I'll just quickly tell you that there is NO 97% consensus among climate scientists about man-made Global Warming as Alarmists claim. Alarmists have made three attempts to date to prop-up this falsehood and upon examination each is just another huge Climatist lie.
Here is a long list of articles documenting the bizarre shenanigans Warmists have engaged in trying to prop-up this ridiculous and obviously false claim. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/05/w...
--------------------
Well I have to give Climate Realist credit because at least he tried to answer. But you can bet he had rather not have provided those answers because he knows all the ones he provided are either wrong or false.
1) CR links a graph based on the long debunked Hockey Stick data. Note his graph shows the Medieval Warm period just barely coming up to 'normal' temperatures. Isn't that funny, I wonder why they called it the Medieval WARM Period if the period just barely got to normal temperature. The fact is, there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies from all over the world that show the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
And here is a graph used by the IPCC in one of it's early reports that clearly shows the MWP was warmer than today. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.h...
2) Climate Realist is wrong again, the Sun by no means stopped warming in the 1970's.
Historical Total Solar Irradiance
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/hist...
3) The so called "Dark Ages" is a liberal myth, those were actually very good times for humankind. http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-r...
3a) Why CR has two number 3's I'm not sure. But his answer here is: "Put a drop of food coloring in a swimming pool"
I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove.
4) CR's forth answer is 'Faith-Based" --- the fact is, the world is cooling with the highest CO2 levels we've had for thousands of years (according to Warmists). And it's been cooling for a long time, in fact it's now been cooling longer than the period of warming after reaching normal temperature: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/fro...
And CR, the burden of proof is actually on Dr. Mann according to the rules of the court, you have to remember that it was Mann that initiated the suit.
And you were blocked from my threads for calling me a liar and moron --- if you would like to apologize and stop your inane name-calling, I'll unblock you.
-----------------------
1. We are blaming the warming on humanity because that's what the evidence supports. All of the other factors that we're aware of--solar activity, the tilt of the Earth, and so on--are either not trending in any particular direction right now, or are trending in the wrong direction to be a source of warming. We're about "due" for the next ice age to start (don't worry, it'll take thousands of years even if we somehow restore the Earth's CO2 levels to what they were in the 1800s), but instead we're warming. And CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. There's this misconception that a lot of people have, that there's one "cause" to any given weather event. Lemme haul out one of my canned answers for this one:
The thing a lot of denialists seem not to understand is, well, climate is very complicated. All of the things that make up climate have to be added together to get the actual result. So, if you have one thing causing warming--for example, CO2--and another causing cooling--for example, sulfur particulates in the atmosphere--then you might have slight warming, slight cooling, or no real change.
To crib an analogy from someone who answered one of my questions: It's a hot day in summer. You're standing in the sun, you're wearing a bathing suit, you just got out of the pool, and there's a breeze blowing. Do you feel warm or cold? If you feel warm, how can you feel warm while wearing practically nothing, and standing in the breeze dripping wet? If you feel cold, how can you feel cold standing in the sun on a hot summer day? The answer, obviously, is that the things making you cold don't *eliminate* the things making you warm, and vice versa, and no *single* factor determines, by itself, how warm or cold you are. Instead, it's the sum of all those things together that determines how warm or cold you are.
3. Rapid change is bad. We have our cities where it won't flood, our farms where it rains enough and insect activity is within acceptable levels, our roads leading from our farms to our cities, and so on. When things change rapidly, we have to *move* these things (or protect them, or artificially supply what they need instead of letting nature do it), which gets freaking *expensive*. And there are plenty of places in the world where heat kills a *lot* more people than cold--incidentally, those tend to be the poorer places in the world, which suggests that "warm" is not some kind of universal good, but instead that the optimum is not too warm, not too cold. Or do you think Death Valley is a wonderful place to live?...
4. Because scientists aren't psychics, or otherwise omniscient. Look up "Asian brown cloud", consider the impact of a slow solar cycle, and so on.
Try getting some information from some actual decent sources. Here are a few:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://aip.org/history/climate/summary.h...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... (I posted a question asking people to give links to information at varying levels of experience)
If AGW alarmists were serious, they wouldn't fly private jets to conferences all over the world.
If they were really concerned about CO2, they'd be focused on restoring oceanic algal blooms to their pre-1950's size.
Nature pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere using what?
Oceanic algae.
But, since BEFORE temperatures began to change significantly -- by official AGW estimates -- the blooms began dying off and are now about half their natural size.
Taxing emissions will NOT take the existing carbon out of the atmosphere.
.
I have said before. If you want to be a scientist you don't go into climate science, it is not the echelon of science. If you want to be on the weather channel or if you want endless government funding then you go into climate science. It is the Mormon church of science , very new and a lot of learning still with a touch of a cult. Now let's talk real.....the globalist/Illuminati love it and praise it because it fits their Orwellian agenda perfectly. How do you train your child? You condemn the behavior you don't want them to express and reward the behavior you want them to express. Climate science has evolved over the years from everyone being skeptical to "the debate is over" simply for this reason. The system(which I explained in detail on your question in the politics section) is designed to weed out decent and reward those who follow. Climate Science is exactly that, a bunch of sheep being lead by their dog. The ones who disobey are the "fruitloop scientist" no one wants to be a fruit loop. People are policed into their opinions by the system. Our biggest fear is "what will people think if I say or believe this". This is why the world is a big game of follow the leader and the leader is the Illuminati bloodlines.
Do you question the spherical earth, or biological evolution, or continental drift with the same energy?
If you want learn climate science, why not read some of it http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Climate-Chan...
instead of coming here, linking to proven fossil fuel industry hired deceivers http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer to repeat anti-science myths demolished, and shown for the lies that they are, hundreds of times here already? http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
Why should anyone listen to you when 200 Nobel Prize winners in science say the opposite?
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
Let's ignore your pathetically weak-minded and dishonest Bullshlt attempt at pretending to be a grown-up. I'll answer then - just as soon as you demonstrate that you can describe the fundamental assumptions, purpose, procedures, and objectives of the scientific method.
I claim that you are a lying, scientifically illiterate idiot who has no right to ask questions you are too stupid to understand. If you can provide any evidence that you know anything about anything that you are not the stupidest person here, I'll go ahead and destroy your questions - even though it is a waste of time that could be better spent doing almost anything else.
Look up the IP CC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) and why it was formed too. It is a United Nations political body to investigate CO2 increases and its effects.
Most of the hype is politically motivated simply due to the fossil fuel industry, energy production, and control over economies.
The temperature increase by human emissions is negligible (0.25C since the Industrial Revolution began).
I'm Global Command= Global Warming ended 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012 ICE is accumulating on different parts of earth. Global command
<1. The Earth has been warmer several times than now over the last 3,000 years.>
Your graph ends before 2000, and shows a Medieval warm period as much warmer than could be supported by the data.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/cou...
Scientists have shown that we need to consider both natural and man made factors to explain what has been happening with climate.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
<2. At what point in the warming trend since 1860 did it become man's fault?>
When the Sun stopped warming and Earth continued to warm, during the 1970s.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
<3. During those previous warmer times, written records show mankind thrived. Crops grew better and longer. Cold didn't kill nearly as many people. Far from being a crisis, why shouldn't we welcome warmer temperatures?>
Did mankind thrive during the warmer years. The Dark Ages happened during the Medieval Warm Period and the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution happened during the Little Ice Age.
<3. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from a pre-industrialization level of 0.028% of our atmosphere to 0.039% now. Doesn't seem like much. Are we really to believe that a change in 1 out of 10,000th of the atmosphere is really going to make much difference?>
Put a drop of food coloring in a swimming pool.
<4. Why is it that most climate models have failed to predict current conditions using past data? Why is it that if the warming pause continues another 5 years, all the GW climate models will have failed, with real world temps being outside their ranges? And if all these climate models are proving wrong, shouldn't we ignore their alarmist future predictions?>
I doubt that the la Nina index is going to get stronger that it was in 2011 in the next five years. Even if the la Nina continues, the warming since 2011 will continue because of the additional carbon dioxide.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Madd Maxx
In response to your question to which you block anyone who will provide a real answer;
Dr. MIchael Mann is suing Tim Ball for saying that he should be in the state pen and not in Penn State. The only defense against such a law suit would be if it were true. If Tim Ball could show that the Hockey Stick graph were fraudulent, he could get the suit dismissed. But it is up to Tim Ball to prove that the Hockey Stick graph is fraudulent, not for Michael Mann to prove that it wasn't.
<1) CR links a graph based on the long debunked Hockey Stick data. Note his graph shows the Medieval Warm period just barely coming up to 'normal' temperatures. Isn't that funny, I wonder why they called it the Medieval WARM Period if the period just barely got to normal temperature. The fact is, there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies from all over the world that show the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. >http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php>
You should confirm the claims of CO2 Science with a reputable source
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwar...
And science has learned some new things since 1990. Is your computer a Commodore 64?
entirely true. they don't have any evidence!
I'm tired of hearing that the debate is over, and that 97% of scientists agree. It's time the GW alarmists answer some questions vs. just telling us we're just a bunch of deniers.
1. The Earth has been warmer several times than now over the last 3,000 years. The world has exited a 500 year cold spell called the Little Ice Age around 1850 and has been warming ever since. Why is it this time, and only recently, are we blaming the warming on man?
https://s.yimg.com/hd/answers/i/024b1cccca234b218cbb72e87a126657_A.jpeg?a=answers&mr=0&x=1393371468&s=97f4dcf990234b82f6fd84f09a5681a6
2. At what point in the warming trend since 1860 did it become man's fault?
3. During those previous warmer times, written records show mankind thrived. Crops grew better and longer. Cold didn't kill nearly as many people. Far from being a crisis, why shouldn't we welcome warmer temperatures?
3. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from a pre-industrialization level of 0.028% of our atmosphere to 0.039% now. Doesn't seem like much. Are we really to believe that a change in 1 out of 10,000th of the atmosphere is really going to make much difference?
4. Why is it that most climate models have failed to predict current conditions using past data? Why is it that if the warming pause continues another 5 years, all the GW climate models will have failed, with real world temps being outside their ranges? And if all these climate models are proving wrong, shouldn't we ignore their alarmist future predictions?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
