Ok then, again from that image, MMGW has had less of an impact in the last thousand years than it did in the 20 thousand years before that. The rate of increase is declining.
One word for you. Rate.
ummm, ok.. that would work against your joke theories, not with.One word for you. Rate.
oh really?
Ok then, again from that image, MMGW has had less of an impact in the last thousand years than it did in the 20 thousand years before that. The rate of increase is declining.
They're trying to trick you with a stylized graph. Cooling since 1940s is a myth.
And you have been tricked with they no showing historical cooling and warming. The warming that is happening is nothing unusual.
The last thousand years isn't the period that man has been putting a huge amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels... You have to compare the rate during the fossil fuel era to the rate before the fossil fuel era. Look at the graph I just posted.
I saw that image, and I saw your statement which ironically applies to you.
Why do some people believe the earth should suddenly stop changing, despite the fact that the rate of change has drastically been reduced over the last hundreds of thousands of years? Why then do those same people believe man is the cause of any minute change and declare a state of emergency?
I saw that image, and I saw your statement which ironically applies to you.
Why do some people believe the earth should suddenly stop changing, despite the fact that the rate of change has drastically been reduced over the last hundreds of thousands of years? Why then do those same people believe man is the cause of any minute change and declare a state of emergency?
Except it is unusual. The rate we've had for the last 200 years is much greater than the normal changes caused by the Milankovitch cycle. The point of this graph is to show the match with greenhouse gases. Do you really think the match is a coincidence?
Except it is unusual. The rate we've had for the last 200 years is much greater than the normal changes caused by the Milankovitch cycle. The point of this graph is to show the match with greenhouse gases. Do you really think the match is a coincidence?
Of course not, temperature drives CO2. Your problem is assuming the connection is backwards.
a cute graph, with no attribution, no evidence and no proof. There's agw science for you in a nutshell.
I can't view your link from work. Is this the chart you're referring to? Those last 15,000 years have been a killer!The data is from Vostok
I can't view your link from work. Is this the chart you're referring to? Those last 15,000 years have been a killer!
Well, whoever was designing the factories and engines spewing all that CO2 325,000 years ago, 235,000 years ago, and 130,000 years ago sure didn't take into account their contributions to global climate change.
Selfish b@stards.
Chuck
I can't view your link from work. Is this the chart you're referring to? Those last 15,000 years have been a killer!
Can you show me any model that reasonably replicates 400k years of actual historical data?Climate change happens for several different reasons... One is the Milankovitch orbital cycle, which causes those big changes you see in the Vostok data. Another is catastrophic events like meteor strikes or volcanism. The one we are concerned with is the human release of huge amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels.
CO2 lag is typically 600 to 800 years.Anyone can see for themselves that CO2 is following temperature in that chart.
What really worries me personally isn't the new data, or even the alleged manipulation of data (which is appalling), but the fact that there now seem to be two sides who believe whatever they believe _regardless_ of the data, and seem to think that when the other side is proved wrong they will have 'won' something. At the end of the day we still need a way of regulating the temperature of the Earth to ensure the survival of civilization in the long term.