Man: How will we do that "cooking frogs slowly" experiment now?
Who’s Al Gore?I don’t recall his paper being part of the peer-reviewed 97% scientific consensus of agreement regarding man-made climate change.Yet Americans keep mentioning him. The Rest of the World has quite made up its mind on this issue, that’s because we use scientific evidence. A lot of it is from the USA actually. Seems like 97% of USA climate scientists also agree with the 97% of the world’s climate scientists.(Please do not confuse commentators wit scientists.)
The point is, please ignore politicians with regard to deciding the veracity of this incredibly important issue, and pay attention to genuine experts.Frankly, I had problems with accepting these issues due to ideologists exaggerating the facts, until I found out that real, evidence-based scientists were saying that is is a serious and proven matter.
Great graph!Yes, exactly how cherry-pickers work. Of course, they will only pick one segment and claim that “of course, the planet has not warmed for 17 years”, because they choose just the right points.Do they teach statistics in USA high schools, or do you have to go to college first?
(Anyone who mentions that English politician’s quote about statistics loses.)
Excellent graph. But it also assumes that denialists even read graphs. That is optimistic at best…
Have you really NEVER read the complete explanation of global warming, or are you so shall we say limited in critical thinking skills that you really don’t understand how GLOBAL warming (increasing average temperature for the WHOLE world) doesn’t imply that every point on earth is warmer all the time? Do you even have an inkling of how to read that graph?
Harley, if you can’t find evidence for global warming on the internet, you really do have your head where it can’t see reality. It throws a light on all of the ignorant crap you spew on this news group on all kinds of topics where the truth is actually known. When one major political party can’t look at the sky and agree that it’s blue, it’s impossible for America to remain a great country.
The 0.04% pie graph means nothing. If that were the level of plutonium in your blood, you’d be dead. You are clearly not a climate scientist. Why not trust people who actually know their area of expertise?
I think we need a climate teach-in movement. Back in the ’64 or so, there was a Vietnam teach-in movement — academics and politicians on both sides would debate — usually on college campuses, but eventually on TV as well. The debates were usually well informed, and they helped to educate a lot of people, who could make up their own minds based on what the experts had to say. As it happened, they were a major element in the formation of the anti-war movement a couple of years later.
There is a difference between the weather and the climate! Look at your source!!! Fox News! Come on man!
“Obviously, every last scientist who puts out data ‘proving’ climate change is on the take from someone. But I trust those nice people who work for the oil companies, who tell me that everything is fine, because then I can continue to pretend like I care about the future of my children and grandchildren, instead of being exposed as someone who just wants to make my life easier at the expense of everyone else.”
An interesting anamoly in CO2 and the global warming controversy is that the temperature rise started before the rise in CO2. I read this some time ago, somewhere, by a person that believed in global warming, by the way.
Clever. Nicely done.
The climate has always been changing and that we, like our ancestors, either adapt to the changes or die out.…If you don’t like those prospects, then take them up with nature, which will never give you a hearing and just continue doing its own thing, regardless.…The only thing these “global warming” chicken littles and henny pennies out there did was just bring their message to a wider and possibly more gullible audience.…As for me, I just hope the great die-off will yield more free parking in San Francisco without the hassles of dealing with DPT or my competition out there wanting that spot, too..
“That wouldn’t sound like Exxon propoganda (sic) if you could provide a respectable source.”♦Why would you make this comment? It is freely admitted in my post that I had no good source. The obviousness of that comment just being thrown out there is pretty evident.
You had the glaciers you had the warm period of the renaissance, wild animals survived and died. But when you use a wet land for a dumping ground because you can not build on it you are killing off a valuable resource."
Exactly! And that is what we are complaining about.
Climate change is a total non-issue; the issue is cleaning up the environment and keeping it that way.
As long as the ‘debate’ continues, nobody has to address that issue.
“Weather is going to change whether or not communists tax civilization into financial extinction. Find another ruse to control the masses, commies. “Climate change” (the new name after no one bought into the lies about global warming) is a flop.”
Nobody is trying to tax anything into extinction, but if we don’t clean up the environment pretty soon, the toxic waste will insure not only our extinction, but a substantial portion of the wildlings we claim to love so much.
Time for a major cleanup.
Ottodesu: There may be an occasional use of statistics in high school (particularly relating to sports stars), but you will rarely get its end result (probability) until junior year college if an insurance major, otherwise not at all. On the other hand, you can get a good basis of both in a well-refereed table-top role-playing game.
HaHaHaHaHa. “Air”!! HaHaHaHa!!
If Jesus or Moses had said they caused “global warming”, the “righites” here would be proclaiming it totally true.
Arguing science,as Ahab and others often note, with the lunatic fringe on the right is useless. (Just like pointing out their bible is myths, collected over may years, from numerous previous cultures.)
If my point isn’t valid, aren’t you under some obligation to find a credible source to dispute my point at which time I come under obligation to find a credible source to support my point? Well….getting thing out of order here….♦Jeff SeveringhausProfessor of GeosciencesScripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California, San Diego.•“The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.”•“Rapid temperature swings like the end of the Younger Dryas (probably less than a few decades) are followed by CO2 changes.”♦This guy also mentions that about 1/6 of the temperature increase is for multiple reasons, and that 5/6 of the increase is a result of the increase in CO2 caused by the increase in temperature.•Also, from NOAA National Climatic Data Center: " The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade."•There is a huge amount of credible sources out there with good information. None of which I can remember seeing in any of the GC forums.
Take it up with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, NOAA Climatic Data Center, and the ice cores they’ve researched. If you think I’m going to believe your out of the blue statement backed by no documentation instead of the two I cited (with others to back them up) with documentation for their documentation and raw datasets available to the public, you’re wrong.
I applaud those of you that are worried that man-made CO2 will be the cause of harm AND are trying to do something about it. Wetlands is a big issue and finding a practical solution will have a big positive impact.
The gigantic interacting systems in Nature are dynamic and who is to say what is the optimal equilibrium for today? And, I have no idea when or why the next 10 degree Cold Spike in Earth’s temperature will hit us.
But, it sure is fun to talk about the weather.
What you posted is nearly identical to what I posted. 800 year temp rise caused by “something”, then 4200 years of temp rise caused by CO2. What I posted supports global warming and you posted an excerpt from the same article which can be found at:•http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/•There is follow up on this which is at:•http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/•The second URL has a lot of good discussion with good information in it about global warming following the article.
@ongardYour graphic shows that our air currently contains 0.04% (400 parts per million) carbon dioxide and mocks it.
Rather than using an absurdity like plutonium for comparison, let’s use something much more closely related : carbon monoxide.
100 parts per million (0.01%) of carbon monoxide is considered dangerous to breath.
our carbon dioxide levels are 4 times higher.
Well done, excellent comparison. I always want to mention cyanide, which is fatal at that level, even though it is “all-natural”. Really absurd, and shows a pathetic lack of education.But your example is better, CO is typically produced at the same time as CO2 and it is also a “greenhouse gas”.In the United States, the OSHA limits CO long-term workplace exposure levels above 50 ppm.
April 12, 2017