I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

What utter nonsense. Putting the instrumental data in the same graph as the proxy data demonstrates the decline! If Mann had wanted to hide the decline, he would have eliminated the instrumental data, so that readers would not be able to see the divergence. Instead, he shows in his graph exactly what you claim he's hiding.

Sheesh. What mental gymnastics must be taught at Denierstan U., to be able to come up with such idiocy.

 

Nothing you just said is true.

You don't even know what you are talking about.


Mann spliced in instrumental data into the proxy data as to hide the decline. As you said you can't see the decline.

 

Oh, it's there. It's well within the two-sigma error limits, and it's nothing to get excited about. But it's there.

 

Mann was exposed as a fraud once his method and data was forced to be released by the courts and was allowed to be examined by others

just like you using charts and graphs which come from a site called skeptical science which to has been exposed as a fraud

 

Mann was exonerated by no less than six investigations, including one by the National Academy of Sciences. The fact that you are unaware of that shows your ignorance.

You just gotta love the denizens of Denierstan, who can't tell the difference between bare (and libellous) accusations on one hand, and actual evidence on the other.

No wonder you guys are losing this debate.

Do you have any actual evidence that anything at all in skepticalscience.com is fraudulent? Or are you just repeating the usual crap you found on some denier website?

 

I ought to let you know too that Dr. Mann has sued others for libel for making this claim; notably the National Review Online. Although the suit has yet to come to trial, as of now NRO's defense in various filings amounts to "Hey, we've never claimed that the stuff we write is true."

Which should tell you something right there.

 

Nice way to make a threat to a fellow poster.

 

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action



Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/


ClimateGate Star Michael Mann Courts Legal Disaster


But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.

Scientific critics raise another looming question. Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961, where it then applied surface ground station temperature data. Why change in 1961? Well, maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline. After presenting these unwelcome results to Mann and others, he was put under pressure to recalculate them. He did, and the decline became even greater.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...gate-star-michael-mann-courts-legal-disaster/

 

Pointing out how humans produce only a fraction as much atmospheric CO2 as does nature ignores the fact that nature also absorbs CO2 while humans don't. When you consider that nature absorbs more CO2 than it produces, that makes human emissions totally responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

Your reference is a bit old, but the information presented is fascinating. Much like Hansen simply applying corrections to temperature data until a non-warming profile in the US became a warming one, this type of manipulation again leads to the topic of professional oversight and why there doesn't appear to be any. Someone wants a dataset to say something, they "correct" it, ignore subsets of the data that don't deliver the answer they want, and amazingly then are not subject to any type of professional review in terms of their statistical manipulations. Quite a setup, wish I could have been able to use data this way.

 

There is an increase in litigation against people who post on the net - information is not always threatening unless the receiver has a reason to take it to heart

- - - Updated - - -

Except that it must be one of the most reproduced pieces of research out there

 

This will be a day to celebrate when all these lies are finally exposed definitively.

 

Hmmm because that same day a guy with a pitchfork and a tail is going to come up to you and tell you that it just froze over.

 

Fact, the climate is changing. Fact, it always has. Fact, the science is NOT settled. Only an idiot would utter such a thing.

What hard scientist would say any science is settled? If one is aware of the history of science, one could never say a soft science like climatology is settled. It's utter and dishonest nonsense. This is a psychological issue more than anything else.

 

They already have been.

However, it seems to me that most of the global warmings alarmists have such a fragile ego that they cannot admit when they were wrong. That's one of the things that keeps them so ignorant.. If a person cannot admit when they are wrong they cannot learn.

So it won't matter to them.

 

Back in the real world, the denier cult is essentially irrelevant. They spend most of their time on message boards swapping conspiracy theories and trying to convince each other that they've achieved yet another glorious victory.

You had a good run of it. Well, not really, but I figure I'd try to console you.

 

Yet the computer models that you rely on for your 'truth' keep deviating from actual recorded temperatures and you claim some moral superiority. Sounds more like a religion to me. The religion of computer models and falsified predictions and, of course, authority.

 

Your cult mantras there fail spectacularly in two ways.

1. The models are quite accurate, and only denier cultists fudge the data to pretend otherwise.

2. The science doesn't depend on the models. If there were no models, global warming science would still be rock solid.

 

You are in error about apply that to the whole of the people who treat science as it should be, with skepticism. There is no conspiracy, and if any exists, it is among so few people it doesn't much matter. Individuals doing what is in their best interests do not mean its a conspiracy. Incorrect ideas being taught out of ignorance isn't a conspiracy. To treat skeptics as the same people who think 911 was an inside job, the moon landings were a hoax, JFK was killed by the CIA, etc. is ludicrous on your part.

 

But for this to be an explanation as to why so many scientists in so many countries across the world? There are tens of thousands of scientists across discipline after discipline who believe that global warming is real and that human activity is causing it

Marine biologists
Astronomy
Physicists
Meteorologists
Oceanographers
geophysicists
General academies across the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Oh! And add to that list some pretty impressive economists like Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut - working in two different countries they independently reviewed the evidence and published reports

 

Reproduced using Mann's tortured data and methods. Mann still has not made all of his manipulations of the input data available. Put in red noise and it creates a hockey stick. The science community has quietly been backing away from this disaster. New research out shows the failure of using bristlecone tree ring data. In Mann v Steyn, not one of those 'supporting' scientists have entered a brief for Mann.

- - - Updated - - -

100% of scientists believe global warming is real, including the skeptics. They just don't all believe in the outcome or the alarmist meme.

 

1. You would need to explain the continued deviation from observational science. Gosh, the observational science must be wrong.

2. AGW alarmism depends entirely on the models. Climate science is full of known unknowns, unknown unknowns, is quite young, and it is full of very sketchy hypothesis that are being treated as fact by people like you.

 

Most of these other disciplines simply appeal to the authority of the IPCC.

 

Remind me again what climate models Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callender based their calculations on.

 

One guy that first tried to hypothesize CO2 as an effect and another that did the same. Sorry but pretty irrelevant considering what has been learned since and how wrong it is going for the CO2 centric meme. Probably about as good as Arrhenius racial biology.