Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[greatcloudlives]

pages.science-skeptical.de this site is dedicated to showing the global extent of CO2 levels and temperatures during the medieval warm period.

 

[Subduction Zone]

pages.science-skeptical.de this site is dedicated to showing the global extent of CO2 levels and temperatures during the medieval warm period.

When you post a link you should at least click on it and see if it works.

 

[Strathos]

This thread in a nutshell:

 

[eclipsenow]

The Sun is the culprit

I mean, don't the deniers have any new songs?
This one is so tired and trite I can't believe it's still doing the rounds.

 

[[serious]]

How about converting all sidewalks to solar power producing walkways?

XKCD has a great graphic on where to put solar panels:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How about converting all sidewalks to solar power producing walkways?

Probably not viable - 'Solar Roadways - An Engineering Failure'.

 

[eclipsenow]

Dr James Hansen is *the* climatologist that diagnosed our climate problem — but no one believes him on the solution! He says believing in 100% renewables is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid Instead he says the world should build 115 reactors a year! Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
Here he is with friend Michael Shellenberger at COP23.

Dr Hansen also promotes breeder reactors eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 storage problem into today's energy solution. They only leave 1 golf ball of waste per person-lifetime, which is safe in just 300 years. These reactors really ARE SAFE and can be mass-produced cheap! Molten Salt Reactors *cannot* melt down because they're already a liquid salt. Thorcon have once-through molten salt reactors nearly ready to go at 7c / kwh http://thorconpower.com They'll produce the perfect 'waste' for MCSFR's to eat. http://www.elysiumindustries.com

 

[greatcloudlives]

Climategate proved that there is no science behind the agw theroy. It's politics and green religion. Also climate gate proved colution and corrupted science.

The 1500 year cycle of warming clearly shows that there were numerous occasions when it was warmer globally then modern times. The medival warming, the Roman warm period, the two Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had during the last 100,000 years. This is just another warming like the previous ones and natural in occurance.

The proxy data shows the world wide warmings we have had in the past this is undisputed.

All the previous warmings we have had were nature caused. A combination of the malankovich cycles is the best explanation of the 1,500 year warmings we have had. Otherwise what else is the cause of the exact cycle time of the warmings we have had, all nine of them.

Agw theroy needs to be challenged especially the math behind the greenhouse effect.

 

[greatcloudlives]

For instance using the last ice core samples it's clear that the temperature always leads CO2 levels. The exact opposite of what the agw theroy proports.

 

[greatcloudlives]

There is no dispute that the greenhouse effect is real what is in dispute is that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to be the culprit behind the warming we have.

 

[Shemjaza]

For instance using the last ice core samples it's clear that the temperature always leads CO2 levels. The exact opposite of what the agw theroy proports.

It's a pity there still isn't actual evidence for this false statement.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Billions of dollars are being used for a no problem. Trillions worldwide to battle a problem we can do nothing about since the problem is natural in origin.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Look at the data from any ice core sample, the Vostok ice core sample for instance. They all show CO2 lags hundreds of years behind temperature.

It's a pity there still isn't actual evidence for this false statement.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Type in your search engine "CO2 and temperature which drives which" and you will be able to see what everyone else knows, that CO2 follows temperature change.

 

[Shemjaza]

Look at the data from any ice core sample, the Vostok ice core sample for instance. They all show CO2 lags hundreds of years behind temperature.

Temperature shifts are not all caused by greenhouse gasses, an no one ever asserted that.

And if they are disconnected by centuries... why is it not reliable for the current trend?

I fail to even understand the devotion that climate denial gains.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Look at the data from any ice core sample, the Vostok ice core sample for instance. They all show CO2 lags hundreds of years behind temperature.

Someone should let the current atmosphere know about this, since it seems to be doing things backward currently by your estimation.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Trillions of dollars are being spent world wide on a theroy that is in doubt. Why are we wasting all this money. World hunger and diseases should be our main focus.

 

[Shemjaza]

Trillions of dollars are being spent world wide on a theroy that is in doubt. Why are we wasting all this money. World hunger and diseases should be our main focus.

"In doubt" and "I doubt it because I don't like it" are very different things.

 

[eclipsenow]

Climategate proved that there is no science behind the agw theroy. It's politics and green religion. Also climate gate proved colution and corrupted science.

The 1500 year cycle of warming clearly shows that there were numerous occasions when it was warmer globally then modern times. The medival warming, the Roman warm period, the two Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had during the last 100,000 years. This is just another warming like the previous ones and natural in occurance.

The proxy data shows the world wide warmings we have had in the past this is undisputed.

All the previous warmings we have had were nature caused. A combination of the malankovich cycles is the best explanation of the 1,500 year warmings we have had. Otherwise what else is the cause of the exact cycle time of the warmings we have had, all nine of them.

Agw theroy needs to be challenged especially the math behind the greenhouse effect.

When someone quotes climate gate at me I just laugh. It's like saying Roswell or Area 51. Seriously, you need to expand your reading list. Read something better.

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,[4][5] copying thousands of emails and computer files (the Climatic Research Unit documents) to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

The story was first broken by climate change denialists,[6] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[7] They argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[8][9] The CRU rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[10][11]

The mainstream media picked up the story, as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December 2009.[12] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[13] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding: "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway... it is a growing threat to society".[14]​

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]​

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia​

You're basically info dumping. How about you slow down a bit and try and establish each accusation you're making? I'm no climate scientist or mathematician, but you then move on to challenge the AGW math, blah blah blah. But I'm seeing a familiar pattern in your posting style. There is a particular kind of cliche denier that just wants to pour their rage out on the internet in a bunch of tired, cliche arguments - without actually understanding any of the words they copy and paste. Here is what happens:

"Denier's don't debate they rotate." That's what I wrote 15 years ago after noticing this too many times for it to be a coincidence. Instead of actually replying to the point at hand and refuting it with sound reasonable respectable data, they just rotate along their list of objections to some other irrelevant non-point or denialist meme. Their talking points are locked and loaded, and they rotate through them like a pre-loaded 6 shooter. It's not a conversation actually addressing science and data, but a pre-loaded pre-rehearsed monologue of denialist talking points. There is another word for this behaviour on the internet, but I'll avoid using it as I'm trying to be nice. ;-)

 

[greatcloudlives]

CO2 cannot account for the recent temperature changes we have had in the past. The Roman warming, the medieval warming , the Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had in the past 100,000 years. We must first separate the natural causes of warming then determine what warming man has caused. 90 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from decomposisition of plants and animals. The oceans certainly contribute a large amount of CO2. Change in these factors need to be considered before we look at CO2 produced by man. Definitely before we spend any more money for a problem that may not even exist.