this? Science knew the Earth was round 200 years before Jesus was born.

Really? Look at the context I wrote it in. I was using it as an example of others following by belief and ignoring facts, even when they are in your face. As you pointed out with the history lesson, even though science (with facts in hand) knew the world wasn't flat, people were still convinced otherwise. I fail to see how the current circumstances with AGW are any different when there is ENOUGH proof to show that there is still a ton of inaccuracy and misunderstanding of the data we've collected. That is what I was trying to point out in my post.

~Namaste

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Greven
This is where some logical thought is needed and why this debate can rage.

Melting ice sheets do not indicate increased global temperatures. It is only caused by either an increase in local temperatures or from volcanic heat from under the ice sheet.

You're talking about one tiny place in Antarctica.

I'm talking about global glacial retreat. Look that up.

Glaciers retreat and regenerate and have been doing so for millions of years with lots of evidence.

We are in an interglacial period, it is SUPPOSED to be warmer. When it gets warmer, ice is SUPPOSED to melt. When the ice melts, glaciers retreat.

That does not mean that we are the cause of temperature rising, especially in light of temperature rising before CO2. So are we the cause of the temperature rising? Because CO2 rising is not what is responsible for the temperature, it is the other way around and has an enormity of support with hard data.

So what is the cause of the increase in temperature? What does temperature do to the release of CO2 from various sinks?

I would think it's more important to understand why temperature is increasing (NOT CO2) if we have more evidence that supports CO2 increases lag temperature increases, both recently and historically. My guess is that since it is a million times harder to blame temperature increases on humans, they will stick with a gas that we all breathe instead and continue to try to shove a square peg into a round hole with their inaccurate and manipulated data.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Recall what you wrote:

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
As Ray already pointed out, the percentage of the carbon isotope that represents human emissions is not 40%, so a large part of the increase is from natural sources too.

You asserting a claim here, that the disparity in the numbers is from natural sources. Back it up or back off of it.

Recall again what you wrote:

Can you prove that CO2 stayed constant at 280ppm? You can't, because the records show spikes all over the place, some as high as 600ppm, so good luck with that.

Please cite the records in question, not an offhand remark by anyone. As the discussion was on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, your implication was that this was atmospheric, not localized. I'm sure the CO2 concentration in an operational smokestack is quite high, but it is also quite irrelevant.

Regarding " 180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS," see this helpful site, where you can see several writings critiquing that paper. One is scholarly, while others are perhaps less so.

Regarding "50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauana Lao,"
Please look over this extensive critique of that work.

Dr. Happer is a physicist well-known for being a skeptic on AGW. Why should I care what you claim he says about a tiny spot of land at a particular time of day in regards to the atmospheric record? What relevance is there? There's an atmospheric phenomenon called a heat burst, which is a localized extreme temperature event, but you don't see atmospheric scientists quoting that as proof of AGW.

Perhaps you do not know what "consensus" means. It means that there is a general agreement. You are demonizing a word when there is no reason to do so. In the case of peer review, a consensus is merely the general agreement that it is solid science and there are no objections to publication. If 100 researchers conduct an experiment, and the results of 3 experiments disagree with the others (and each other), what do you suppose the general consensus with regard to that experiment will be? The findings in those three experiments might each be correct or not, but if other researchers cannot duplicate them they are ignored and not accepted. The 97 experiments that found something else could be erroneous, but which is more likely? This has, literally, happened in science in the past. Experiments with uranium in the last century and the resulting isotopes led one researcher to speculate that uranium was breaking down into other elements. This was rejected by science at the time, yet proven some years later with nuclear fission experiments.

I'd like to know who these people were that were convinced the Earth was flat. In Galileo's time, it wasn't the Earth being flat that was in debate - it was whether the Earth revolved around the Sun (or the opposite, which is what the Church claimed). Columbus (and everyone else in his time period) knew that the Earth was round; he just used faulty formulas for how far a degree on the globe was and got lucky with the Americas being precisely where his erroneous calculations suggested the East was. It annoys me that people bring up "flat earth theory" in a supposedly scientific debate for these reasons.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
We are in an interglacial period, it is SUPPOSED to be warmer. When it gets warmer, ice is SUPPOSED to melt. When the ice melts, glaciers retreat.
...
That does not mean that we are the cause of temperature rising, especially in light of temperature rising before CO2. So are we the cause of the temperature rising? Because CO2 rising is not what is responsible for the temperature, it is the other way around and has an enormity of support with hard data.

Glaciers are indicators of climate change, whether natural or man-made - but you miss the point of that conversation.

Current theory is that the Gulf Stream will break down as a result of diminished salinity. This diminished salinity would occur from melting land ice diluting the salt concentrations in seawater. That doesn't preclude Antarctica, but most of the land ice melting isn't from there so far as I know. As you acknowledge, this is to be expected when the Earth heats. The Gulf Stream carries a vast amount of warm water - and thus heat - to England and Europe. If it breaks down, England and Europe will probably cool much more than any increase in global average temperatures. Hence, global warming can cause localized cooling.

A historical lag of CO2 behind temperature increases should be more troubling. It is beyond dispute that CO2 can contribute to warming - both locally and globally. No rational person who understands how CO2 works in an atmosphere questions this. This is an experiment pretty much anyone can do. More CO2 equates to heating, ceteris paribus. If CO2 lags behind temperature increase in the historical record, then it likely softened the decline in temperatures due to diminished solar irradiance or increased coolant gasses. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the average temperature on Earth; the Sun has been in a bit of a long slump recently, and yet we are not cooling.

Read the papers I've linked. They were peer reviewed and published and included in the IPCC report.

The isotopic signature of anthropogenic co2 only accounts for 28ppm currently in the atmosphere. If you reason that 60% was absorbed in place of natural co2 that accounts for 60ppm...

a reply to: Greven

a reply to: raymundoko

Nope. Not reputable sources.

Because you claim to prove something wrong does not mean you prove it wrong. It maybe your opinion that you have 'proved' something, however science does not work this way. No real scientist will come out and claim they have dis-proved someone.

40% rise in CO2 and counting......

a reply to: raymundoko
I do not have access to the paywall reports that you have linked, and I don't feel like spending a bunch of money to read them. Nor can I find a link for your assertion of the 4% isotopic signature of anthropogenic CO2, and I've skimmed through this entire thread (past that really dumb debate that stretched for many pages) checking out your posts. It's far slower for me to do this than it is for you to click on the post you've made and link it, as well as being annoying.

Further, do you recall what fossil fuel emits? Carbon from dead organic matter. There are several isotopes of carbon, but the main stable ones are C12 and C13. Plants prefer lighter carbon (C12), so they have a relatively lighter C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere; roughly 2%. The ratio of C13/C12 in the atmosphere is going down, because C12 is increasing. The observed decrease is quite significant, so I'm curious again how we arrived at this assumption and measurement.

a reply to: Greven

Quick question. Why do you discuss this? If the global climate change crises is real, its far to late to do anything and the world is headed for an extinction or near extinction event. And probably not in our lifetime, but regardless, with China completing a new Coal fired power plant every 3 days, there's nothing that can be done to reverse the trend. Earth humanity is doomed, game, set, match.

But, if the "science" is wrong and something else is going on and earth bound humanity isn't doomed by the effects of global warming. Again, who cares, except maybe a few scientists no one will remember, who got it wrong?

So, I'm left to wonder, (and I always "follow the money"), knowing nothing can be done to fix the problem, why expend time and energy to discuss it?

originally posted by: raymundoko
Actually the 97% consensus was already proven wrong.

No, I don't believe that's true...

I posted an entire writeup earlier in the thread. It wasn't scientists who came up with that consensus, it was John Cook of skeptical science. A left leaning "scientific" blog maintained by a blogger who has no education whatsoever in climate science.

The media then ran with the 97% consensus.

wattsupwiththat.com...-112263

Swedish farmers? OK, sure, I'll give you that one..

wattsupwiththat.com...

Umm, yeah, except that the AMS survey did agree with numerous previous surveys that point to that 90%+ amongst *climate* scientists...

In fact, as authors of the study point out below, the survey found that more than 90 percent of those respondents who are more engaged in research and publishing on climate science acknowledge the human contribution to warming.

www.climatesciencewatch.org...

wattsupwiththat.com...

Richard Toll? I suppose next you're going to bring up the Lord Monckton article there, too? Has Toll's paper ever been published? Is there a "consensus" that agrees with him?

Bottom line is that there have been numerous studies that again and again show there is a 90%+ consensus from climate scientists that validate the AGW theory. Even one that you reference above in an attempt to refute it! Again, I come back to - why is there this vehement attempt to discredit this consensus? I suppose you refute evolution, too? I always come back to the fact that it must be ideologically driven - that's the only logical conclusion.

a reply to: redtic

Show me a study besides cooks?

a reply to: redtic

originally posted by: raymundoko
Show me a study besides cooks?

a reply to: redtic

www.pnas.org...

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

tigger.uic.edu...

In our sur- vey, the most specialized and knowledge- able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate sci- ence as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individu- als in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to ques- tion 2.

and Phil Plait has a good article on it on slate.com that references a few others.

www.slate.com...

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

So, yeah, basically, what he said..

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Greven

Quick question. Why do you discuss this? If the global climate change crises is real, its far to late to do anything and the world is headed for an extinction or near extinction event. And probably not in our lifetime, but regardless, with China completing a new Coal fired power plant every 3 days, there's nothing that can be done to reverse the trend. Earth humanity is doomed, game, set, match.

But, if the "science" is wrong and something else is going on and earth bound humanity isn't doomed by the effects of global warming. Again, who cares, except maybe a few scientists no one will remember, who got it wrong?

So, I'm left to wonder, (and I always "follow the money"), knowing nothing can be done to fix the problem, why expend time and energy to discuss it?

A lot of people feel this way. I generally don't spend much time discussing it either, because it's mostly a waste of time trying to smash my head against a wall. I still read about it some, and aside from that childish back and forth that spanned many pages, I saw a few bits of interesting information. Look at my posts per day - it's not a whole lot.

Still, I'm an optimist. I don't think we are totally screwed regardless of what we do - I think we can salvage the future to some extent yet, which is why I sometimes do persevere with the aforementioned head-smashing. If I and all the science I rely on is wrong about AGW - great! Wonderful! We can keep living in comfort with cheap energy up until the 2030s when we burn through the dregs of our oil reserves. But that's another matter.

If there's anyone who you should follow the money to, it's the fossil fuel industry whose livelihood is threatened by a solid public and political belief in AGW.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Why are you using such ancient data on Total Solar Irradiance to claim things? 2009? 2005?? 2002??? Rather dated. How about seeing what it looks like a bit more recently?

Could you point out where I wrote that the Total Solar Irradiance graph that I gave was the most recent one?...

Then again how about taking in consideration the fact that the Earth' magnetic field has been weakening since 1840, and it keeps getting weaker. It's 15% weaker now than it was 200 years ago.

Then there is the fact that there are many other natural factors which also affect the climate, and weather extremes, such as water vapor which molecule by molecule is 10 times more powerful than CO2, it also accounts from 1%-4% of trace gases on Earth's atmosphere and CO2 accounts for 0.036% of trace gases. Then there is the fact that in the Troposphere, the atmospheric layer where all surface climate and weather occurs water vapor accounts for 95% -98% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 could account for 2%-5% or so, depending of whom you ask.

The above are just "some" of the natural factors that affect the climate on Earth, yet people are being told that "CO2 is the most powerful and important ghg" when that is not true.

So, I ask you, exactly what were you trying to imply when you seemed to have twisted my statement implying that the TSI graph I gave was the most recent one and making up your own conclusion?...

originally posted by: Greven


I believe the critique is extrapolating results from a very narrow study. Consider what that paper was about:
1) Summer temperatures
2) northern Scandinavia

It seems to show that summers in northern Scandinavia are getting slightly cooler. One season of four, one area of many. Recall that, if the Gulf Stream breaks down as a result of diminished salinity of the oceans (due to freshwater influx from melting land ice, which itself would be due to increased global temperatures), Europe would suffer considerably cooler temperatures.

There are many other papers from all over the globe that show correlation to some extent. But, just as the climate changes have been occurring recently, not all areas warm at the same time. Some areas experience cooling, and others warming.

As for the salinity of the oceans diminishing... Well, this has happened quite a few times in the past. The Little Ice Age event after the Medieval Warm period was a similar event, but in this case the lack of sunspots from our Sun was the major casual factor which caused temperatures to drop so dramatically in Europe. But guess what? People adapted, life moved on, and it will continue doing so. These events are going to happen. No matter what we do, they will happen sooner or later, and all we can do is get prepared to adapt to the changes, as people of ancient civilizations had to adapt to the new climate change.

It's a really bad idea to be so close to the coast as these are the areas more susceptible to climate change.

Anyway, if you want to see the temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, and what these events did globally. you might get the bigger picture.

People need to learn that to understand the factors that influences the climate on Earth, we have to compile them, puting them together and looking at the biggest picture.

originally posted by: jrod
CO2 emissions are a major problem because they are the product of combustion.

Let a vital chemical in your body experienced in 40% in a very short amount of time, do you think your body would simply adapt?

This planet has vital signs. CO2 is one of many.

atmospheric CO2 is nothing more than a scapegoat, a convenient one. The Earth has adapted to this changes. All we can do is adapt and make the best of it. Also, please try to stay alert

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No. Way off the mark. What kind of background do you have in atmospheric chemistry to make such a claim?

CO2 is one of this planet's vital signs.

40% rise in CO2 in a few hundred years is a major problem!

a reply to: Greven

You asserting a claim here, that the disparity in the numbers is from natural sources. Back it up or back off of it.

Naughty, naughty... you didn't read the entire thread. Please go back and read page 15 and 16, specifically raymunduko's comments, here is a link to one of them - HERE - so I'm sorry, but I don't need to assert this claim, raymunduko already did and you should have read the entire thread and come prepared before trying to call me out on something that someone else already demonstrated to be accurate. I went and looked at his sources and arrived at the same conclusion. Might you do the same?

Please cite the records in question, not an offhand remark by anyone.

You are taking what I said out of context, because what I was pointing out was the statement that we have been steadily at 280ppm since before the Industrial Revolution. That simply is not true and is one of the biggest myths that alarmists use to put their stake into the AGW ground.

So are YOU trying to say that CO2 never hit 600ppm or higher? Not ever? There is a great paper from Plimer that I would suggest you look at. Of course, you'll use more references from Skeptical Science to try and refute instead of citing real people and papers, like you so hypocritically ask others for, but I highly recommend you go read the paper.

I would normally not ever use a link from Skeptical Science, but they can't argue the findings either, only to say:

When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are

While you are at it, maybe you should look at Robert Berner's GEOCARB data (the records you are asking for). Specifically, go look at what CO2 was during the glacial periods, where glaciers formed when CO2 was in the THOUSANDS of ppm. (believed to be at least 1000ppm or so, but estimates as high as 9000ppm) This is not disputed and is recognized by many of the warming sites. While the exact CO2 levels are not guaranteed to be spot on, they are used and cited in numerous papers as a reliable source of data for prehistoric estimates.

Regarding " 180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS," see this helpful site, where you can see several writings critiquing that paper. One is scholarly, while others are perhaps less so.

Your "helpful site" is a an AGW skeptic site, no different than Skeptical Science. In fact, it uses Skeptical Science in a large majority of its references. I'm sorry, for SkS is a known AGW advocate and is also known for being very unfriendly towards anyone who disputes them. The one reference on that page in regards to Beck that you pointed to, is from Keeling, who has a lot to defend because Beck points out in that paper that Keeling's family owns the monopoly on all CO2 measuring instruments around the world as well as the method of removing "noise" from the data. But I'm sure you'll say that has nothing to do with the science he brought forth, or use that to dismiss Beck's findings by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Regarding "50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauana Lao," Please look over this extensive critique of that work.

You know what's funny and oddly ironic about the link you provided? It's from Ferdinand Englebeen, who is a KNOWN AGW SKEPTIC! He occasionally agrees with AGW findings, but not the general premise that humans are warming the earth.

A few things worth pointing out is that his material, while very well-written, is not published anywhere, nor is it peer-reviewed. While he is a very intelligent and knowledgeable person on climate and CO2, the link you provided is his interpretation of things and other folks have poked holes in his findings as well. (as is typical amongst these crowds) If you actually read what he wrote, he is not refuting Beck's entire paper, only pointing out certain discrepancies. He still acknowledges and validates a lot of Beck's findings. He also doesn't believe that humans are the main contributors to warming and that whatever we do contribute to CO2 will be beneficial to the planet more than harmful.

Dr. Happer is a physicist well-known for being a skeptic on AGW. Why should I care what you claim he says about a tiny spot of land at a particular time of day in regards to the atmospheric record? What relevance is there? There's an atmospheric phenomenon called a heat burst, which is a localized extreme temperature event, but you don't see atmospheric scientists quoting that as proof of AGW.

Wait... I'm supposed to care about all of the things you say, and the evidence you present, but you immediately dismiss someone who understands more about how molecules and particles behave than you or I, simply because he is a skeptic? Why should you care? Why should I care what you say? Because I'm a scientist at heart, and I'm not asking you for "proof" of AGW, that isn't science. I'm asking for EVIDENCE. There is EVIDENCE that goes against AGW, and just like a criminal case, it only takes one piece of evidence of testimony to show that someone is NOT guilty. There is enough evidence to show that humans are NOT guilty of the climate and current warming.

The simple fact that temperature rises before CO2 is basic cause-and-effect science. Temperature preceding a rise in CO2 means the temperature increase is the most likely cause of the rise in CO2. Why the temperature is increasing should be the most important thing to understand right now, and not what we can do to change it (we can't) but what we can do to adapt, which is our only choice.

Your example of Uranium is what I'm stating above. Evidence will change, which is what helps science evolve. The "consensus" you refer to, and peer-review that you believe is consensus, is NOT EMPIRICAL, which is how science operates. When there is evidence that allows for reproduction of an experiment or observation that can be validated, it is considered true until evidence is presented to the contrary. If only ONE SCIENTIST can disprove it, and their findings validated, the theory is changed. It isn't supposed to be "thrown away", that is the unfortunate consequence of politics and money being involved. Good science is good science, regardless if a majority agrees.

The flat earth comment, as I said before, you are using as a strawman here. It's to demonstrate a blind faith, in absence of facts or ignorance of them, to represent the similar nature of AGW and its proponents.

As I said above, the temperature increases before CO2. Plenty of evidence to support it. Cause and effect. Basic science.

But if you need more...

- The OP!!! NOAA changing data... (admitted by NOAA and corrected)
- ClimateGate (admitted by CRU)
- 15 years of no distinct warming (acknowledged by the IPCC)
- The Himalayan glacier blunder? Remember that, where a "typo" of 35 years instead of 350 was made to say the glacier was going to disappear by 2035? IPCC source
- No "hotspot" occurred.
- Models were WRONG!!!

~Namaste

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Could you point out where I wrote that the Total Solar Irradiance graph that I gave was the most recent one?...
...
So, I ask you, exactly what were you trying to imply when you seemed to have twisted my statement implying that the TSI graph I gave was the most recent one and making up your own conclusion?...

If you will recall, your post was in response to defcon5, whose post was a rebuttal of FarleyWayne's claim that other planets in the Solar System were warming along with the Earth. The implication from that is, of course, that the Sun is what is driving warming on our planet. This is easily disproven, as defcon5 rightly pointed out.

Your response to that response claims otherwise:

It wasn't disproven. You just need to understand what the graph shows and what has actually been happening.

Which you followed with a bunch of graphs over a brief time period seemingly showing an increase in Total Solar Irradiance. What you were mostly writing was about the small trending increase in TSI during lower periods of solar activity.

That's misleading in a few ways:
1) You're not actually backing up what you claimed in your opening statement.
2) You respond to a post with a chart that ends in 2009 (and begins much earlier) with far older data.
3) You're writing about another thing only tangentially related.
4) You are presenting many graphs from the tangent in a response to something else.
5) You mix your words frequently in the post

There's no twisting of anything here except by you. Even in this post, you go off on another tangent - and I will not respond to such.