97% of world Climate Scientists are 75 people

Look the name calling, data mingling and "bad" science is more common then you'd think. The only difference that most of the time noone gives b/c the issue is apolitical.

What makes the whole anthropogenic climate impact thing different is how politicized the issue is. When you rake through past century, the other monuments of political stupidity it compares to is nazi eugenics, stalins outlawing of genetics and cybernetics, etc.. not a pretty company.

BTW you position is inconsistent; you admit anthropogenic impact on environment when it comes to acid rains and impact of run offs on gulf yet utterly reject that it has any impact on climate. Well you can't have it both ways :nono:

As far as you concerned there is no dead zone in Gulf.. it has been falsified. The so-called data were not properly handled, had been hand picked and falsified. The whole motion is put in place by oil industry b/c they want to cover up their less then stellar record in the area, and they don't want the competition from hard working mid-west farmers, the backbone, the bread basket of the US of A.

 

Mojo, has the AGW Mob accusing him of being a teabagger! :loco: How does one go about evaluating the character and veracity of the statements made by those who stoop to this level to rebut a point? :noidea: Mojo a teabagger? ound: Anyone that supports that statement can be dismissed as a complete imbecile! :thumb:

I'll hang for awhile, the hypocrisy of the intolerant is entertaining. opcorn:

 

What a graph so tightly condensed cannot convey is the fact that the current rate of temperature rise is far, far greater than at any other point. One degree in a millenium and one degree in a day look the same when you squeeze the time scale that much.

 

It looks that way to you because you didn't read the horizontal axis. That graph doesn't go to the present. It stops about a century ago.

 

This is why raw data and peer review are important.
And when we get to the far, far, greater than at any other point, peer review says the science does not agree. What how can that be?

First problem with the statements is they tried to talk about individual years, when proxies could only tell with in decades. Language was changed in a later IPCC report, when data was finally released and could be reviewed. Next people overblew the time period. If we look out 14,000 years we see a 50 yearperiod in the greenland ice that temperatures most likely rose faster than today. If you hand pick your peers and don't disclose your data or methods, science is corrupted.

 

Well, not to be devil's advocate, but... global climate science data indicates the there have only been 5 periods in the history of the earth going back to the precambrian, that the planet has been as cold as it is now. (2 in the precambrian, 1 in the late ordovician, 1 in the early permian, and 1 in the late jurrasic). The earth hasn't been this cool since the early permian, although it is still not as cool as the pleistocene. Of course if you are just relying on data going back to the late 1800's, then we are definitely trending hotter, as are Venus, Mars and Jupiter. However we have only recently started averaging the temperatures we had in 1700 (the year) but we are still not warm enough for people to re-settle (farm) parts of Greenland that were abandoned due to cold weather in the late 15th century. It's not as warm as it was then, apparently, for the land to produce crops.

That being said, we still don't need dirty air.

 

The fastest rate of temperature change I can find in any historical data online is 0.1 degree C per decade. For the past century we've averaged .16 to .2 degrees C per decade.

 

You're not looking far back enough
Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age

Its been widely reported and peer reviewed in multiple papers. Now global temperature reconstructions will show less of an increase but this over 10 degree C increase in just five decades in greenland implies a much faster warming than today.

 

Actually I pulled the 0.1 C/decade global figure from a vehemently anti-climate-change web site that covered the last 20,000 years. I'm surprised someone with an axe to grind wouldn't have included evidence of a 2.4 C/decade local warming event.

 

vehemently anti-climate change and alarmist sites have something big in common. You aren't likely to understand the real science or research if this is all you read. The IPCC reports includes a great deal of good research, but the summery for policy makers, all that most people read, has a tendency to differ somewhat from the research. The lack of peer review in some of the studies, and selection means you often get better information without reading the SPM.

 

To reduce year-to-year variability in atmosphere-ocean heat exchanges, one could use decade averages of the instrumental temperature records.

Comparing those to the CO2 record shows...no, I won't spoil the surprise.

 

agree maybe sky isn't falling or maybe it hasn't fell down yet and/or it won't at all.

that aside it is moot point to argue that anthropogenic activity causes warming effect. It is yet to be seen to what extend, what impact it will have by 2100, and to what degree it will be countered by natural planetary processes.