The global warming / climate change we're seeing in the last 100 or so years is MUCH different from anything measured in the glacial & sea sediment records covering the last 700,000 years. CO2 is rising 100x faster, and temps 10x faster.
"How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?" https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
How is today's CO2 increase different? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide "The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."
Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
We have 700,000 years of climate data, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from sea floor sediments. https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores CO2 & methane & temp data The most salient thing about the 800,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.
@sunsporter1649 LOL, we have tree ring data for the 1700s from all over the planet, LOL.
LOL, the really old stuff is all recoverable from ice cores, corroborated by sea floor sediments, LOL. Which you would already know if you had even skimmed what I posted, LOL.
@sunsporter1649 Fair question. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 [i]billion[/i] per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe [i]none[/i] of that money goes to propaganda, are you?
@ElwoodBlues "Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
"Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for decades. But the British-born, Princeton-based professor has gained notoriety for his "heretical" views on climate change. While he does acknowledge the mechanism by which man-made greenhouse gasses can influence the climate, he claims current models are way too simplistic to capture what's really going on in the real world. In March, he was featured in the NYT Magazine for his controversial views."
Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community.
"Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh is the author of Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe."
Australian professor Ian Plimer is the author of Heaven + Earth, a book that purports to debunk all of the major global warming "myths."
Patrick Michaels is a CATO scholar and a GMU professor who's widely quoted as a global warming skeptic. His basic belief is that we're in a long-term warming trend and that Carbon Dioxoide has got little to do with it, as each additional greenhouse gas molecule has less and less of an effect.
Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume. In an interview, he laughed off man-made climate change as nonsense and a money-making industry for the green lobby, which approaches the subject with a religious fervor.
@sunsporter1649 [quote]You got some reading to do, bub[/quote] Yep, there are a few scientists - who still get published BTW - who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. About 3% in fact. So for each skeptic I read, will you read 30 authors whose research confirms global warming?
Right now you're just cherrypicking among the 3%. Will you read a fair share of the 97%?
[quote]J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 studies all 11,944 peer reviewed climatology abstracts from from 1991–2011. "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."[/quote]
@ElwoodBlues Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.
What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.
Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.
This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.
But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.
That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.
That's not what NOAA does.
According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.
Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.
What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.
As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, "Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."
So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.
This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.
But after the NOAA's wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.
Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.
Erasing Winter By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.
"Clearly NOAA's highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data," writes Homewood. "And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?"
That's the big question. And for those who think that government officials don't have political, cultural or other agendas, that's naivete of the highest sort. They do.
Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies' statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.
"The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary," wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart's Big Government. "Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data."
There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.
That's one way to bring greater honesty to government — and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won't be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.
@sunsporter1649 Nice cherrypicking! Odd that you would copypasta all that and not reveal a link to its biased source. Except you left in "wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart's Big Government."
I started to look up your sources. Freeman Dyson doesn't deny anthropogenic global warming; he just says long term it's worth the price of all the sea level rise. He's not actually a climate skeptic.
Have any of your skeptics tried to construct a quantitative climate model? Here's a bit for you about a skeptical Berkeley physics prof who did:
[quote]"Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming," Muller wrote. "Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."[/quote] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/converted-contrarian-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change/
@sunsporter1649 [quote]Ivar Giaever is a retired professor formerly with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s department of physics. In 1973 Giaever shared the Nobel Prize for physics with Leo Esakis for their discovery of electron tunnelling in superconductors; work Giaever had done while working with General Electric (GE).[/quote] Impressive work by Dr Giaever, but it has nothing to do with climate modeling. He quit the American Physical Society over its stance on global warming, but all the other Nobelists in the APS support anthropogenic global warming. If you're simply going to count Nobel Prizes, the skeptics lose.
BTW, the American Chemical Society - who also have quite a few Nobelists among their membership - also support the thesis of anthropogenic global warming, just like the APS.
@sunsporter1649 Turns out Patrick J. Michaels is a recipient of some of that big oil money I mentioned. BTW, he doesn't even have a PhD. He's just a paid shill although he tries to hide that fact.
[quote]In a leaked 2006 memo of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), Michaels is listed as a recipient of at least $100,000 from IREA to combat global warming “alarmists.” The IREA memo outlines a coordinated strategy by Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michaels, and other key groups. “We have met with Koch, CEI and Dr. Michaels, and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities,” NERA‘s General Manager Stan Lewandowski wrote.[/quote]
@sunsporter1649 So far you've shown me elderly scientists, retired, in their dotage, who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. And a few paid shills.
Time to show me, like I asked for above, some folks who built a quantitative climate model that both accurately back-casts our previous seven ice ages and also forecasts something different than sea level rise that will flood trillions many dollars worth of cities built by the sea.
Climate science these days is conducted by building models that run on supercomputers. And you have no model builders.
@sunsporter1649 Wrong. Look up Dr, Muller, mentioned above. How many of your skeptics have links to big oil money like your Patrick J. Michaels? How many more, like Dr Dyson, accept anthropogenic global warming but think it's worth the cost? You don't care.
Detailed climate models account for many variables. They are verified and calibrated based on 700,000 years of prior climate data. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html How many of your skeptics bothered to account for all those variables?
Answer: none. Because they never built models. The way to prove a model wrong is to build a better model. That's how science works. I'm still waiting for [i]any[/i] model by an AGW skeptic.
@ElwoodBlues GLOBAL WARMING MYTH DEBUNKED: HUMANS HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON ATMOSPHERE’S CARBON DIOXIDE AND CLIMATE FEBRUARY 14, 2019 By Jay Lehr, Tom Harris Global warming activists argue carbon-dioxide emissions are destroying the planet, but the climate impacts of carbon dioxide are minimal, at worst.
Global warming activists argue carbon-dioxide emissions are destroying the planet, but the climate impacts of carbon dioxide are minimal, at worst. Activists would also have you believe fossil-fuel emissions have driven carbon-dioxide concentrations to their highest levels in history. The Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency went so far as to classify carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant, and it established a radical goal of closing all of America’s coal-fired power plants.
Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history. Relative to Earth’s entire record, carbon-dioxide levels are at historically low levels; they only appear high when compared to the dangerously low levels of carbon dioxide that occurred in Earth’s very recent history. The geologic record reveals carbon dioxide has almost always been in Earths’ atmosphere in much greater concentrations than it is today. For example, 600 million years ago, when history’s greatest birth of new animal species occurred, atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations exceeded 6,500 parts per million (ppm) — an amount that’s 17 times greater than it is today.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is currently only 410 parts per million. That means only 0.04 percent of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide (compared to 0.03 percent one century ago). Only one molecule in 2,500 is carbon dioxide. Such levels certainly do not pose a health risk, as carbon-dioxide levels in our naval submarines, which stay submerged for months at a time, contain an average carbon-dioxide concentration of 5,000 ppm.
The geologic record is important because it reveals relationships between carbon-dioxide levels, climate, and life on Earth. Over billions of years, the geologic record shows there is no long-term correlation between atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels and Earth’s climate. There are periods in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide concentrations were many times higher than they are today, yet temperatures were identical to, or even colder than, modern times. The claim that fossil-fuel emissions control atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations is also invalid, as atmospheric concentrations have gone up and down in the geological record, even without human influence.
The absurdity of climate alarmism claims gets even stranger when you consider there are 7.5 billion people on our planet who, together, exhale 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 10 percent of total fossil-fuel emissions every year. However, we are but a single species. Combined, people and all domesticated animals contribute 10 billion tons.
Further, 9 percent of carbon-dioxide emissions from all living things arise not from animals, but from anaerobic bacteria and fungi. These organisms metabolize dead plant and animal matter in soil via decay processes that recycle carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. The grand total produced by all living things is estimated to be 440 billion tons per year, or 13 times the amount of carbon dioxide currently being produced by fossil-fuel emissions. Fossil-fuel emissions are less than 10 percent of biological emissions. Are you laughing yet?
Every apocalyptic pronouncement you hear or read is nothing short of insanity. Their primary goal is not to save plants, humans, or animals, but rather to use climate “dangers” as a justification for centralizing power in the hands of a select few.
[Originally Published at Western Journal]
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. is science director of The Heartland Institute. Jay Lehr Jay Lehr is an internationally renowned speaker, scientist, Senior Policy Advisor with the International Climate Science Coalition and Senior Science Analyst at CFACT.
Tom Harris Tom Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition
@sunsporter1649 [quote]Claims of unprecedented carbon-dioxide levels ignore most of Earth’s 4.6-billion-year history.[/quote] Dr Lehr is misleading you by barking up the wrong tree. Yes, we've had high levels of CO2 in our 4.6 billion years of history. And during those periods there's much less ice at the poles, thus much higher sea levels. Life on earth will continue, no prob.
But silly humans built most of their major cities next to the ocean. There's many tens of trillions of dollars worth of structures that would be flooded by that sea level rise. You're not going to pay to mitigate that flooding, and neither is Dr Lehr.
[quote]The geologic record is important because it reveals relationships between carbon-dioxide levels, climate, and life on Earth.[/quote] Agreed. Notice how Dr Lehr accepts the CO2 estimates from the AGW community? He's not claiming garbage in, is he? In fact, few of your scientists are claiming garbage in. You'll have to drop that claim if you want to cite your favorite scientists.
[quote]However, we are but a single species. Combined, people and all domesticated animals contribute 10 billion tons.[/quote] the carbon dioxide we exhale does not contribute to global warming for the simple reason that we also take up an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide from the air, via photosynthesis. Animal & fungal life on the planet stays in balance because the carbon we exhale came from the carbon we ate which came from the air. Dr Lehr forgot to mention that inconvenient fact.
Why would you trust someone who pushes easily falsifiable claims like that breathing claim???
[quote] Their primary goal is not to save plants, humans, or animals, but rather to use climate “dangers” as a justification for centralizing power in the hands of a select few.[/quote] [b]WRONG!!![/b] The primary goal is to prevent extremely costly flooding of near sea level cities, thus preserving very valuable human infrastructure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Here's a clue for you: when someone spends so much of their time imputing nasty motives to their opposition, it's because they don't have the science to back up their claims.
@sunsporter1649 BTW, Dr Lehr has a PhD and has done real science. I showed you above what's wrong with his claims.
Mr Harris, on the other hand, is a paid shill: [quote]According to Harris’s archived profile at APCO Worldwide, “Specifically, he has worked with oil and gas, coal, nuclear, environmental and aerospace clients for whom he has conducted effective media and public relations campaigns.” His profile also highlights how he has “worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before various government committees and regulatory bodies.”[/quote] Remember when I told you about that $3.6 billion big oil spends on public relations? They spent a fair amount trying to re-shape public opinion. I know you're a fan of "follow the money," but please be sure to also follow the money of the folks who agree with you.
I'm gonna say goodnight now, but I've enjoyed having an actual meeting of the minds with you.
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP That .7C figure refers to "the past century alone," and the key point is that it's roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. See [b]https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php[/b] for more context.
@ElwoodBlues right, that 1.1C figure is since the Industrial Revolution, which is 3x the past century. That means in 1/3 the time we've managed to contribute 63% of the increase
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html
