How nice of you to present a 120 year period beginning from a cool period. Superior (longer) time lines have already been laid out in this topic. So why did you use such a misleading image, so you could present propaganda as science?
I don't know how to get through to you people. Yes, everybody knows that climate changes naturally. That doesn't mean we can't cause climate change by drastically altering the atmosphere's composition.
I don't see a cooling between 1940 and 1970. I see a lot of variation and overall steady trend, followed by a resumption of warming. Is the spike around 1941 confusing you? Overall it's clearly a warming trend. The cause of the steadiness for that time period is probably due to particulates reflecting radiation back into space (aka global dimming). Pollution regs since then have reduced particulates drastically, removing that buffer.
Note how steady and severe the warming is between 1965 and 2008.
That must be what you did when you failed at statistics...
nah, it was when the Fail became too much.
And Gavin works for Jim Hansen at NASA.realclimate.org is run by Gavin Schmidt, one of the pro-warming scientists involved in the CRU email scandal.... I thought that was public knowledge, but apparently not.
GCR is potentially a huge independent variable that's totally ignored by the IPCC...research is currently underway at CERN and we should have some preliminary results by the end of the year. Calibration data for the CLOUD chamber shows that galactic cosmic ray flux causes significant cloud formation. FYI, GRC theory also explains why the other planets in our solar system are also heating up.What are you saying is "maybe yes, maybe no"?
Interesting way to call a cooling trend of several decades a "spike"... like it doesn't matter and we should ignore it? By that definition, on the scale of 1000000 years, a 100 year warming trend is nothing but a blip.
But more importantly, your graph only presents data dating back to 1880... I cannot emphasize enough how misleading it is to draw some profound conclusion from looking a small clip of the entire history of the planet. You see that neat little horizontal line at y=0? Am I to believe that is the official "normal" temperature, and any deviation from that measure must be minimized? Who decided that line should be the normal, when looking back thousands of years, it's clear there were much wider fluctuations in temperature? Who decided that the "normal" should not reflect the temperatures dating back much further than 1880?
GCR is potentially a huge independent variable that's totally ignored by the IPCC...research is currently underway at CERN and we should have some preliminary results by the end of the year. Calibration data for the CLOUD chamber shows that galactic cosmic ray flux causes significant cloud formation. FYI, GRC theory also explains why the other planets in our solar system are also heating up.
Jason Kirkby is heading up the CLOUD experiment at CERN. He's one of the world's top physicists (Google him if you don't believe me). Here's a presentation he did last year that will give you a decent understanding of current IPCC theory, the CLOUD experiment, and the potential impact of GCRs on our climate. http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/?p=1647
Enjoy.
For that graph to mean anything, you need to provide a link to a peer-reviewed journal article, explaining how they calculate their uncertainty. An uncertainty band of +/- 0.1°C is pure make believe.
In the heat transfer research lab I did my graduate work in, we had in situ calibrated thermocouples, operating over a very small temperature range. Even with all of this we had uncertainties in the +/- 0.21°C range. After spatial averaging, the uncertainty jumped up to > +/- 1°C during most tests. But you are trying to tell me that you can measure the mean temperature of the entire earth with a +/- 0.1°C uncertainty band? The truth is if you slapped a +/- 1°C band on that data, you'd realize there was no statistically significant difference between each data point.
I would be willing to bet that if a true uncertainty analysis was done on the planet's mean temperature, the uncertainty would be in the >2°C range. Meaning all your recent data points are statistically the same.
Unfortunately, most people, including scientist and engineers, do not understand measurement uncertainty and its impact on their data and subsequent calculations.
Where do insects get their carbon? By eating plants animals. Where do plants get their carbon? From the atmosphere. Respiration is carbon neutral.
Variations in cosmic rays from the sun, and any cloud cover changes they create follow an 11 year cycle. There's no correlation between the warming we've observed and cosmic rays. Cosmic ray clouds actually explain cooling periods of a few years that deniers use as "proof" that warming isn't real.
That doesn't even make sense how is respiration carbon neutral? Lets say you have a shitload of termites right? Termites eat trees, so now you have these shit load of termites that need fed. they're breathing a lot, they destroy all the trees get fat and breath a shit load trying to feed and expand their hive or whatever termites have. They've now destroyed the thing that would make their respiration neutral... it's not neutral. Something has to take the CO2 out of the air, if it's not there due to destruction by insects then guess what that CO2 stays in the air.
Respiration isn't neutral.
Wow...you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. Damn...and I thought you had promise.
and then the termites die because they have nothing to eat and their bodies turn into fertilizer for the next generation of plants which take carbon out of the atmosphere.
over very short periods of time it's not neutral. over slightly longer periods of time (years or centuries), it is. over geologic periods of time, it's not, but we're cool with that because it gives evolution time to work.
The thing is, I DO have a clue what I'm talking about. I'm a geographer and this IS my field. I've debunked talking point after talking point. You're some internet yahoo who gets his information from climate change denier websites that quote non-peer reviewed papers and purposely misrepresent real phenomena. You're SO deluded that you're willing to dispute the known physical properties of a gas!
then obviously everything we're doing in the long run will be neutral. sweet. because eventually that CO2 will come down be reabsorbed and turned into something else.
then obviously everything we're doing in the long run will be neutral. sweet. because eventually that CO2 will come down be reabsorbed and turned into something else.
The SOP of a Denier:
1) GHG/GCC requires lobotomy
2) Anti-GHG/GCC requires common sense