https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/07/long-term-climate-change-what-is-a-reasonable-sample-size/ We can all agree I guess that those recurring temp spikes starting 400,000 years ago were all caused by human generated C02. right? Where am I going wrong here? I am just a simple farm boy from Maine and I want to be smart like people from California. That's the conclusion that all the smart people are reaching right? I want to be like them. Human caused C02 is the only cause of climate change. Yeh, I like that model. Does not require you to think at all. If I put a John Kerry bumper sticker on my car, I think I will be there. One of the beautiful people.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball#Creationism Credential fudging and climate denial Ball has been represented in the media as a climatologist (Canada's first, don'tcha know?) who has held a professorship for upward of twenty-eight years. However, he carefully omits this in his curriculum vitae.[2] In fact, he was a professor of geography with a focus in historical climate who retired in 1996. When the Calgary Herald published a letter[3] that questioned the credentials listed for Ball (in an article in which Ball attacked Tim Flannery[4]) Ball sued for libel, while admitting that he had not been a professor for twenty-eight years.[5] (Don't think too hard about that or it might make your head hurt.) Before the suit was dropped (against 3 defendants), Tim Lambert of Deltoid dared Ball to sue him, too.[6] Lambert also expressed doubt over the relevance of Ball's research: “”However, hardly any of those 51 publications are in scientific journals but include things like gardening magazines. I looked in Web of Science and could only find four papers by Ball, all on historical climatology, none on climate and atmosphere. I don't see how Ball can possibly win his case, but I guess that's not the point.[7] Eli Rabett has created the "Tim Ball Award for Resume Stretching" in his honor.[8] Even within the deniosphere, Ball hasn't come up with anything new or impressive. All he does is constantly repeat points refuted a thousand times about solar cycles and how carbon dioxide is plant food. For example, take a look at his ingenious "refutation" of rising sea levels where he just puts some ice cubes in a glass and lets them melt. Creationism Ball also seems to be a creationist of some sort. In an op-ed in Canada Free Press, he wrote: “”Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.[9] On his website, he attacks Richard Dawkins and claims science, evolution, and environmentalism are religions. He also believes that the Bible's predictions have been just as verified as those made by science: “”Perhaps the ultimate irony[10] is that the biblical views on nature, human roles and responsibilities are as logical as any other including modern environmentalism.[11] When you take his global warming denialism together with creationism and his admiration for Immanuel Velikovsky,[12] there's clear evidence for crank magnetism. Tim Ball's reading list Ball recommends some great reading for all the warmists: “”There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That’s called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that’s run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.[13] More lawsuits In 2011, Ball found himself at the receiving end of a couple of libel suits. In February, University of Victoria climatologist (and now a member of the British Columbia legislature) Andrew Weaver filed a lawsuit against Ball for his op-eds that accused Weaver of incompetence and corruption. In March, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann filed a lawsuit against Ball and his think tank for publishing statements on their websites that claimed Mann was complicit in a "cover-up" of Climategate and that he had committed scientific fraud.[14] Since the suits were launched Canada Free Press has retracted one of the interviews with Ball on the website.[15] Furthermore, they seem to have scrubbed a good deal of Ball's articles and Ball-related material.[16] http://rabett.blogspot.ie/2006/09/playing-tim-ball-click-here-to-play.html
Yeh, I don't know anything about him and never even looked at the link. I just wanted to show the graph and then a link where I got it. Note that that same graph and data is shown on government NOAA websites. The point isnt about that fellow and his credentials. The point is that the earth has been at current and higher temps many times before- long before man was generating C02. Whether the guy on the link is a wackjob I have no idea. But somethings cannot be dismissed just because he can be dismissed. I believe that the data of on the graph comes from radio-isotope analysis of ice core samples. At least that is how they were doing it in some instances when I read up about it. Of course it is not either/or. Temps can be rising as they have cyclically many times and man may or may not be making it worse. But the suggestion that the earth is somehow in place now that it is has never been before man is a complete crock. note that this is from NOAA own website. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
TreeFrogTrader It is the rate of change that is the concern both in temperature and very importantly, oceanic acidification. Also from NOAA https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification? The planet getting warmer because the sun, fine, that changes a bit, it is gradually getting warmer over eons but it fluctuates. Going back hundreds of millions of years the amount of landmass on the equator changed as continents drifted, new types of biology evolved, there were lots of large scale, longish-term effects. "Climate forcing", is the term they use for naturally occurring & fast (but not usually that fast, asteroids and supervolcanos of course) changes are researched in paeoclimatology https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-forcing What do you make of the bottom of the long chart above? Nothing to be concerned about? Yes we might be helping ourselves by burning fossil fuels, warming the place a bit, great for crops and greening plants.. cept.. we are changing the PH of the oceans at a rate the tiny organisms that are the foundation of the food chain can't cope with. We do eat a lot of fish and with an exponentially growing human population... is turning the ocean to relative sludge a conservative thing to do?
We have 7.6 billion people on a plant than cannot accomodate that amount without pilfering and exploiting every known resource as it is. I wonder what the next 7.6 billion will do. Yes, to the ocean acidification issue and the countless other related issues. Somehow the media and the population has this whole thing reduced to just a C02 thing and that we can accomodate another seven billion by having everyone drive a Prius and eat algae. No we can't. Mother nature is pretty smart though and gets to weigh in. Let's hope that antibiotic resistance is not one of those ways. More than can be covered in posts so I will stop there. but yes...... We don' know, all we can do is extend trend lines out. But over a period of decades, severe global cooling could also happen. You can't plan on it but it is a possibility. You know, the sudden cooling has always been caused by excessive volcanic activity blotting out the sun and we have plenty of active volcanoes. For instance that mother of a volcano in iceland ten years back or whenever it was that would not let up-where all the air traffic to europe had to be diverted. How do we know how long one could plume away. It follows its own timing, not ours.When krakatoa exploded in indonesia in the 1800s, it resulted in the "year without summer" in many countries. No crops. and new england did not have a single month in the year when it did not snow. Ya never know. Then there are solar flares and sunspots and all sorts of stuff correlated with temperature.
how do you measure a rate of change... when the recent part of your chart uses instrument data and the rest of your chart uses proxy data. and if you look at the rate of change on the proxy data such as the tree rings... you don't see the same rate of change as in the instrument data. 2. oceans have been getting more neutral for hundreds of years. How can you say its accelerating.... I suspect you will produce some nutter models. 3. finally... is this man made... where is the acceleration... is it unnatural.. the oceans have been warming for thousands of years... where is the human signal?
Jem, You don't even write with basic punctuation. Treefrog will at least try and see another side, you? It is just trolling gibberish out of you.
The spikes were mostly caused by CO2 from a feedback effect of solar cycles. And no matter what you do, you will never be one of the smart people. Trumpers will never be.