If currently popular scientific theorises and hypotheses about the Earth's climate are correct (and they very well may not be), then: From the time the Earth was formed until now, the Earth has cooled. Around 650 million years ago, during the "Snowball Earth" period, the Earth was believed to have been covered in ice from pole to pole. Since that time, the Earth has warmed. During the time of the dinosaurs, which spanned around 180 million years until about 65 million years ago, temperatures were largely warmer. So, since that time, the Earth has cooled. Since the last ice age (around 12-20 thousand years ago), the Earth has warmed. Since the Medieval Warming Period (around 800–1300 AD), the Earth has cooled. Since the mini-ice age (around 1350-1850 AD), the Earth has warmed. Since around 1995, the Earth has cooled a little bit. Of course there are many other instances of cyclical climatic periods, such as the ones above, that could be added to this list. But the point is that the Earth's climate has always been in a state of change. It always has, and it always will. So no one should be surprised to discover that the Earth's climate continues to change at the present time.
In the history of this planet there have been several mass extinction events where the dominant species have ceased to exist. No one should be too surprised if it happens to homo sapiens.
Spot on analysis -- below is an example of B-Bob using very strong statements directly after having admitted to not reading all '38 pages'. I haven't included the entire post because as you might expect it quickly becomes NSFW. As I recall he was discussing Global Warming emails he received from MUFON.
I won't speak for Sam, but for me, the basis of warming comes from: * satellite data * thermometers (e.g. see several posts up, blue curve, red curve) * ice core analyses * energy input versus energy output for the planet Earth * much smarter people than me like Richard Muller, the skeptic physicist who shreds IPCC but still says we are obviously warming up. * my previously posted historical works from the 1890's, 1950's and 1970's. Other than that, I am an unreasonable poster who won't listen to data or discussion. I won't even read 38 pages on T-Mac's first game as a Knick, for crying out loud! I should be dismissed for that alone. Then again, I still think that, if we back up the analysis to before the earth existed, there are two very plain conclusions: * The universe used to be much hotter -- so we are seeing universal cooling, and * Brian Cook should start for the Rockets because we need inside presence, outside shooting, and also he was once MVP of the prestigious Big Ten conference. Finally: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CegBpOqOwcA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CegBpOqOwcA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The current scientific consensus. What is the basis for your sentiment which i guess can only be characterized as faith in Jeff Id, whoever that is?
is there data to support this consensus? if so, is it reflected in the graphic you posted above? if so, could you perhaps point us all to the underlying data?
Yes. There is. I actually have several .mdb's recently saved on my hard drive that consist of this data set. Simply post your e-mail address and I will gladly dispatch them to you. I'm sure you and yours will enjoy poring over it What do you have to support your view? Can you post links to Jeff Id's curriculum vitae? Since you are copy pasting his demand for stolen data tapes verbatim - surely you must know something about him right?
Actually, as reported a few months ago, much of the data that was supposedly used to support the work coming out of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia was apparently dumped: [RQUOTER]Climate Change Data Dumped SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Related Links The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said. Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. [/RQUOTER] And leading "climate change" groups here in the United States have been unwilling to release the data and methods underlying their "climate change findings also, just like Phil Jones and his crew at the CRU were. Phil Jones and a number of others may have already been caught engaging in misleading conduct. But that will not be the end of this. There are almost certainly similar revelations yet to come from similar groups here in the United States. Keep an eye open - there are more scandals yet to come. So, you can probably get these guys around here to provide you with some "data", as long as you are not too picky about the quality of the data you are receiving.
Unless the scandals overturn the science done in the 1890's, the 1950's, and the 1970's, there will be zero change in the science describing the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. I also hope the scandals address the fact that we absorb more solar radiation than we give off via reflection and IR. But yes, my eyes (both of them) are always open on the scientific data and the ongoing discussion in the scientific community. I've given up on the political discussion and the group will of humans I think.
and without trustworthy data, AGW, or GCC or whatever the new term is, will be purely anecdotal. the world might be warming, but why, and what policies are needed to combat it, or even whether we should try to combat it, will remain unknown. AWG is not a religion, and should not be taken faith- it's science, and science is always built on quality data, reproduceable models, in an open and peer-reviewed environment. such an environment does not (yet) exist in this instance.
That is a nice sentiment. Tell me what is the science behind your stated position that: 1) the earth is cooling; 2) the earth is warming but not because of CO2; and 3) Solar flares are causing the earth to warm How did you arrive at these observations? Other than reading about them in the Free Republic forums first.
when you include a statement like that, one might suspect that perhaps your query is not entirely sincere.
Such an environment does still exist, never stopped existing, and will not stop existing due to the repeated braying of the deniers. There is still more than enough data to conclude that AGW is real, caused by man, and accelerating. The fact that you and Faux "News" keep humming with your fingers in your ears when the science is mentioned does not mean there is no scientific evidence, it just means that you are ignoring the evidence.
Really? Because I see your demand for the stolen data tapes by your patron saint Jeff Id reproduced literally hundreds of times on that site, all predating your demand here in this thread, see for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q="jef...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Tell me what is the science behind your stated position that: 1) the earth is cooling; 2) the earth is warming but not because of CO2; and 3) Solar flares are causing the earth to warm How did you arrive at these observations?
