Has the world actually been cooling since 2002?

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

Between 100,000 years BP and 10,000 years BP, CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations in the atmosphere went down, from around 300 ppm to about 100 ppm.

False.

Since the mid-Pliocene Transition, CO2 has varied in a narrow band between 180 and about 280 ppm. These transitions take a minimum of 5000-10000 years for the up-cycle, and tens of thousands of years for the down-cycle. We’ve shot it up from 280 to 400 in a few hundred years, most of it in the past 100, and basically sent it right off the chart of natural geophysical cycles.

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

What does pseudoscience have to do with trained profession meteorologists reading state-of-the-art calibrated thermometers?

Missing the point, cherry picking (of good data), refusing to look at what climate scientists tell us because they are “into a conspiracy”, and repeating errors ad naseam are qualities of a pseudoscience.

What is clear is what the American Meteorological Society has to say on the matter:

American Meteorological Society

The website of The American Meteorological Society has the following statement about climate change.[12]

"Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

    "Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years."

As for the rest, **wolfpup **got it.

[Esco]

After Climategate, are some of you still seriously still buying into the global warming hype???

[GIGObuster]

@Esco

After Climategate, are some of you still seriously still buying into the global warming hype???

Climategate was a false scandal. Believing on that after all the investigations and the science not being affected you are only showing your ignorance.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate"...

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
[ul]
[li]A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.[/li][li] Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."[/li][li] A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.[/li][li] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General’s office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.[/li][li] The National Science Foundation’s Inspector General’s office concluded, “Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct…we are closing this investigation with no further action.”[/li][/ul]

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

[ul]
[li]The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.[/li][li] Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.[/li][li] Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as “false.”[/li][li] An Associated Press review of the emails found that they “don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”[/li][/ul]

BTW, virtually all scientific organizations with connections to the issue like the American Meteorological Society still tell us that this is no hype, the sources that are still pushing the old reheated baloney of “climate gate” are misleading you.

[Esco]

^^^^ I’ll take that as a ‘yes’…LOL

[GIGObuster]

@Esco

^^^^ I’ll take that as a ‘yes’…LOL

So, you will not deal with the investigations nor you will take the sources that mislead you to task, I’m not surprised.

[magellan01]

@Esco

After Climategate, are some of you still seriously still buying into the global warming hype???

How beautifully Pavlovian of you.

[FXMastermind]

It’s like clockwork.

[watchwolf49]

@wolfpup

False.

So, you’re saying this graph demonstrates that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels never go down.

@wolfpup

No one is “speculating”. This function doesn’t create a “sine wave”.

@watchwolf49

Do you have a reference for this equation? The link is to Wikipedia and they don’t give one. Specifically, where did the scalar 5.35 come from?

Perhaps you missed this query.

@GIGObuster

Missing the point, cherry picking (of good data), refusing to look at what climate scientists tell us because they are “into a conspiracy”, and repeating errors ad naseam are qualities of a pseudoscience.

How am I cherry picking the data … did I leave out 1923 or 1957?

[magellan01]

Just came across this and thought I’d share it. My apologies if it’s been shared already.

An excerpt:

The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.’

GIGO, why does Dr. Patrick Moore hate the earth. First, this Co-Founder of Greenpeace exits the organization, leaving the earth to fend for itself. And now…THIS! :eek:

[watchwolf49]

‘Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’

I love it …

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Just came across this and thought I’d share it. My apologies if it’s been shared already.

An excerpt:
GIGO, why does Dr. Patrick Moore hate the earth. First, this Co-Founder of Greenpeace exits the organization, leaving the earth to fend for itself. And now…THIS! :eek:

**Now **this? This is old, he is just repeating mistakes and he loves Gish gallops.

Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change
And some people call us ‘alarmists’!!

The excerpt comes from a recent piece in the Conservative-leaning Washington Times, to which links are being circulated in the certain quarters of the Blogosphere. The source? Patrick Moore - not the famous TV astronomer, but a former early member of Greenpeace, with which he was involved at various levels between 1971 and 1986, before leaving the organization to take up salmon-farming in British Columbia and then going on to become involved in PR consultancy for various industries. He managed to exasperate his former organization sufficiently to have a press release dedicated to him in 2008, and two years later he came under journalistGeorge Monbiot’s beady eye in this article, published in The Guardian. Now he’s back, with an interview entitled ‘Patrick Moore on the facts and fiction of climate change’. Reading down the page, beyond the paragraph from which the above statement was taken, one is treated to a classic example of a well-known debating tactic, the so-called Gish-Gallop. As this is a frequently used ploy by fake-sceptics, it’s worth using this example to explore what a Gish-Gallop is and how it works.

In conclusion, this is a barrage of meaningless arm-waving that links a series of statements that are almost entirely incorrect. It’s political rhetoric, in other words, but rhetoric that does not stand up to scrutiny. However, this is not the first example of such from this source. In researching the background to this post, I discovered that Moore’s opinings were being highlighted over at Climate Depot, a website that likes to disseminate climate change misinformation. There, I found another set of Moore quotes from a month or so earlier. Take a look at this:

“There is no ‘abrupt’ increase in CO2 absorption, it is gradual as CO2 levels rise and plants become less stressed by low CO2 levels. At 150 ppm CO2 all plants would die, resulting in virtual end of life on earth.”

This is repeating a suggestion from James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, and - again - it is wrong. It is also irrelevant given that we have gone from 280 to nearly 400 ppm CO2 over the past 150 years and are still rising fast. Back to the science, and how plants respond to high (or low) carbon dioxide levels is an interesting enough topic to warrant a full post in its own right, given the amount of research that has been done in this field over recent years (hint - they do not die out at 150ppm), so stay tuned. In the meantime, the best advice would be to treat anything Patrick Moore says on climate change with due skepticism.

[yorick73]

Great…one more problem caused by global warming…RAPE

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

‘Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’

I love it …

You love higher food prices and famines due to droughts? And millions displaced in the future thanks to rising oceans?

What we should do is make moves to reduce the risks.

Effects - NASA Science

[wolfpup]

@Esco

After Climategate, are some of you still seriously still buying into the global warming hype???

I always enjoy reading a thorough evidence-based analysis of a scientific issue from an obviously informed source. :rolleyes:

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

So, you’re saying this graph demonstrates that CO[sub]2[/sub] levels never go down.

Is that what I said? No. I said CO2 levels have been behaving as in the indicated graph since the MPT 1.2 million years ago. Now they no longer are. Now, with abrupt suddenness following industrialization, CO2 levels are suddenly off the chart.

@watchwolf49

Perhaps you missed this query.

Do you have a reference for this equation? The link is to Wikipedia and they don’t give one. Specifically, where did the scalar 5.35 come from?

Sure they give a reference, and they explain it. 5.35 is the factor that gives a simple first-order approximation. You’ll find that it matches Fig. 1 in the referenced paper quite well, which contains a much more comprehensive analysis. Not sure what your point would be anyway --are you suggesting that the radiative forcing of CO2 is some sort of unproven hypothesis?

[wolfpup]

@magellan01

Just came across this and thought I’d share it. My apologies if it’s been shared already.

I assume you posted this for its humor value – and it IS pretty funny. If by some chance you think it needs to be taken seriously, let me know.

[watchwolf49]

@yorick73

Great…one more problem caused by global warming…RAPE

I recently read where global warming caused the major damage from the Japanese earthquake a few years ago. Seems it should only have been a 14.95 meter tsunami or some such. We really need to be afraid that … in a hundred years … tsunamis will be 16 meters tall.

@wolfpup

Is that what I said? No. I said CO2 levels have been behaving as in the indicated graph since the MPT 1.2 million years ago. Now they no longer are. Now, with abrupt suddenness following industrialization, CO2 levels are suddenly off the chart.

Sure they give a reference, and they explain it. 5.35 is the factor that gives a simple first-order approximation. You’ll find that it matches Fig. 1 in the referenced paper quite well, which contains a much more comprehensive analysis. Not sure what your point would be anyway --are you suggesting that the radiative forcing of CO2 is some sort of unproven hypothesis?

The question is why CO[sub]2[/sub] levels go down. GIGO claims they don’t. You’re throwing ratios around like that’s the cause of everything. (And thank you for the correct reference !!!) Is there a scientific reason CO[sub]2[/sub] disappears, or is it magic? I’m just asking …

[wolfpup]

@watchwolf49

The question is why CO[sub]2[/sub] levels go down. GIGO claims they don’t. You’re throwing ratios around like that’s the cause of everything. (And thank you for the correct reference !!!) Is there a scientific reason CO[sub]2[/sub] disappears, or is it magic? I’m just asking …

No magic. The level of CO2 (or technically, the carbon therein) is a function of balances between carbon sources and sinks. The level of atmospheric CO2 was balanced and remarkably steady for thousands of years before industrialization at around 280 ppm. On a larger timeframe, it cycled over periods of tens of thousands of years between the bounds of 180 and 280 ppm during the great ice age cycles of the geological modern era. On a timeframe of tens and hundreds of millions of years, as the whole planetary geophysics of the earth was gradually changing, there were much larger variations with no periodicity at all.

The questions about how and why CO2 levels change over time periods of a hundred years, ten thousand years, or a hundred million years are all entirely different and unrelated questions. To understand what happened when we first started burning fossil fuels in the pursuit of industrialization just a couple of hundred years ago, we need to understand the appropriate time scale. For a perspective on that, we need only look at the graph of 800Ky ice core records I already linked, and look at where CO2 is today.

[watchwolf49]

@wolfpup

The questions about how and why CO2 levels change over time periods of a hundred years, ten thousand years, or a hundred million years are all entirely different and unrelated questions.

So, your answer to my questions about how and why CO2 levels change over time periods of a hundred years, ten thousand years, or a hundred million years is that they are unrelated to the axe you’re grinding on. I know that, you choose to disavow any sinks and refuse to quantify these amounts.

Until we know how nature regulates CO[sub]2[/sub], we can’t assess man-kind’s contribution.