Man-made CO2 is not causing global warming

[BrainGlutton]

@Merijeek

Kennedy is dead. Dead DEAD DEAD! John Dillinger did it. I thought we all knew that.

-Joe

And why is the sacred amputated relic of Dillinger’s loins no longer on display at the Smithsonian?! WHY?!

It’s a CONSPIRACY!

[ClimateGuy]

@Sunrazor

And still, Al Gore makes more sense than both of you guys put together. I asked a simple question: “What does this mean to me?” You are unable, or unwilling, to answer it. Here’s a hint: My college degrees are in journalism and English, not in physics, math, meteorology, earth science or statistical analysis.

Question #1: Is the Earth getting warmer or not? (This is a YES or NO question, fellas!)
Question #2: If so, is this partly my fault or not? (Oh, guess what! Another YES or NO question!)

1. • The Earth has shown no significant or even perceptable tendencies towards warming nor cooling ober the past 11,000 years, essentially 0.00C +/-.
2. • It has nothing to do with you, you are part of the natural cycles of life on Earth.
3. • What is means to you is this. There is no reason what so ever to limit CO2 within the ranges we are talking about now or in the future. World population will become a much greater problem before CO2. Thus, spending resources, yours and mine, to curtail CO2 has no benefit since CO2 presents no discernable problem(s) relative to the natural cycles of the Earth.

[jshore]

@Sunrazor

Question #1: Is the Earth getting warmer or not? (This is a YES or NO question, fellas!)

Yes…The latest IPCC report says it is unequivocal that this is happening.

Question #2: If so, is this partly my fault or not? (Oh, guess what! Another YES or NO question!)

The latest IPCC report says that it is very likely (>90%) that the human-caused increases in greenhouse gases were responsible for most of the warming over the last half century.

Barring a cataclismic event such a large asteroid impact, we will almost certainly be the dominant cause of climate change in the 21st century.

[jshore]

@ClimateGuy

1. • The Earth has shown no significant or even perceptable tendencies towards warming nor cooling ober the past 11,000 years, essentially 0.00C +/-.
2. • It has nothing to do with you, you are part of the natural cycles of life on Earth.
3. • What is means to you is this. There is no reason what so ever to limit CO2 within the ranges we are talking about now or in the future. World population will become a much greater problem before CO2. Thus, spending resources, yours and mine, to curtail CO2 has no benefit since CO2 presents no discernable problem(s) relative to the natural cycles of the Earth.

You might as well add a fourth one here:

“4. I am completely freakin’ brilliant because I somehow understand the science and its implications better than the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in 10 other major countries (Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, …) who issued this [PDF file] joint statement that directly contradicts what I say.”

[BrainGlutton]

@ClimateGuy

2. • It has nothing to do with you, you are part of the natural cycles of life on Earth.

The second clause in that sentence does not support nor in any way relate to the first.

[Sunrazor]

@ClimateGuy

1. • The Earth has shown no significant or even perceptable tendencies towards warming nor cooling ober the past 11,000 years, essentially 0.00C +/-.
2. • It has nothing to do with you, you are part of the natural cycles of life on Earth.
3. • What is means to you is this. There is no reason what so ever to limit CO2 within the ranges we are talking about now or in the future. World population will become a much greater problem before CO2. Thus, spending resources, yours and mine, to curtail CO2 has no benefit since CO2 presents no discernable problem(s) relative to the natural cycles of the Earth.

@jshore

The latest IPCC report says that it is very likely (>90%) that the human-caused increases in greenhouse gases were responsible for most of the warming over the last half century.
Barring a cataclismic event such a large asteroid impact, we will almost certainly be the dominant cause of climate change in the 21st century.

Thanks for clearing that up, guys. I feel so much better now, having such definitive information in my hands.

[BrainGlutton]

@ClimateGuy

1. • The Earth has shown no significant or even perceptable tendencies towards warming nor cooling ober the past 11,000 years, essentially 0.00C +/-.

11,000 years?! The Earth has shown significant warming over the past 150 years!

[ClimateGuy]

@BrainGlutton

11,000 years?! The Earth has shown significant warming over the past 150 years!

1. • It is not significant considering the anomaly variance even within the Hadley time frame, 2 sigma = +/-0.612C.

2. The Hadley data is a very tiny time slice of insignificant data (noise). Drawing any conclusions can only be considered random. Here is a more realistic perspective of the Hadley data:

[jshore]

@ClimateGuy

1. • It is not significant considering the anomaly variance even within the Hadley time frame, 2 sigma = +/-0.612C.

2. The Hadley data is a very tiny time slice of insignificant data (noise). Drawing any conclusions can only be considered random. Here is a more realistic perspective of the Hadley data:

http://blogster.com/host/images/80527956124.png

Again, what you are doing here is not kosher. It is known that polar temperatures tend to be much more variable than temperatures over the rest of the globe. (Some of the changes in Antarctica even seem to be anticorrelated with changes in Greenland.) That is why in a previous graph you made (here) when you combined together the Vostok through 0 AD, then the Moberg from 1 to 1979 and then the NDCD satellite data from 1980 onwards, one clearly saw a dramatic reduction in the fluctuation amplitude around 0 AD. I.e., it was clear that the Moberg data had less variation than the Vostok data. [Of course, the Moberg data is also not completely reliable but I think it is likely closer to being a correct representation of the global temperature than the Vostok data is.]

[ClimateGuy]

@jshore

Again, what you are doing here is not kosher. It is known that polar temperatures tend to be much more variable than temperatures over the rest of the globe. (Some of the changes in Antarctica even seem to be anticorrelated with changes in Greenland.) That is why in a previous graph you made (here) when you combined together the Vostok through 0 AD, then the Moberg from 1 to 1979 and then the NDCD satellite data from 1980 onwards, one clearly saw a dramatic reduction in the fluctuation amplitude around 0 AD. I.e., it was clear that the Moberg data had less variation than the Vostok data. [Of course, the Moberg data is also not completely reliable but I think it is likely closer to being a correct representation of the global temperature than the Vostok data is.]

Again, the IPCC used the Vostok data in 2001. The fluctuation deifferences among the data sets is indicative of the time scale and measurement techniques. However when accounting for the variance differences, the global temperature has been essentially constant for 11,000 years at 0.00C +/-.

Also, it is clear that based on the variance of the global temperature anomaly, the Hadley data is not significantly different than 0.00C. The average global temperature anomaly of approximately +0.25C over the past 10 years can hardly be considered significant no matter how one looks at any of the data sets, Vostok, Moberg, Hadey, NCDC.

Furthermore, the average of the Hadley anomaly data over the period 1850-2006, a very tiny time slice in global temperature history, is -0.18C which for all practical purposes 0.00C.

Any conclusions drawn from random noise are meaningless.

[Miller]

@ClimateGuy

Again, the IPCC used the Vostok data in 2001. The fluctuation deifferences among the data sets is indicative of the time scale and measurement techniques. However when accounting for the variance differences, the global temperature has been essentially constant for 11,000 years at 0.00C +/-.

Also, it is clear that based on the variance of the global temperature anomaly, the Hadley data is not significantly different than 0.00C. The average global temperature anomaly of approximately +0.25C over the past 10 years can hardly be considered significant no matter how one looks at any of the data sets, Vostok, Moberg, Hadey, NCDC.

Furthermore, the average of the Hadley anomaly data over the period 1850-2006, a very tiny time slice in global temperature history, is -0.18C which for all practical purposes 0.00C.

Any conclusions drawn from random noise are meaningless.

So, how have 90%+ of scientists around the world who have studied this issue, and who have agreed that global warming is real and a genuine threat, not picked up on this? Are they all, like, really dumb, or something?

[Ludovic]

I don’t get it, really.

– A bunch of predictions were made for climate change on the order of .5c.
– Climate changes ~.5c.
– Changes happen that, while not the exact same as those predicted, are on the same order of magnitude.
– Changes correlate nicely proportionate to the changes in the Big Ice Age.

It’s like people who claim that lowering taxes always helps the budget: we lowered taxes in 1980’s and ran up huge deficits, raised 'em in the 90s and ran surplusses, and repeated the cycle in the 2000’s.

What are these people not getting?

[jshore]

@ClimateGuy

Again, the IPCC used the Vostok data in 2001.

They used it but you have misused it. There is a difference. The Vostok data is certainly important and useful but it alone does not alone a measure of the global temperature…and particularly does not give a good estimate of the magnitude of the fluctuations in the global temperature during the periods when the temperature did not change dramatically.

Any conclusions drawn from random noise are meaningless.

As has been noted, you seem to believe it is random noise. Almost all the climate scientists believe it is significant. Who to believe?