CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

So says the one that doesn't even know what NASA was created for.

 

You were saying?

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

 

The evidence doesn't support the idea that the warming seen in the late 20th century was primarily due to CO2:

1. The late 20th C warming merely continued a trend that started 200 years ago, at the end of the Little Ice Age, when CO2 could not possibly have been a factor, and is clearly related to solar activity.
2. The warming in the early 20th century was just as fast, but CO2 was too low to have been a significant factor.
3. Temperature declined 1940-1970, despite continued exponential increase in CO2.
4. Temperature has been flat for 18 years despite continued exponential increase in CO2.

The fact is, the temperature record since the end of the Little Ice Age is most parsimoniously explained by four factors:

1. Most important, increased solar activity since the Little Ice Age, contributing roughly 1.0C.
2. Second, a ~60-year trendless cycle of ~0.3C amplitude, whose most recent up-phases occurred in ~1910-1940 and 1970-1998.
3. Third, increased CO2, contributing about 0.1C over the last several decades, and unlikely to contribute much more than ~0.2C in the future.
4. Volcanic activity inducing short-term declines.

All the climate models that predict rapid warming caused by CO2 incorporate two errors: an assumption that the rapid warming 1970-1998 represented a robust relationship between temperature and CO2 (falsified by the recent hiatus), and an assumption that strong positive feedback from water vapor makes temperature much more sensitive to CO2 than the physics of radiative heat transfer would predict (falsified by the paleoclimate record, which is not consistent with such an assumption). Neither of these assumptions is supported by any credible physics analysis or empirical evidence.

 

No evidence for any of that nonsense

 

It is too bad the furthest into science you have been is belief in a paradigm. Everything bringiton is recorded and fact but when you have only belief, looking into the science could corrupt your belief system so it is to be avoided. Science is full of these paradigms that have been proven wrong, time and again.

 

And all you have are tin foil hat conspiracy theories worthy of the bigfoot crowd. LOL

 

Which of course, you mean science, something you have yet to look into.

 

Your tin foil hat is too tight. lol

 

1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.

The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:

1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.”

2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.

3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”

 

It is all supported by peer-reviewed science.

 

Well, it is impossible to make any climate comparison that even applies to our present climate using "science"..

Climatologists are fools and the only possible way to even make a comparison would be through geology, but using that process doesn't give us much of an accurate progression or regression of climate considering we're talking hundreds of thousands of years...

One cannot say because the Earth was cooler 1,000,000 years ago (which it wasn't) that AGW is fact because it's warmer now...

Climate science is nothing more than pseudoscience, we don't have enough data to conclude anything other than the fact the Earth is a living planet..

Given how vast this data is there is absolutely no way climate can be blamed on humans or any living creature...

It's obvious the climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years, but to blame humans for what has been happening over the last 4.75 billion years is asinine...

 

It is interesting that geology has a large percent not enthralled with the CO2 centric hypothesis. There is a paper out that does not support the current reductionist method.

The Problems with the IPCC – GCM Climate Forecasting methods

 

Question: Who wrote this?

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

 

Amazing how smart you guys are without any formal education in the area.

 

Surprisingly, some of us know how to read. So, who wrote that?

 

Still waiting for any reference to an institute of higher learning, govt. agency....even some country in the free world...anything other then conjecture by a few isolated individuals. Please, any real group any where who agrees with deniers.

 

Still can't answer the question I see but in fact you are avoiding it. Who wrote that?

 

The same people who wrote this: "Advances in climate change modelling now enable best estimates and likely assessed uncertainty ranges to be given for projected warming for different emission scenarios."

Fortunately, predicting trends is much easier than predicting individual states.

 

Why is that relavant ? One of the signs of CC is the unpredictability of weather in small areas and in short times. What matters, are the general trends over large areas and they all point to CC.

Disagreements around science, hinges upon two things; how fast it is occurring and the effects in small areas over short intervals of time. That one season experiences normal weather in one state is inconsequential. That a region has experienced a warming trend which is the warmest on record over a ten year period, is.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html

That deniers can't understand how they arrive at these numbers, not only for the last decade but for hundreds years, just means they are ignorant of science. When fossil records show no indication of a species moving north for a thousand years that now is, it becomes one import indicator among many others. Geological samples that coincide with fossil remains that coincide with math models and predictors, all buttress the final conclusion. The conclusion was reached decades ago. The science has advanced beyound the stage of denial. Unless of course, deniers still feel the earth is flat and only 6 thousand years old. In that case, just go hibernate yourselves.

 

A 10 year period in 60 year and millennia year cycles is inconsequential yet a one month spike is supposed to be proof.

 

Gibberish !

 

Gibberish only to those that only read media stories and not the science.

 

And pray tell, what kind of science is that ? Scientology ? The science of climate change is not difficult and it doesn't need a degree physics to understand. Degrees in the different sciences are need to involve the solutions and specifics. If you can accept that the solar system is like it is, you can accept climate change with the same certainty.

 

LOL, so you think a coupled non-linear chaotic system is simple to understand? What a hoot. You really have no clue what the known unknowns are much less the unknown unknowns in climate science. You probably think they actually model the Earth with computer programs.

 

Oh noe....now he is talking like Rumsfield. The known unknowns. LOL. This is how we got into Iraq. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry you will wait forever. All he has is his spiritual leaders. LOL