Is global warming even real?

vyuyat.gif
So why not start the graph in 20,000 BC when half of the World was under a glacier?

Answer, because this tells the real story.

PS. As an interesting anecdote, on the year that graph started in 1970, and for every year after, the sea ice around Antarctica, has increased, to the record levels that we have now.

Please refute, if not true.
 
Ah, there are no records from 800,000 BC, that do not need to be INTERPRETED BY A HUMAN MIND.

Prove me wrong?

I dare you?
What you seem to fail to understand is that although there were no people around at 800,000 BC there are a number of perfectly reasonable proxies which show relatively straight forward relationships with temperature - isotope chemistry is one such example.
 
and also, there was this little sentence involved, " need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.
then it goes on to say " So in essence their stance is that global warming has stopped, but needs to continue the non warming trend for twice as along (and twice as long as the previous warming trend 1980 – 1996) to break the trend. "
Nice to see the IPCC has caught up with me...
 
What you seem to fail to understand is that although there were no people around at 800,000 BC there are a number of perfectly reasonable proxies which show relatively straight forward relationships with temperature - isotope chemistry is one such example.
I know there were no people then, it is the people now who create the false image, and manipulate data for the sake of the almighty grant.
 
He's referring to the Milankovich cycles, which pretty much predict the earth should be entering a cooling phase, not a warming one.
That is what I said, that his own cycle predicts a new ice age, at any time. So in 100, 200 or a thousand years we could well be building CO2 creation factories to warm the Earth..........

Reality, is seldom what you know, and never what you are sure of.
 
But would current life forms (you and me) have developed without the global warming that melted the snowball?
That's beside the point.

Your statement implied that the snowball earth was recent, it wasn't.
Your statement implied the earth has warmed since then, while this is technically correct, temperatures in the Jurassic were substantially higher than they are now. Would mamals have been able to evolve in the 30 °C average temps of the Devonian. I could just as easily argue that the earth has been cooling for the last 4.5 billion years so we should be especially concerned by the recent warming trend.
 
actually, check it out, it's not what , i at least, expected. i'm still trying to find more data on it.
I've been saying for at least the last 3 or 4 years that the current trends would have to continue for between 30 and 70 years for the residual error to be <= 0.
 
That's beside the point.

Your statement implied that the snowball earth was recent, it wasn't.
Your statement implied the earth has warmed since then, while this is technically correct, temperatures in the Jurassic were substantially higher than they are now. Would mamals have been able to evolve in the 30 °C average temps of the Devonian. I could just as easily argue that the earth has been cooling for the last 4.5 billion years so we should be especially concerned by the recent warming trend.
It is not beside any point, as you are one of the life forms, that was created by the gift of global warming. You may prove me wrong, by moving to the South Pole.
 
That is what I said, that his own cycle predicts a new ice age, at any time. So in 100, 200 or a thousand years we could well be building CO2 creation factories to warm the Earth..........

Reality, is seldom what you know, and never what you are sure of.
It's not 'his' cycle. You really are clueless aren't you?

The milankovich cycles:
575px-MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png


The currently accepted hypothesis is that there are two effects at play that govern earths climate. ALL climate models start with the amount of sunlight the earth receives and proceed from there. Orbital variations and polar wandering combine to change the average amount of sunlight the earth receives at various times of year and therefore the average temperature. If you want to know what difference polar wander might make, stop and imagine, for a minute, what the climate in the northern hemisphere would be like if perihelion co-incided with the northern hemisphere summer (instead of its winter) and aphelion co-incided with northern hemispheres winter.
 
It is not beside any point, as you are one of the life forms, that was created by the gift of global warming. You may prove me wrong, by moving to the South Pole.

It is completely beside the point. If you genuinely think that then you should disprove it by moving into a volcano - which is almost as absurd as the point you're making.

After all, could you and I really exist without the global cooling since the Devonian, or the Hadean?
 
It's not 'his' cycle. You really are clueless aren't you?

The milankovich cycles:
575px-MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png


The currently accepted hypothesis is that there are two effects at play that govern earths climate. ALL climate models start with the amount of sunlight the earth receives and proceed from there. Orbital variations and polar wandering combine to change the average amount of sunlight the earth receives at various times of year and therefore the average temperature. If you want to know what difference polar wander might make, stop and imagine, for a minute, what the climate in the northern hemisphere would be like if perihelion co-incided with the northern hemisphere summer (instead of its winter) and aphelion co-incided with northern hemispheres winter.

He inferred the cycle here first, so he introduced this into the conversation. And again there are no computer models, that can predict the weather in Kansas City for June 8th next Summer, can your model do that? But of course it can predict the future long after that. Ok, if you say so, and again if not for Global warming, New York state would be under hundreds to thousands of feet of ice, so without the Big Apple, we would not have Broadway and thus no--->
 
He inferred the cycle here first, so he introduced this into the conversation.
No he didn't - any discussion of climate change neccessarily involves a discussion of the milankovich cycles.

And again there are no computer models, that can predict the weather in Kansas City for June 8th next Summer, can your model do that?
Weather is not the same as climate.

Ok, if you say so, and again if not for Global warming, New York state would be under hundreds to thousands of feet of ice, so without the Big Apple, we would not have Broadway and thus no--->
And if not for global cooling it'd still be under hundreds of feet of water, or worse, lava, so there'd still be no broadway.
 
Global Warming is a "killer of bears" - not just polar but grizzly bears too:
But great for us Tree Beetles.
2899
xv4e873714.jpg

Look what we did! Lets do more! We can, yes we can.
2888
Humans are stupid, but we beetles thank you for burning fossil fuels. Make more eggs, mommy!
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread759216/pg1 said:
The trees spanning many of the mountainsides of western Montana glow an earthy red, like a broadleaf forest at the beginning of autumn. But these trees are not supposed to turn red. They are evergreens, falling victim to beetles that used to be controlled in part by bitterly cold winters. As the climate warms, scientists say, that control is no longer happening. Across millions of acres, the pines of the northern and central Rockies are dying, just one among many types of forests that are showing signs of distress these days.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-tiny-beetle-thats-killing-222817946.html said:
It's hard to think of too many animals that could take out a grizzly bear. At nearly 1,000 pounds and standing up to eight feet tall on its hind legs, the razor-toothed beast seems immune to all but the fiercest of contenders — and yet, one of the
biggest threats to grizzlies is tiny - the mountain pine beetle.

This little insect looks harmless enough, and in fact it's a native species in North America. The pine beetle roams everywhere from New Mexico north to Canada, and it's killed more than 70,000 square miles of trees in the last decade, alone. — Forests that grizzlies rely on for food. Helped along by rising temperatures and a drier climate, expressions of global climate change, the beetle is expanding its range and devastating forests throughout the western half of the country.
Here's how they do it: Adult pine beetles burrow under the outer bark of conifer trees and lay their eggs. Later, these eggs hatch into hungry beetle larvae, which chow down on the tender inner bark, causing serious damage and often death to the tree. This is bad news for the grizzly bear, which feeds on one of the beetle's favorite targets: the whitebark pine. Whitebark seeds are a major source of calories for grizzly bears, particularly in the fall before they go into hibernation.

While global climate change is a major threat to plants and animals all over the world, the mountain pine beetle is actually benefiting from rising temperatures. Recent research, including a study published in the journal Ecology and a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that the beetles thrive in warmer temperatures and with less rainfall, two expected impacts of climate change in the western US. This is already apparent, as scientists have noticed the beetles reproducing earlier and spreading farther than ever before, leading to more frequent and severe infestations around the West.

As the climate continues to become warmer and drier, pine beetles will likely continue to multiply and expand their range, which is bad news for conifer forests and the vulnerable grizzlies. Although bears are good at adapting to food shortages and finding other things to eat, this ability often drives them close to human civilization in search of snacks — but end up facing a hunter's gun instead.
Surprisingly, these beetles are NOT why large forest fires are now more common (Forest more a source of CO2 than a sink) It is the warmer and drying weather that is the cause. Soot from these fire is lowering the albedo of ice covered Greenland, etc. so larger forest fires are part of two different positive feed-back systems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's referring to the Milankovich cycles, which pretty much predict the earth should be entering a cooling phase, not a warming one.

ah, but then, we have the superinterglacials of ms 11, 31, 49, 55, 77, 87, 91, and 93 which all lasted 25kyrs or longer.
The lake elgygytgyn team claimed that they were unexplained via any known climate mechanism or model.
But they happened none-the-less.
We just may be ignorant of something important beyond the milankovich cycles.

Could mis 1 be another super-interglacial?
 
Could mis 1 be another super-interglacial?
Sure. That would not explain the rapid warming, counter to all known natural factors, of the past couple of hundred years, of course.

Those big cycles take thousands of years to play out.
 
Yes. AGW is real, and getting worse with price of oil in steep decline:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2780575-americas-suv-sales-boom-vs-teslas-negative-growth-rate?ifp=0 said:
•For the first 11 months of 2014, Tesla's US unit sales are estimated to be down 15%.
•As a comparison, I provide 27 examples of SUVs with strong or extremely strong US unit sales increases for the same period.
•Almost all of these 27 SUVs also sell more cars per year in the US, compared to Tesla.
 
ah, but then, we have the superinterglacials of ms 11, 31, 49, 55, 77, 87, 91, and 93 which all lasted 25kyrs or longer.
The lake elgygytgyn team claimed that they were unexplained via any known climate mechanism or model.
But they happened none-the-less.
We just may be ignorant of something important beyond the milankovich cycles.

Could mis 1 be another super-interglacial?

Does CO₂ absorb heat? If so, then does human activity affect the climate?
 
Back
Top