AGW: Human Caused Global Warming.

Can someone explain this graph ?
There is global warming in the years 1000 and 1400.
These are not caused by carbon in the atmosphere.
It appears to be a natural 400-500 year temperature oscillation.

 

Yes. Until the last 200 years or so of solid red (warming).

 

Did you notice there is no fluctuations over on the right side of the graph, there were cooler periods between shorter hot periods in the rest of the graph, but in the last almost 100 years, or since the industrial revolution there has been a long period of raised global average temperatures. What happened to those natural fluctuations you see right across the chart up to 1910? After 1910 they no longer occur, cause for some concern.

 

If there is a natural oscillation,
we should soon be entering a 350 year cooling period.
Appears the previous warming periods lasted about 150 years.
Which would put us at the end of our warming cycle.

 

But what caused warming in 1000 and 1400?
If you cant explain those temp rises,then my oscillation theory is valid.
Even though I'll admit I dont know squat about AGW.

 

Causing it - No. Contributing to it - probably.

 

And current data supports that we have been cooling for the last 9 years.

It is *very likely* that we have reached the end of a warming period and are now starting a downward trend of cooling.

 

Nope and nope, for the reasons previously discussed.

 

A.L.R.I.C.'s reasoning being "the only people who are allowed to cherrypick data are AGWers"

Mojo, rest assured we are in a cooling period since 2001.

 

Regardless of how many peer reviewed articles are linked, when the basic data and model that these articles cite is flawed or manipulated all of them are flawed.

Science can not permit intentional maniuplation of data to generate the desired or pre-conceived results.

 

Please show evidence this happened.

 

Agreed. We need to see the ORIGINAL, unaltered data. We need to see before and after graphs of this data. We need to see the data plotted in its original form, not with all of the "hide the decline" DECEIT built into it. We can not have scientists MAKING STUFF UP that supports what they want us to believe. That is NOT science. It is deceit.

Edit: I know this post will trigger the A.L.R.I.C. system to post "where is evidence that happened", so go ahead and look at the "hide the decline" again. It is straight deceit.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

Your so-called cooling does coincide nicely with the recent solar minimum, so in that case, I'm going to say that we've reached the end of a cooling period and are now starting an upward trend of warming.

What exactly is going to cause the globe to cool substantially in the next decade?

 

This is truly hilarious.

AGW in a nutshell:

- Any warming that has occurred in the last 150 years we say is due to man made greenhouse gases.
- There is no discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature, but for sure CO2 is causing the temperature to rise. We just can't show it mathematically because we don't know enough. But trust us it is definitely the cause.
- Vast periods of cooling, including the periods from 1934-1980 and 2001-2010, are due to something, but we don't know what. It might be aerosols, it might be solar output. Who knows? We sure don't.
- We ignore the MWP and the LIA, despite that it may appear that we are coming out of an ice age. We don't include those periods in our graphs because it makes our current warming period look insignificant.
- So basically we see there is warming, but mathematically we can't show a relationship of CO2 to temperature, and we have no idea why it's cooling.
- The science is settled.

 

Normal earth cycles.

You know, the same things that caused the MWP and the LIA, along with the other ice ages, and other warming periods. Just like it has done for 4.5 billion years.

 

I wonder what got us out of the cryogenian period....

 

It must have been time travel. We went back in time and had another industrial revolution.

 

Or it could have been a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere but hey, you're the expert here so I'll defer to your knowledge...

 

What is the "falsifiable hypothesis" of anthropogenic global warming?

Also - please show us the link for the "30,000 scientists". The fact of the matter is, there is only one chapter - chapter 9 - that deals with attribution (i.e., what is causing climate change). That chapter had just 53 authors. That is a pretty far cry from 30,000.

And as climatologist Richard Lindzen - IPCC author and reviewer has noted:

The "most egregious problem is that it [the ipcc report] is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on."



He goes on:


"It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as 'the world's leading climate scientists.' It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process."

 

No Slowdown of Global Warming, Agency Says

and

Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted – And Still Influence – America’s Debate Over Climate Change”

Enjoy.