LOL. There isn't enough data from that period that would allow you to distinguish local temperatures changes from a meaningful global average.

And you consciously moved away from your 'we didn't do it before so it isn't us now' argument.

Talk about bad science.

Well actually the dataset is not that bad....conveniently the global warming gurus chop their charts off usually in the fifties, knowing full well that there was a rapid heating from 1917 through 1938 (it was warmer then than it is now) which was then followed by a rapid cooling.
Are you an idiot...exactly how have I changed my argument....basically what both linlithgoil and I have said is the climate has continually changed in the past....there is no historical correlation of CO2 with temperature so something else is involved....likely solar radiation.

Sure, there were heaps of meteorologist prior to the industrial revolution. Sheesh.




First it was before mankind could be involved, then 'from 1695 to 1733' then after the fifties. But you're not switching arguments. Of course not.

Here's a graph of reliable data. Tell me the trend is not clearly UP.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xtemps82.htm



Could not be more wrong.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/c ... trends.gif

But of course, you KNOW the difference between correlation and casuation, don't you ?

You are showing your ignorance here. Temperature data in the UK as an example was well documented throughout this period...in fact it is fairly reliable because there was a complete lack of heat island effect which distorts much of the temperature land data collected in the last thirty years of so. If you go to the NASA site (which by the way is where the raw data for the graph you put reference to came from) you can download and analyse it for yourself. I think you also likely have a misunderstanding of the difficulties in coming up with global mean temperatures...there is wild disagreement as to what these measurements show....junkscience.com has a very nice discussion on the use and abuse of the various measurments of temperature.



You either are truly an idiot or you are missing the what I wrote. There was no contribution from man to CO2 during the period 1695 to 1733, there was no widespread burning of fossil fuels and temperature increased at a much faster rate than it has since the last cooling period which ended in the sixties. The global warming gurus who you have apparently adopted as your god usually chop off their graphs at the end of the last cooling period to emphasize the recent heating. This is Mann's trick.
If you bothered to go to the chart recommended by the link you enclosed you would see what I am talking about. It is an overall warming trend...of course it is we are still coming out of the last glaciation, what do you expect? Look in more detail at the chart...temperatures increased rapidly from about 1917 to 1938 (again prior to mankind burning massive quantities of fossil fuels) and the peak in 1938 was as warm if not slightly warmer than it currently is. From 1938 through the mid sixties we went through a rapid cooling...in fact there were articles in newspapers worrying about another worldwide glaciation.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ct ... m#temp2002
None of us are arguing whether or not the earth is currently heating...that isn't the point....what is arguable is what is causing it.



Well very nice but lets expand our timescale a wee bit. A nice plot dug up and discussed by the junkscience guys with a link to a good recent paper discussing Carboniferous CO2 and climate.
www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
In summary zero relationship between CO2 and temperature. Extremely high CO2 during the Ordovician accompanied by worldwide glaciation.
By the way the chart you show has been debunked numerous times. Conveniently the author separated them so the overall trends look like they align. When the data is normalized and plotted on similar scales on top of one another the detailed trend dissappears. I'll see if I can hunt down the appropriate references.

And in terms of correlation and casuation....by definition there is no relationship. Because two things correlate does not mean they are at all related in any fashion. However if two things do not correlate we can surely say there is no cause and effect relationship.

OK.

You're an obvious idiot bent on cretinism.

I just keep telling you that there is NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA before the start of the industrial revolution, and you keep replying crap, without, of course, providing any data. There are data for England from ~1650 and Europe from ~1780, but it shows only that current temperatures are consistently far above those collected during these periods ( which were pretty stable ), and rising. This is valid for the temperatures collected in England, in Europe and Globally. This is especially obvious since the last 30 years.

I show you an up trend and you show me the same data, plotted differently, as it would change anything.

We are NOT coming out of glaciation. In fact the current interglacial period started 10,000 years ago and the last two ones lasted (oh!) 10,000 years.. That why some scientists feared the beginning of a new ice age in the 70s.

Then you come up with some lame excuse about nomalization, wich clearly shows that you know squat about nothing. If you multiply the data by any number, short of zero, this won't change the correlation. At all.

As for showing data from 600 million years ago as any kind of proof, this is obviously ridiculous. The Earth that existed at that time and its climate had nothing to do with what we experience today. You don't compare oranges and apples.

And about the crap site you're linking to, I suggest you check Here to see who were the former employers of the guy running the website.

[quote]Milloy was registered as a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a Washington, DC firm whose clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association.[\quote]

You lack a brain. You're a joke.

My money is on science, not idiots like you.

Well actually I am a scientist...have been one for over 30 years.

Do some research my friend....the data I pointed you to at Junkscience you seem to have not wanted to look at and as is normal with the wearisome global warming fear mongers you turn the whole argument into vindictive attack. I think I pointed out earlier on in this series of posts that is the normal response.
We are indeed coming out of glaciation....the glaciers are mostly receeding with the exception of parts of Antartica. Until we start to see the next glaciation starting up we will always be coming out of the last....by definition. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading through publications such as the GSA bulletin.

And you miss the entire point about the temperature plots. You are the ass who said we have never seen the earth heating up as fast as it is now...stupid comment because the graph illustrates that to be completely incorrect.

Lame excuse...hardly by normalizing I simply mean plotting both graphs at a scale so you can overlay them. Like I said when I find the reference I'll post it. This has been pointed at by a number of scientists as misleading.

As to your suggestion that my argument has no validity regarding the Ordovician....hardly. If the theory that increased levels of CO2 cause global warming is true then why in the Ordovician when CO2 was thousands of times higher in concentration did the glaciers not all melt. You say well there were other things happening and exactly that is what both Linlithgoil and I have said here....other things are more important in temperature creation...ie. solar heating levels for one.
If you do a bit of a search there are a couple of other threads on this forum where I have posted the arguments against anthropogenic heating...I point to a number of good articles and a couple of very recent ones by Canadian scientists who argue that climate is directly related to solar activity.



From this comment I am led to believe you are likely a teenager...you certainly demonstrate your immaturity.

Pot kettle black, buddy. You started this one so stop whinig.

And let me quote it again, about your favorite website.



And no, you didn't provide any graph that showed that temperatures increased faster in the past. If it were, in a single dot on a hundred million years times scales you would have had temperatures shot up to the thousands of degrees. Same thing with graphs on several tens of thousands of years.

May I ask one question: If the GW is not due to CO2, then why does the DOE have a very active carbon sequestration research program?

In my view, Kyoto protocol is a disguised form of international energy corporation to diversify energy sources from carbohydrate energy rather than merely an effort for climate change per se. Global warming is easier to be grasped by the public rather than energy crunch because the idea of energy crunch will scare people into denial.

The cause of global warming could be a mixture of many things as many forumers here have pointed out, such as natural phenomenon caused by the sun, increased carbon dioxide concentration, or others. What we know for sure at this moment is that the average temperature is increasing year by year, and also that the carbon dioxide concentration is increasing as well. As you know, the forests in Amazon are very important to sustain oxygen concentration on earth. Deforestation in Amazon has been a problem for years, which could be disastrous for global environment in general in the future if we continue to do nothing about carbon dioxide emission from factories. To sustain vital environment as far as possible is important regardless of its implications in global warming.

At this moment it seems to me that it is not very important how to publicize the agendas to 1) diversify energy from carbohydrate energy, 2) promote energy conservation, and 3) minimize the effect of human activity on vital environment such as oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration. What is important is to do something about it now. At the same time if there is any possible human factor other than carbon dioxide to cause global warming, scientists need to keep on doing the research without bias.

Karina .. you have some good ideas in your post. Since you seem to be not as biased as other people , try DOE's web site on carbon sequestration http://cdiac2.esd.ornl.gov/ The American taxpayer is (justifiably) paying a lot of money for this kind of research and there should be a reason. A few years ago in a lecture in Europe I did hear a talk by Dr Ari Patrinos (head of the Office of Biological and Environmental Research) and Cregg Venter (of Celera Genomics) on environmental engineering using genetic technology. Both of them were excellent speakers and brilliant scientists. If government and big industry (Celera was a big corportate player in the Human Genome Project and since then have turned into microbiological genetics) are involved in this, then the CO2 argument is probably real.
And yes I do think that the way the humans messed with the carbon cycle is responsible (that includes industry, hydrocarbon burning and large scale agriculture and environmental degradation).

I can't say I agree with your theory, because it is obvious that many industries are trying to cast doubts on the work of scientists working in the climate field. You wouldn't see that if it was a concerted effort to move away from hydrocarbon energy.

Of course, it is not straightforward. Of course, there are many factors involved. That's why these scientists work on very complex models. The problem is that people do not understand science and expect it to deliver truths. Lobbyists can therefore weight on the public perception of irreliability of the theories to prevent meaningful actions to be taken.

Why do you expect scientists to be biased ? Because the subject is so complex that YOU can only rely on your opinion and therefore, bias. Scientists do not work with opinions, they work with facts and knowledge. The problem is not that scientists may be biased, it is that industries want you to believe they are so that their businesses are not hurt ( and the planet may go to hell ).

I'm still coming to grips with the cause(s) of global warming and I now have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that it is entirely due to CO2.
I found this interesting site which suggests that it is due to "oceans heating". The ocean is heated by hot spots in the Earth's core. He also makes the point made earlier in this thread that water is the main greenhouse gas not CO2. So I'm beginning to agree with rockdoc.

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

Graeme,

I have my doubts about the link you provided.

I don't have enough knowledge in the field of glabal warming, so I can't weigh in into that debate. But I think I know enough about medicine to say something about the theories of Gary Novak, Biologist, regarding cancer and heart disease.

Mr. Novak shows the monocausalistic thinking of a 15 year old. He does not really understand the matter, he just picks isolated facts and connects them with his own logic, wondering if he is the only sane, thinking person on the planet.

I could go on and show the holes of his argumentation there, but that would be off topic. (But I would do it if you don't believe me.)

My point is: if he tells such rubbish about things that are much closer to his profession as a mushroom researcher, I tend to believe that his arguments about global warming can be as easily debunked by a person with knowlegde in that field.

Just to point some facts : water vapor stays in the atmosphere for about ten days, while CO2 stays there for decades, if not centuries. Also, water vapor tend to form clouds, which reflect incoming radiations.