How anyone who has done some research of their own can still believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is beyond me, especially when all the evidence is in computer models and doesn’t exist in the real world.

Let’s see, remember

1. The hot spot in the tropause was in the computer models about 10 to 12 kilometres above the surface, radiosonde instrumentation sent up in weather balloons failed to find this hot spot, it only existed on the computer models, but hold on they found an excuse for that it went like this,

2. OH but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, they should have checked first because since 2002 we have had the argo system monitoring the oceans they go down to a depth of 2000 metres, they never picked up this latent heat, so then the alarmists said but it went down to the deepest part of the ocean, still the argo would have picked it up, yes.

3. The hiatus – why hasn’t it warmed up in accordance with what the computer models had shown.

a. Computer models show an increase up to 2.78°C by end of this century, predicted in 1990 that means in the last 28 years we should have warmed to a specific point which we haven’t.

b. Empirical observations for the last 28 years estimate not even  a 1°C increase in temperature by end of this century, do you still think we should spend billions and give our money up to the UN and wall street, we don’t need to do anything and the increase in temperature will remain under 1°C. So what does that tell us that the theory/hypothesis is wrong because it doesn’t agree with observations.

4. The attitude of scientists in the alarmists camp, here are our findings now sit down, shut up and don’t you dare dispute what we’re telling you….!!!....Sorry today we still have people still trying to prove Newton and Einstein wrong, once you submit a paper its up for scrutiny 24/7 year round. What about John Cook over at the sceptical science blog forging his paper that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is real

5. I could go on and on like for example climate gate, scientists in the alarmist camp trying to SCARE average people into following this cult, it’s in their emails people FFS WTFU.

6. All the devastating predictions and critical moments in time that have come and gone and yet our panacea hasn’t been established we have been doomed to destruction many times over, past the point of no return many times over and yet here we are.

7. The Earth will destroy us the panacea to this destruction is a multibillion dollar market on the stock exchange where your average Joe and Jacinta pay for the free air above their heads to the oligarchy, it was the oligarchies idea you know, Anthropogenic Global Warming, money for jam that’s the way they like it OH let’s not forget their mouth piece and enforcer the UN they too will get a commission of sorts.

8. Why did Peter Mann hide the Medieval warm period (MWP) and little ice age (LIA) with his hockey stick, pre 2000 the IPCC had shown this graph for 10 years in its papers, then without a word it was replaced with Peter Man’s hockey stick which shows no MWP or LIA.

9. Why don’t the alarmist camps every tell people that we have had atmospheric CO2 levels up to 7000ppm in our history compared to today’s 410ppm and guess what life thrived here on Earth at 7000ppm, they only show you a certain scale which makes it seem as though CO2 and temperature correlate, in reality there is no correlation and when you view historical documents showing CO2 and temperature you quickly come to realise that CO2 while it does have a logarithmic effect on our temperature certainly doesn’t control it.

10. There are so many things the alarmists have done to scare people into action no quicker way to create a foot soldier than for the environment, what about the fact that they have tampered with past temperature readings, or that current thermometers are in inappropriate places, just too many things to state, yet the sheep keep on baaing.

Climate change has been with us since day dot and will be with us until the Earth is no more.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the oligarchy to financially enslave us all.

While in might be fun to get lost in the detail.

Let's not forget the history.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:


Where did he say it has NO effect?

Perhaps you can point to catastrophes that have been visited upon us; caused by AGW.

Mcahel E Mann has been made to show his workings. That will be enlightening.

He says in part -

"But there are (at least) two other problems — Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him somewhat, but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”)."

In 1818 (200 years ago) we were in the depths of the LIA.

and of course heavily polluted air in our cities r just a natural occurrence and nothing to do with us Humans...….
Nothing to see here just carry on...…..

issuevoter wrote on Dec 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:


Of course we have an effect I never said otherwise, but it's no where near what is being promulgated.

Earth's temperature has been increasing since the little ice age, but of course you must have missed that because of the hockey stick.

The effects of CO2 on our temperature are logarithmic and after a certain point the effects of CO2 diminish.

1. The logarithmic effect of CO2



2. CO2 Emissions

Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register.

Notice the sharp rise in fossil fuel CO2 emissions after 2000.

After 2000 fossil fuel emissions were 3 times the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the prior decade to 2000, that is 3 times as much fossil fuel emission went into our atmosphere after 2000 than the decade before 2000.

But the average yearly increase after 2000 just like the decade prior to 2000, average increase in CO2 remains more or less steady at 2.1ppm per year.

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions at 2.3% of the total CO2 natural emissions are insignificant and get lost in the noise.

That's why the average yearly increase of CO2 has remained steady at 2.1ppm per year even though fossil fuel emissions have shot through the roof.

Yes fossil fuels emissions contribute but the contribution is small at 2.3% of the total amount of natural CO2 that is emitted.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 6:36am:


Yes us humans have an effect where have I said otherwise.

COX, SOX, NOX and soot are all pollutants and we should clean them up asap.

But CO2 is not a pollutant......!!!

You know those bubbles in you soft drink and beer they are CO2...!!!

Do we drink pollution......???

CO2 = plant food, eg. CO2 greenhouses....!

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:45am:


If the Earth could absorb 7000ppm why should there be a problem with 410ppm.

Ajax wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:45am:


emotive semantics
Too much of anything is a pollutant.
Too little CO₂ and we would freeze
As with anything it is all about dosage.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:48am:


Too much oxygen is also a pollutant....!!!

Today we have some of the lowest ever amounts of atmospheric CO2 in recorded history.

The Earth has been warming since the LIA its only natural for natural CO2 emissions to increase.

Face it Barnacle the computer models were wrong.

So why should we pay through the nose for the free air that we breathe to the George Soros of this world.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 6:36am:


You do have a link to climate change, I assume?

Which cities? All cities? Some cities?

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 11:00am:



IF doubling added say 1.5C since before the industrial revolution ( the LIA is before the industrial revolution, CO2 is postulated to have increased since the LIA), then according to theory doubling would take it to about 450ppm. A further doubling to 900ppm would increase temperatures by 3.0C over the pre-industrial period.

Are you now saying CO2 theory is incorrect?

You do realise of course that the latest projections use RCP 8.5 often cited as business-as-usual. But RCP 8.5 is worst-case scenario.

"RCP8.5 gets the most attention. It assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions."

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/

Over estimated coal use

doi:10.1016/j.coal.2010.10.012

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/determination-of-the-co2-doubli...

AND? ...

It's not rocket science to put 2 and 2 together. 

CO₂ UP, Temperature UP, Arctic Ice cover DOWN, Ice-Sheets melting, Sea Level UP.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 11:48am:

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale

(NO)

,

(11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO)

, It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING !

This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale

(NO)

,

(millions of years)

Graph-3

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately

And once again Ajax spams us with his deceptive and thoroughly discredited graphs

You remind me of Yadda. You make your posts so incomprehensible that most people don't bother reading or responding.
And you take that as a victory

Ajax's Graph 2 is unreliable on temperature since a reliable thermometer was not in use until the 1850's. 

However, it is of interest to see from your chart that CO₂ never got much above 300 ppm and a change from 200 to 300 took about 5,000 years.

However, it has gone from 300 to over 400 in only 70 years.

Doesn't that indicate to you that Man-made influence has dramatically accelerated the rise in CO₂?

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:03pm:


That's why it is called a reconstruction. And you notice it was by Michael E Mann doyen of "Climate Science"^TM. And ignored the last 50 years of tree life and added thermometer records.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:03pm:



That relies on Ice Core Data. which ignores plant stomata data.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:03pm:


Who has argued CO2 hasn't increased due to man's influence? Shoot the bugger.

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:11pm:


Who has argued CO₂ hasn't increased due to man's influence?

Why, the very title of this thread makes that claim! 

BTW ... how do you explain the massive jump from 300 ppm to over 400 ppm in only 70 years .... when prior to the industrialization of the planet, the figure hasn't got much above 300 as seen by the Chart 2 data?

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:18pm:



Actually no it doesn't. You are confusing a statement on AGW and increasing CO2.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:18pm:


You do have comprehension issues don't you?

Burning of fossil fuels for one is a sign of man's influence. Of course there are other natural factors. Temperature increases, for whatever reason, mean oceans outgas more CO2. During the LIA the low CO2 rate led to crop shortages. Which led to starvation. You do understand the term CO2 starvation?

And now some people want to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:32pm:



Exactly wrong. Once again you are confusing CO2 and any AGW. How did they separate the AGW component from the natural component? You need at least two known parameters to determine a third.

And again ignore plant stomata data.

How to determine man's influence versus greening of the planet?

You really suck at logic, don't you. Like that rocket science - a bridge too far.

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:38pm:



How do you explain the massive acceleration of CO₂ into the atmosphere (post industrial revolution) if it isn't Human activity?

From 300 ppm pre-industrialization to over 400 ppm post-industrialization.

To say that it is "natural" is absurd, even for you. 

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 1:28pm:


Ooh! A chink in your armour at last! 

It ain't 'alf hot in here!

So it is AGW then!

Good-oh 

Carry on.

*

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 3:17pm:



Nope. I have said it was not proven. So sorry that you can't differentiate.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 3:17pm:



Yes petal. How much was natural; how much was anthropogenic?

Have you got your head around the fact that CO2 is not AGW yet?

Ya know what?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that having atmospheric CO₂ 33% higher than at any time in the whole existence of the Human Species is probably not a good thing.

Let's see if I'm right over the coming decades ...

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 4:18pm:

Lol, is that a fact? 

Bobby. wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 6:52pm:


Lee:

Quote:


You backing the view of a guy who just said this ??? He ruled out any measurement from either of these periods ?

Funny he would do that when this is the thoroughly debunked line used by most climate change deniers (for want of a better term).

.

lee wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 8:27pm:


Well for a start you have clearly said that measurements for these periods have no validity ? Or is that only when you don't agree with what it shows. You are now clearly disagreeing with yourself.

Lee.
Quote:


If you want to deny others the right to use data from these time periods by putting doubt on its validity why should you be allowed to do the same thing ?

Fact is that temperature in both these periods were high or low for known reasons that didn't relate to CO2 in the atmosphere. Nobody has ever said that CO2 is the only possible reason for high temperature and this argument is dependant on that clearly false assumption.

The medieval warm period was caused by increased solar radiation.

Little Ice age was caused by reduced sunspot activity coupled with an increase in active volcano eruptions.

The fact that you don't have a better term says more about you than me.


The term is relatively accurate but we could go for idiots if you prefer, I'd rather not.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm:



Nope. That is not what I said. I said that paleo data because of the time spans involved don't show the fineness to assess any variations over small time spans.

I even cited Marcott's temperature reconstruction, he used 300 year smoothing over a 2000 year time span. Now i'll let you imagine what smoothing would be used over a 500,000 year time span. You do understand smoothing means you lose data?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm:



No there are theories as to why they happened.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm:



You mean like the recent paper that said all of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic?

"Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950 "

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/1...

reported in the garudian so it must be true.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm:



Theory AKA supposition

Dnarever wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm:


Theory aka supposition.

Sunspot activity was low for over 300 years?

The volcano activity one is really strange. It is posited on a 50 year volcanic episode of four eruptions. We know from recent large volcanic eruptions that the effects last possibly as long as four years. It leaves a long time span that is not covered.

Ajax wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:45am:

so u agree we need to stop using fossil fuels as soon as posable other wise we will keep polluting our world 

lee wrote on Dec 4^th, 2018 at 11:29am:

good one Lee , u forgot Hiking Boots

"If he were PM."

https://twitter.com/cathywilcox1

Oh look ... you have something in common with the cartoon.

You're a climate change denying troglodyte. 

Now hear this: Whenever I mention Climate Change, you can take it that I'm talking about AGW.

Thanks. 

What's the other part of AGW? 

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 3:27pm:


You tell us. Show us the proof. Correlation isn't causation.

Remember that graph I showed from NOAA climate at a glance?

10 years flat. And all the while burgeoning CO2. How did that happen?

How does CO2 cause cooling in Antarctica? The magic gas.

lee wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 3:53pm:



Quote:


With the low sun activity and repeted dominance of Lanina there should have been cooling, if you consider why that didn't happen you see the impact of global warming through a natural cooling period.

We got a bit of a remission period which provided extra time to act not extra time to do nothing.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 8:46pm:



So natural variation can overcome the dreaded CO2. Who knew?

"Surely even climate change deniers must suspect they haven't thought things through after realising they're in furious agreement with Malcolm Roberts."



https://twitter.com/jonkudelka/status/1070181078265020416

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 5^th, 2018 at 10:07pm:


You mean like the alarmists "97% of climate abstracts is the same as 97% of climate scientists"?

And you still haven't come up with what Roberts had wrong. How bizarre is that?