CONFIRMED: Global Warming 'Ended 15 Years Ago'

EXCELSIOR!!!


Sorry about the one-liner...but I had to.

Originally posted by deessell

Originally posted by SavedOne

Regarding global warming, personally I think all this talk about whether it's "real" or not is taking away from the real problem of diminishing natural resources and increasing pollution levels.

Indeed, if the issue was framed differently then I think you would be hard pushed to find ANYONE that would disagree that diminishing natural resources and increasing pollution levels are serious problems.

I do disagree with the theory that greenhouse gases are causing the global temperature to increase. According to the IPCC's own literature, observed global increases are around 0.05 C. A carbon economy is not the solution to the problem.

Reframe the issues.

Access to clean drinking water is a higher priority than the CO2 levels.

Reframing the issue does nothing. It's a problem of human nature. Look at this thread, there is plenty of evidence something is wrong and these people deny it. Why? The carbon tax has something to do with it, but, if they accepted GW was real and man was doing it then they would feel they had to change their lives. They don't want to change their lives.

This goes for all other resource issues. One poster from Texas was talking about the brutal heat-Well, he probably knows about the drought. This drought is going to continue for at least 5 years. Freshwater is already in short supply. Do you know what is going to happen? THey are going start trucking water in from other states. These states will feel the pinch and jack up the rates. If you were smart you'd just get the hell out of Texas. Most people won't though, they will just deny was is happening to them. They will deny all the facts because the end result would too diffcult to deal with. Most of the American southwest is screwed. There are too many people on a water table that simply can't support them.

We can talk about other resources besides water, but none of this is going to make a difference. People don't think in terms of logic, they think with emotion. You are a fighting a battle you can't win. American's think it's their god-given right to use as much as they want. You will never convince them otherwise. The only thing that will work is when it all finally runs out.

It should also be noted the USDA actually changed the plant hardiness zone map this year. Plants that used to only grow in Louisiana are growing as far up as North Carolina. Something is very wrong, but let's not worry ourselves about it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Geez. I meant 84,000 year cycles for that graph, not "82 million year cycles".

How annoying and embarrassing is it to have to correct one's self like this?

At least my eyes are uncrossed now!

HAARP:

www.bariumblues.com...

Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change

by Michel Chossudovsky

Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa


IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has mandate for environmental warfare and therefore can use HAARP.

www.spingola.com...

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change.

IPCC has a mandate which includes environmental warfare !!!

Does IPCC have a double role?

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

Interesting graph. has anyone come up with an explanation for where the extra carbon came from that has never been in the cycle before in order to produce that alleged spike? if they can't come up with a source for the carbon, I'd be inclined to think the spike is an artifact. They can't claim it came from fossil fuels, because that carbon has been in the cycle before, without producing such a spike, so where did it come from?

ETA: Looking at the graph some more, I see that ALL of the CO2 spikes rose abruptly, in a cycle with an average length of 82 million years peak to peak, then gradually tapered back down, only to spike again abruptly. I wonder what caused those abrupt spikes before the invention of the SUV and the advent of mankind - or even mammals?

I'm glad to see someone else paid attention to Alien Abduct's graph and questioned it. I can somewhat answer you're query regarding how much of that spike is anthropogenic...

How science determines the difference of what's manmade CO2 and what's natural:

They measure the C13/C12 isotope ratios in atmospheric CO2. The difference of naturally occurring C13/12 isotope ratios and manmade C13/12 isotope ratios is 2.6% (manmade being 2.6% less C13). So based on those ratio differences, climatologists estimate that roughly 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade and the remaining 97% is naturally occurring.


Thus, theoretically speaking, Alien Abduct's big ol' spike showing graph would then represent 3% of it being from man, while the remaining 97% of that spike would then, obviously, have to be naturally occurring if we are to go by what science is telling us about the isotope ratios to date.

Oy vey. You don't understand the graph at all.

So it's yet just another graph being misrepresented by the climatologists for the sake of dramatics and sensationalism... They show this graph, but forget to add in how much of that spike is anthropogenic and how much is natural.

Such is the standard modus operandi of this so-called "open and honest science".

Oy vey again! What is being misrepresented?

What are you talking about?

On the timescale of CO2 with periodicities of half a million years are obviously not anthropogenic because humans haven't had the ability to dig up coal which has been out of the biosphere for 50+ million years (say extend the x-axis to the left of that graph by 100 times its current width at minimum). Injection of that carbon is what is the problem---it has been inert and totally out of any natural cycle since long before even primates evolved.

The recent rise from burining coal comes from AD 1750 and later and has accelerated significantly since 1900's and that data doesn't come from ice cores.

The graph has nothing to do with isotope ratios or anthropogenic climate alterations as that data doesn't have the resolution to see it. The purpose of that study is to look at natural biosphere amplifications of temperature changes and estimates of climate sensitivity.

This is another example of misunderstanding science and then accusing scientists.

reply to post by mbkennel



Oy vey is right.

I think you need to go back and reread my post because you've completely gotten lost in there somewhere with the entire context of everything I said.

Originally posted by Alien Abduct

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

Interesting graph. has anyone come up with an explanation for where the extra carbon came from that has never been in the cycle before in order to produce that alleged spike? if they can't come up with a source for the carbon, I'd be inclined to think the spike is an artifact. They can't claim it came from fossil fuels, because that carbon has been in the cycle before, without producing such a spike, so where did it come from?

ETA: Looking at the graph some more, I see that ALL of the CO2 spikes rose abruptly, in a cycle with an average length of 82 million years peak to peak, then gradually tapered back down, only to spike again abruptly. I wonder what caused those abrupt spikes before the invention of the SUV and the advent of mankind - or even mammals?

I'm glad to see someone else paid attention to Alien Abduct's graph and questioned it. I can somewhat answer you're query regarding how much of that spike is anthropogenic...

How science determines the difference of what's manmade CO2 and what's natural:

They measure the C13/C12 isotope ratios in atmospheric CO2. The difference of naturally occurring C13/12 isotope ratios and manmade C13/12 isotope ratios is 2.6% (manmade being 2.6% less C13). So based on those ratio differences, climatologists estimate that roughly 3% of the CO2 in our atmosphere is manmade and the remaining 97% is naturally occurring.

Thus, theoretically speaking, Alien Abduct's big ol' spike showing graph would then represent 3% of it being from man, while the remaining 97% of that spike would then, obviously, have to be naturally occurring if we are to go by what science is telling us about the isotope ratios to date.

So it's yet just another graph being misrepresented by the climatologists for the sake of dramatics and sensationalism... They show this graph, but forget to add in how much of that spike is anthropogenic and how much is natural.

Such is the standard modus operandi of this so-called "open and honest science".

Its nice to see someone putting forth and breaking down/crunching numbers. What is it then? I mean the data (graphs like these and such) is obviously pointing toward climate change. I don't think that climate change is even a debate anymore.

It seems the only debate is weather humans are having a significant impact on the spike in temp. And, within this debate 98 percent of scientists take the side that humans are indeed having a significant affect on this climate change.

Whats the deal here? Are they just jumping ship?
Why would most of our scientists be interpreting the data this way?

Are they all so blatantly wrong?

-Alien

Well my point with that graph was how can they on one hand tell us that the current big spike in CO2 is mostly manmade, and then turn around on the other hand and tell us we've contributed 3% to the atmosphere thus far. They're completely contradicting themselves.

There's no way in hell 3% manmade CO2 concentrations could add such a huge jump to the current spike on that graph.

So are the scientists wrong on how they're going about calculating the manmade vs natural CO2 amounts (3% and 97% based on isotopic ratios)... or are they wrong about their anthropogenic assumption of correlation with the industrial era ?

This science is still in its infancy and these guys have a long long ways to go yet with their understandings of all mechanisms of climate change obviously. Maybe what we've got going on here is thousands of non-climate scientists jumping to agreement with a couple dozen hubristic climate scientists because it's politically correct to do so ?

I have no idea.

But as far as I'm concerned, no other branch of science forms their methodologies and conclusions like the way these climatologists do without getting shredded by their colleagues for such half-assed work... their trying to come to an absolute non-debatable conclusion with only half the mechanism understandings.

This is laughable!
Has anyone heard of:
"Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit"

and how does all that come to this conclusion?:

It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997

Since when did one 'study' prove anything -

I love to see the "anties" jumping up and down shouting 'woot woot! We were right all along'' whenever
some uni or whatever publishes something like that posted here - AND they always LOOOVE to denigrate Al Gore - Don't shoot the messenger

I'm not doubting their belief in their veracity, I'm sure they worked hard to come to their ultimate conclusion, but this offers absolutely no proof whatsoever -


In Fellowship

TheEmotionalSocialist

reply to post by sickofitall2012



I'm not familiar with that geological evidence. Where can I find out more? I am always open to all sides of the story but, as of this point I believe there is a majority scientific consensus that global warming is real and that it has been affected by humans. I was going to post a link to one specific article to support my statement but there were too many. Here a few plus a Wikipedia article:

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.skepticalscience.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.ucsusa.org...