YKY, I think you'll also find there was excessive temperatures but the temperature rises significantly PRECEEDED the spikes in CO2 by a significant time frame. Something the liar himself Al Gore chose to manipulate so that it looked the other way round. I'm not trying to bust your balls YKY we are in the same camp almost. Just making sure that the basis for that is correct.
You're a bit behind the times there Yippee. Er... It would seem that the actual data indicates the exact opposite of what you're saying. See: http://berkeleyearth.org/
So the suns activity level has no effect on the temperature on earth? Global warming on Mars, Neptune and Pluto http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/11/29/global-warming-on-mars-neptune-and-pluto/ That's right AGW is pure bureaucratic science, whose end goal is more control and less freedom.
yes I do understand that as well - in fact i mentioned it in one of my previous posts where I explained what my take on CO2 causing global warming is... hotter temperatures cause oceans to warm and this releases vast amounts of CO2 - which can no longer remain in equilibrium in the dissolved state. the lag is between 500 and 800 years... Conversely, when temperatures on earth drop - the oceans cool down - and much of the free CO2 present in the atmosphere will again reach equlibrium in a dissolved state in our oceans... again this lags the temperature drops by 500 years of more. This was one of the key eye openers for me - the fact that elevated CO2 levels in our atmosphere are CAUSED by higher temperatures, and NOT that higher CO2 levels cause higher temperatures. yes - there is a very minute amount of a "feedback loop" - whereby the increased amount of CO2 which is released out of the oceans (caused by higher existing temperatures) will tend to further increase the temperature, but this is so weak as to be totally insignificant when compared to other factors - for example increased amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere - which will have a MUCH MUCH MUCH greater greenhouse effect than will the extra CO2 ... savvie??
I'm loathe to have to break this to you - but much of the so-called "land surface records" of temperature are not worth much mate. Artificially high temperatures have been recorded due to their proximity to built up "manmade/artificial" areas and stuctures. By far the best measurement of whether the planet is heating of cooling is the temperature of the oceans - especially the deep parts. And so sad for you, but ocean temperature analysis does show that the planet is in a cooling phase.
The heat island effect is addressed by the Berkeley study. Please read it, lest you continue to appear uninformed and foolish.
This is the never ending debate, the pro climate change people quote endless corporate scientific studies, Majority of which have been proven that the data has been manipulated in some way shape or form i.e. land temperature test right next to roads/buildings/exhausts. And they always ignoer the sun's activity, even thought it was reported by NASA that the Ice Caps on Mars are melting. Its so frustrating when people deny facts, but I can understand why, its too hard to admit defeat and that they have been lied too, so they continue on with the lie.
This chart from Wikipedia says it all by separating the signal from the noise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
It's all about the tax. The climate change is a natural cycle. If it wasn't about the tax they'd be trying to do something to clean up the environment and stop pollution, and not just have a bunch of agencies that running around with their meters and occasional fines to obvious polluters. The seas are dying because of pollution. The bees are dying because of pollution, The air is poisonous because of pollution. Trees and plants breathe in CO2 and breath out O2 (oxygen). The plankton in the ocean do this also. Chemical companies have poisoned the world with pesticides and upset the natural balance of nature. That is the major issue. Where are the tree planting programs using this tax? Where are the alternatives to petrol propulsion; public transport etc.
Big A.D. What method did the Berkely study use to calculate it's temperature levels Pre the area of modern recording methods?
I think the people that actually compiled the Berkely study have already been made to look foolish. They have zero cred. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-study/ Edit: and that critique seems to come from a believer. Thank you and good night!
Another oped on the study. 3. Even if Muller is right, the last word of the Astill article is "fast". Yet Muller has merely confirmed that in his analysis the temperature is rising about as fast as the three surface temperature sets. Which is at a rate SLOWER than the zero emission prediction made by James Hansen in the 1980s and ten times slower than the warming rate at the end of the ice age, by the way. Hansen told us to expect 2-4 degrees in 25 years if we continued emitting co2. Thatcher at the Royal Society spoke of a degree per decade. Muller confirms that we are experiencing about 0.16 degrees per decade and that's not including the sea, so the real number is lower. That's nearly an order of magnitude slower!!! How can that conceivably be called fast? We are exactly on course for the zero-feedback version of greenhouse warming ie, a doubling of CO2 leading to a harmless 1.2C of warming. See the chart at this site. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...keley-temperature-study-little-to-worry-abou/ So, does the Berkely study show global warming is a problem or not?
See: http://berkeleyearth.org/ Again, this is an open data set and the methods used to calculate results are available on the site. It was also written 18 months ago, before the Berkeley Earth project reported their results. As it turned out, the author's prediction that the skeptic leading the study would come down against anthropogenic climate change was wrong: It all depends how you define "problem".
The links to the quotes are are on the page http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html As well there are more links to other notable quotes by him. He never was a skeptic but it makes good PR , especially when the average journalist just regurgitates press releases without looking into them. EDIT: And his daughter ran a "Green government" consultancy http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/mu...tic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/
Of course he wasn't. He just called out all the liars and dodgy alarmists that were cheating or exaggerating.
The people behind the "carbon dioxide as climate driver" hoax created it to leverage the massive potential derivatives market around a minor atmospheric gas. The hoax is perpetuated by a very simple tactic - use piddling little 100-1000 year graphs which are all noise with no signal and which provide no actual relevant data at all. Stepping back to the larger geological time frame shows the signal rather than the noise and that the true scientists of the last century were perfectly correct - The short inter-glacial period that we are in is close to it's end, and the Earth is returning to the state in which it spends most of it's history, an ice age. Humans could release 1000 times more CO2 and it will not make any difference - the grand natural cycle is taking us into a long period where much of the planet is under ice. .
He was a real sceptic, not a Sceptic with a Capital S. The former is a requirement for practising science. The later is the PR-friendly word for "denier".
