Global warming skeptic replicates global warming data

Classic


https://front.moveon.org/republicans-trying-to-disprove-global-warming-actually-prove-the-opposite/?rc=fb.fan

Yes. Global Earth and climate changes are most definitely real and happening...right now!

The only open question is human's contribution to it since in true reality it is primarily a cyclic event associated with the ending of ages and eras...

In other words, it has been happening like "clock work" during all prior age/era transitions. The good thing, of course, is that an age/era precession macro cycle is 25,920 years, which means that these global Earth and climate change transitions do not take place every other year or so...but rather happen in periods of thousands of years...

In other words, they are in cycles of thousands of years...unfortunately, of course, the solar system (and therefore everything on it) is going through the ending of one of these macro cycles right now...

If I remember right, the current trend bucks even the cyclic ages you are talking about.

I'll be back with the data later, unless someone else beats me to it.

You are lying, and I really wish you would stop.

Just call your local priest - he'll simply explain it as "The Devil is turning up the heat."

In which instance it is just a matter of locating the Devil's a/c controls.

Actually climatic cyclic periods are a reality. The 'trend' people are currently flapping around like frightened seals about is not even extreme in its predictions in that context - take sea level predictions for example, with an often quoted worst case scenario of a rise of 1 metre. That would put the sea level around eastern England at about the same level as when the Viking settlers arrived around the 9th and 10th Centuries. Climate change is real, because it is always happening, but the level of panic is unwarranted.

I know all about climatic cycles. I've taken two courses specifically on the topic of global warming and I have a background in astrophysics.

However, the "cycles" wirelessguru1 keeps talking about are absolute bulls***. They don't exist. He's confusing a number of issues into one single bulls*** number.

I am also well aware of Astrophysics. lol. But that is as irrelevant for me here as it is for you.

It's pretty well known that data collection is simply recording a standard upward trend period. Data collection is also very locally biased in the comprehensiveness of its coverage globally.

No.

Go find me a time period in history when atmospheric carbon dioxide and global average temperature increased as rapidly as it has for the past 30-50 years.

I'll wait.

We don't know one way or the other, because of the short period of data collection. The only evidence before that is from geological samples, and the indications are clearly of cyclic conditions with relatively extreme end point scenarios. The short data collection period is the only period over which monitoring has occurred, however biased its deployment might be, so it is absurd to require evidence of that nature from beforehand.

The chart Tino posted is of the industrial age onward, which is said to be the period by which man started unnaturally adding CO2 to the air, on top of Earth's natural CO2 rise (or decline). Here it is again.



While this certainly is an alarming rise, the poster below Tino and Kim are saying is that this upward trend may, indeed, be Earth's natural cycle, which fluctuates up and down every 25,000 years - said to be based on the wobbling of Earth's axis.

Indeed, when we look at the past 400,000 years, we do see such a fluctuation:



However, look closely at the tail end of that chart.

We should have been, by now, a few thousand years into a COOLING trend, but are not.

Here is a closeup of the last thousand years:



Notice that, up until right before the industrial age, we were indeed, on a cooling trend that was in line with the overall 400,000 year fluctuation chart above it. But then once, the industrial age hit, we sharply reversed upwards, and have been bucking natural levels since. Hence the "cluttered" look at the end of the 400,000 year chart.

Not only that, scientific studies shows us that the natural rise in CO2 that comes with warmer climate periods does NOT coincide with the rate of CO2 that has been emitted from humanity in the past 100 years. Such natural increases, as shown from geological evidence, which comes from the ocean, volcanos, and the biosphere, occur over a MUCH more gradual span of time and rate.

This is why 98% of scientists (the experts) strongly support that WE are the cause of the current uptick, and not nature. And I am sure not 98% of scientists are liberals or Democrats. Heck, it would be even more than 98% if some were not "bought" from special interests groups to cater the statistics to show otherwise.

So, why this is STILL a political issue is beyond me. It doesn't have to be.

Teddy Roosevelt, our first president who acted out of concern for the environment, was a Republican.

Moveon.org?! That's like me quoting the John Birch Society. What's quoted may accidentally be true, but you gotta wonder why anyone would go there in the first place.

From an interview in 'Science Insider'---R.Muller.: "We're applying for funding to study the ocean temperature data. That will allow us to get a true global picture of temperature trends."

Ya think? Accounting for 70% of the Earth's surface might make a difference? How about Antarctica? And it made no difference that 800 out of 1100 temperature sites on land were poorly placed? What about the polar icecaps melting on Mars? How is man caused global warming er climate change causing that?

Look up the Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maximum. Temperatures rose something like 10 degrees over 20,000 years and it was perhaps the most dramatic warming period in history. One of the most interesting features of this warming period was the virtual complete elimination of shelled marine organisms due to ocean warming and acidification.

We're currently looking at potentially that much warming in less than 200 years.

Firstly - the data collection sampling is ridiculously biased geographically in it's deployment and therefore cannot be shown to accurately reflect overall global trends. Secondly - Geological sample data is not of yhe same precision as that recorded by meteorogical apparatus, and the trend so far recorded by the apparatus over the short timescale shown is well within the limits demonstrated by the larger fluctuating temperature changes in proportion.

Like I said, look up the PETM. Look at the global measurements of calcium carbonate concentrations. Marine shells basically ceased to exist because of ocean acidification. Mass extinctions. Coincided with the rise of mammals. This is a very well-studied geologic time period. Our records of it are very good. We're looking at warming 100 times faster than this.