We have added carbon to the atmosphere the extent not seen in 15 million years.
If the humongous amounts of CO2 that we've been churning into the atmosphere (esp. via plane trips to Africa & back) are responsible for current global warming, just what caused global warming during the MWP a thousand years ago, when temps are documented to be even warmer than they are today?
What about the fact that, out of the last 10,500 years,
9100 years have been warmer than the golden trio in warmists eyes, 1934/1998/2010?
What. Caused. That?
It might be. There are a number of peer reviewed papers out there that show after you get past the fudged data, the urban heat islands, the poor placement of thermometers, etc., etc., etc., that the recent warming disappears into noise in the data.
There is also more & more peer reviewed research pointing to natural causes for the periodicity of climate (both warming & cooling, the sun being the main one).
There is also peer reviewed research out there to indicate we may actually be on the verge of a short (20-40 years) cooling spell, part of the next cycle.
I know, I know. Warmists predicted that, just like they say that floods, earthquakes, and other natural, unrelated phenomena are caused by global warming.
There are some really cute games out there right now running on some multi million dollar computers that, if you average the results of all 32 (both the negatives & the positives), there is an indicator that man
may be responsible for some warming. However,
nobody can tell you how much man is responsible for.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA (you've heard of them. That's where your bud James Hansen promulgates his warmist blog on the taxpayers dime from), has an
observation I'd like to share with you:
In fact, NO ONE HAS YET FOUND A WAY WITH OBSERVATIONAL DATA TO TEST CLIMATE MODEL SENSITIVITY. This means we have no idea which of the climate models projections are more likely to come true.
This dirty little secret of the climate modeling community is seldom mentioned outside the community. Don’t tell anyone I told you.
Oooops! OK, Roy, I promise not to let the cat out of the bag... (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)
It won't stop getting warmer even if we stop adding C02
Man, you batted that one out of the park! Home run! Grand slam, even!!!
Why? Because there are factors orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic green house gases which actually do affect climate.
Like, say, old Sol himself?
Besides, if it's that far out of whack, we may as well party like it's 1947.
It won't reverse in anything like human time scales
Actually, it will. Even your short 60 odd years have experienced both warming & cooling cycles.
Just what is so hard to comprehend in those simple facts ?
Nothing. Nothing at all. It's pretty obvious to many (more by the day, actually) that the concept of AGW is a fallacy promoted by many to preserve grant monies and perpetrated by socialist organizations like the UN (read: IPCC) to facilitate the transfer of wealth.
Oh, didn't you get the
memo?
Why not move on past the obvious reality of AGW to the very difficult task of dealing with climate regime that within a few decades will move far out of anything humans have experienced since the last ice age....
a benign relatively stable climate regime that we have already moved out of.
Dude...it ain't been proven, yet. That's why.
Take your climate models (a glorified set of computer games with a programmer's built in bias) out of the equation & what you got?
Nuttin'
Sorry.
And what do you mean by benign? It snowed some the last little while. The sun shone some the last little while?
Records broke? Records get broke all the time.
What's changed?
THere is no contention of those facts except in the minds of a few cranks - certainly none in the active climate science community - consensus amongst climatologists has been long established and the role of C02 understood for over 100 years.
It just ain't a real MacDoc post unless there's some good, old-fashioned name calling. Thank you for not disappointing.
Isn't it interesting how some of these so called cranks have managed to get a peer reviewed paper or two published?
Tell ya what. I put a lot of links into the last two GHG threads, links that will take you to peer reviewed papers authored by people who don't agree with the warmist point of view.
Go find one, any one, take it to yer buddies on the hockey team & let them have at it.
I'll wait for the results here. No, really. Go ahead.
Or, I can pick one for you. Your call, either way.
One more thing: There is no such thing as consensus in science. Period. You start mouthing garbage like that & any semblance of credibility you may have had just went out the window.
Lessee, where were we? Ah, yes, cranks. Speaking of which, have you ever gone over the list of failed predictions from yer bud, the infamous & immortal
James Hansen?
Have a look. Oh, wait, here's one:
(This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America)
Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020. -- The Press-Courier (Milwaukee) June 11 1986
You just noted 6/10's of a degree. He said 6 degrees. Which is it?
You called me out on a guest post in GHG2 from yer bud Willie E because he lied or some such. What about the credentials of a soothsayer, er, climatologist who can't be any closer than a factor of 10?
It's as scientifically well founded as evolution.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that's a good one. Nice ad hominem attack cleverly disguised as a simile. Good work!
Of course some few don't get that either.
Oh, I got it, thx anyway.
I'm just glad that my relatives had the stones to climb out of the pond despite being told by some that the sky was falling & the world would end tomorrow if I didn't buy into the proper faith...
Had a couple of them doomsayers show up at the door just last week, actually.
Great fun, them proselytizers, no?