How Can Anyone Be Serious about AGW?

wd400, you keep avoiding the issue on the table. @120 you made a claim about "damage" to our ecosystems from global warming. @122 I asked what kind of damage you were talking about, and you responded that ecosystems "are decimated by extinction and in many cases non-functional." The natural follow up to this claim is whether you have any examples of ecosystems "decimated by extinction" or made "non-functional" as a result of warming, which I asked @129. Since then, you have refused to provide any examples or details and have just engaged in obfuscatory games about how I asked the question. You know exactly what the question on the table is, so please exercise some intellectual honesty and address it, rather than deflecting it with lame excuses and misplaced accusations. If you don't have any examples, that is fine. You can say something like: "Global warming hasn't caused any significant extinctions or ecosystem damage yet, but I believe within _____ years it will because ____________________." That would be a reasonable way to answer to the question. Eric Anderson

Apparently you didn't read the opening paragraph closely. PaV

EA, Read the question you asked me in 122. I have to say, I find the rest of your post pretty funny. It must take some real cognitive dissonance to launch into these fact-free preferred narratives of yours, while claiming that's what the scientists providing the details you are ignorant of are doing. PaV, Evolutionary bioloigists are not exactly fans of evolutionary psychology... wd400

Just happened to see this: From Evolution and News, which tells us just how 'flexible' Darwinism can be to its purveyors. PaV

wd400:

I can’t believe I have to say this again, but no one is claiming CO2 is the only influence on climate. Just the one that is responsible for recent warming.

Framed like what a true Darwinist would do in the face of contradicting evidence. But, wd400, CO2 keeps going up, and temperatures, as reliably measured by satellites, have been the same for 20 years. And computer models can't 'correct'; any error present at the beginning, only gets worse. To see how a model either gets it right, or is forever wrong, here's something I linked to before: 2001 Graph from NASA. The AGW argument was wrong from the beginning. And now there's proof that it is wrong: the temperatures themselves. PaV

wd400:

I guess I made this mistake of answering the question you asked, instead of the one you would later decide you asked?

Good grief. The question is pretty simple and has always been the same, notwithstanding your apparent difficult with reading comprehension: Do you have some good examples of the apocalyptic doom you are peddling about species extinction from a couple of degrees of warming? Why don't you just come out and admit that you don't have any good examples, instead of squirming back and forth and avoiding the question. -----

. . . CO2 is . . . responsible for recent warming.

Yet we all acknowledge that there was an increase in CO2 without a corresponding increase in warming. Let this fact sink in for a moment and let us consider this carefully, without just glossing over it and without a knee-jerk run to Wikipedia to find the party line rationalization. An increase in CO2 without an increase in warming means that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in warming. Period. This is a simple logical fact, based on the evidence. This is not, to be sure, a slam-dunk argument against the broader claims of global warming, but it should give us significant pause, particularly in light of other evidence that warming precedes CO2 increase. As to the 20th century situation, we could of course point to other factors: aerosols, volcanoes, or (my favorite rationalization, h/t Trenberth) the heat is "hiding" in the deep oceans just waiting to come back and bite us if we don't repent, or some other explanation for why increasing CO2 did not result in increasing temperatures. It might even be that one of those explanations is true, which could then lead us to conclude that although increasing CO2 does not necessarily cause warming, CO2 would cause warming, except if other atmospheric factors prevent it. I expect you agree with this more careful and nuanced formulation. Which is to say, as to the period in question: If things in the atmosphere had been different than they were, then CO2 would have caused warming. Now, notwithstanding this more careful formulation, I can imagine that someone might still be frightened of CO2 and might fear that the very air they breathe out and is essential to life on Earth is somehow destroying the planet. And they might be right. But as soon as we start to look at the nuances, the whole thing becomes a lot less scary. As with another branch of science often discussed on these pages, the CAGW meme is kept alive with a series of vague generalizations, questionable models, sweeping assertions, and loose definitions. Thus, as with that other branch of science, we can formulate a helpful maxim for anyone interested in investigating the theory: The impression of CAGW's accuracy as a theory is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion. Eric Anderson

because it’s not my job to teach you elementary facts about the world

You are making vague assertions about ecosystems and extinctions, and your bottom line is that I can find similar assertions on Google. So what? But you are right, it's a troll job to make vague assertions on blogs. Andrew asauber

So what WD400 is really saying; Humans are insignificant, they mean nothing they are the result of chance and yet they have the power to destroy a planet! How does this matter WD400? Why do you even care? Andre

No. The question on the table is whether the apocalyptic doomsday claims of ecosystems being decimated by extinction from global warming is something we should take seriously. Some examples of such tragedies that have taken place thus far would be helpful.

I guess I made this mistake of answering the question you asked, instead of the one you would later decide you asked?

Unfortunately, have again failed to understand the nuances ..

Nah, my response was only to show how shallow the "mere 2C" line of argument is. If you want evidence for changes 2C (that's the minimum, btw) would produce it's very easy to find the scientific evidence.

I’m just pointing out in passing that the 20th century saw a multi-year period in which CO2 increased and temperatures did not rise. This is a demonstrable fact of the record that is often glossed over, and rarely properly addressed, by CAGW proponents.

I can't believe I have to say this again, but no one is claiming CO2 is the only influence on climate. Just the one that is responsible for recent warming. (FWIW, the cooling starting from the 1940s was very likely the result of aresols released by industry. This page does a nice job of describing the evidence supporing this). wd400

wd400:

You asked about the current state of ecosystems, not about what climate change has already done.

No. The question on the table is whether the apocalyptic doomsday claims of ecosystems being decimated by extinction from global warming is something we should take seriously. Some examples of such tragedies that have taken place thus far would be helpful. It still wouldn't answer the question of why we should view the ecosystems of today as somehow objectively more right and more worthy of protection than the ecosystems of a warmer world. And of course neither would it support the net-negative claims of CAGW.

As if frequently the case, you are just wrong about this. If nothing else, consider the world was only ~2C warmer than now during the peak of the last interglacial, when sea levels were 5m higher than today.

Unfortunately, have again failed to understand the nuances of the issue being debated. You made claims that global warming would result in more extreme weather, more heat waves, more droughts, and so on. Yet the evidence you cite is higher sea levels in the past? Where is the more extreme weather, the greater droughts? Here is the reality: the extreme weather events caused by global warming that we are supposed to fear currently exist only in the minds of CAGW proponents. Might they exist in the real world in the future? Perhaps. But not based on a couple of degrees of global average temperature rise -- particularly when extreme weather is typically caused by temperature differentials, something that may well even be less of an issue in a warmer world if some of the other global warming claims are to be believed. ----- As to the last point, I'm not interested in debating it in detail on this thread, as I agree with you that much more significant issues remain, even assuming the party line that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in global average temperature. I'm just pointing out in passing that the 20th century saw a multi-year period in which CO2 increased and temperatures did not rise. This is a demonstrable fact of the record that is often glossed over, and rarely properly addressed, by CAGW proponents. Eric Anderson

No, Asauber, because it's not my job to teach you elementary facts about the world. EA,

Wow, that is quite an apocalyptic view. Can you provide one or two concrete examples of ecosystems that have been “decimated by extinction” or made “non-functional” as a result of a couple of degrees of temperature rise?

You asked about the current state of ecosystems, not about what climate change has already done.

Nonsense. No-one has any credible evidence that a few-degree increase in global average temperatures (let’s keep our eye on the ball, please, not the wishy-washy convenience term “climate change”) will result in more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts, etc.

As if frequently the case, you are just wrong about this. If nothing else, consider the world was only ~2C warmer than now during the peak of the last interglacial, when sea levels were 5m higher than today.

So, presumably you don’t believe the 20th century temperature and CO2 data that the IPCC uses. :)

I'm really not sure what you mean. 20th C warming can be explained with greenhouse gases, not without. wikipedia does a pretty good job on this. wd400

Google can get you started.

Because you can't? Andrew asauber

wd400:

No, they are decimated by extinction and in many cases non-functional. What’s left if worth protecting though.

Wow, that is quite an apocalyptic view. Can you provide one or two concrete examples of ecosystems that have been "decimated by extinction" or made "non-functional" as a result of a couple of degrees of temperature rise?

The damage is uncertain, in that we don’t know precisely the magnitude of impacts, but it’s not ‘unspecified’. We know very well that climate change will lead to more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts in some areas..

Nonsense. No-one has any credible evidence that a few-degree increase in global average temperatures (let's keep our eye on the ball, please, not the wishy-washy convenience term "climate change") will result in more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts, etc. I love this though: more flooding and more droughts. Yep, pretty much sums up the anti-scientific "every weather event is evidence for global warming" attitude. Tellingly, proponents of CAGW never seem willing to even countenance a discussion of whether a warmer Earth is a net-benefit. It's all doom and gloom as an underlying assumption.

The other questions you ask are all political/ethical/economic decisions that should be discussed, and my opinion on those isn’t particular important.

Absolutely correct. Most of the issues that people get worked up about in this area are non-scientific, notwithstanding the attempt to wrap them in the guise of scientific authority and pronouncement. I posted my prior comment before I saw this one, so you've already kind of responded, but I'd be curious to see your response to 127 anyway, if you don't mind. And, incidentally, I do think your opinion is important. We should be discussing those aspects more openly and having a real debate about it, rather than the knee-jerk responses we keep seeing from scientific societies and governmental agencies about what "must" be done, about which regulations and requirements must be imposed.

Wasting time of arguments as rediculous as wether Co2 can warm the climate . . .

So, presumably you don't believe the 20th century temperature and CO2 data that the IPCC uses. :) Seriously, though, I agree that much valuable discussion can be had even if we ignore the data and assume that increasing CO2 causes an increasing global average temperature. Indeed, nearly all the most important aspects of the debate still remain open, even after that assumption. Eric Anderson

Asauber, This is pretty basic stuff, Google can get you started. EA, I pretty much already answered this, the first three are scientific, the later ones are not. wd400

wd400: And as to this:

I also find it very interesting to see how antiscientific ideas develop and reinforce themselves.

Yes, it is interesting indeed. ----- Which part of the following do you view as "scientific": - The claim that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause an increase in global average temperatures. - The claim that increasing global average temperatures will cause unprecedented environmental "damage." - The claim that the effect of a warmer global average temperature will be net-negative. - That a warmer global average temperature is due to humans. - That we should do something about it. - That we realistically can can do something about it. - That what we should do is attempt to control the Earth's temperature, rather than preparing for mitigation and adaptation. - That money and efforts and resources are better spent on prevention or mitigation of warmer temperatures, than on other environmental or social needs. Eric Anderson

So “they” is ecosystems.

Which ones? Do you know what specific means? Andrew asauber

that comment is in reply to the quoted text, right? So "they" is ecosystems. I don't think anyone denies that there have been a lot of human-induced extinctions, do they? wd400

they are decimated by extinction

Why so coy wd40? Who is 'they'? and extinction of what? Got anything specific? Andrew asauber

How will ecosystems be “damaged?” Presumably this simply means they will be different in the future than they currently are, which is, in turn, different than they were in ages past. Are the world’s ecosystems currently in an objectively ideal state that must be preserved?

No, they are decimated by extinction and in many cases non-functional. What's left if worth protecting though.

What kinds of things, in your estimation, should we do to prevent the possibility ...

The damage is uncertain, in that we don't know precisely the magnitude of impacts, but it's not 'unspecified'. We know very well that climate change will lead to more extreme weather, more flooding, more heat waves, more droughts in some areas.. The other questions you ask are all political/ethical/economic decisions that should be discussed, and my opinion on those isn't particular important. Wasting time of arguments as rediculous as wether Co2 can warm the climate prevents those dicussion from happening. wd400

wd400 @120: Thank you for the fair answer. Maybe I can follow up:

It’s likely that many people and ecosystems will be damaged by climate change . . .

How will ecosystems be "damaged?" Presumably this simply means they will be different in the future than they currently are, which is, in turn, different than they were in ages past. Are the world's ecosystems currently in an objectively ideal state that must be preserved?

. . . so we should do something to lessen that impact.

What kinds of things, in your estimation, should we do to prevent the possibility of some unspecified "damage" at some unknown location at some uncertain point in the future? Also, what cost is associated with attempting to prevent hypothetical future damage, and would those efforts and resources be better allocated toward real, identifiable environmental challenges that exist today? Alternatively, even if we are convinced of potential hypothetical damage in decades to come, would our resources be better allocated toward mitigation and adaptation, rather than attempting to control the Earth's temperature? Eric Anderson

wd400, but are you yourself preparing for the arrival of AGW? For instance, have you bought land and started building a home far closer to the arctic circle? If not, why not? You apparently are spending an extraordinary amount of time trying to warn others of the perils to come. Why don't your actions meet your words if you are so sure of the AGW doom that is to come?

"Gore’s Nashville mansion consumed a large amount of energy compared with the national average, and President George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, had several environmentally friendly features." http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

bornagain77

Both. It's likely that many people and ecosystems will be damaged by climate change, so we should do something to lessen that impact. I also find it very interesting to see how antiscientific ideas develop and reinforce themselves. wd400

For rvb8, wd400, or any proponent of CAGW: Do you actually, personally, fear that Earth is headed for some catastrophe as a result of additional CO2 in the atmosphere? Or is your support of the theory more a matter of intellectual support -- standing up for science in the face of skeptics, so to speak? Eric Anderson

wd400:

No, I mean why do you think that statement is true? It’s not. It moved 10ppm in 5k years. A tiny blip compared to the >100ppm we’ve added in a few centuries.

Look at the chart right above the last zero of 100,000 number. We see about the same amount of rise in CO2, and within about the same time span, as we see in the last 6,000 years; and we also see almost a 5 degree increase in temperatures. So, your argument now is?

FWIW, greenhouse gases don’t work like greenhouses, so direct analogies are pretty useless.

Then, if the analogy is not apt, why call CO2, or any of the other gases, "greenhouse" gases? If, by extension, you want to say that stratospheric gases act as a kind of "glass ceiling" for the planet just like you have a "glass" enclosure" in a 'greenhouse,' then, OK. But what is the amount of H2O in the overall amount of GHGs compared to CO2? And what are the radiative properties of H2O relative to CO2? These are important answers to have if we want to discuss this in an intelligent way. CO2 is "trace" gas. Would you want to say that of H2O? And the radiative properties of H2O are much greater than CO2. So why consider CO2 the culprit? It makes no sense.

That the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is low is not an argument for anything.

Oh, but it is. What about my post @ 115? Computer models get the wrong answers to temperatures in the stratosphere when allowing all GHGs to rise except H2O. When 'methane' is included, the model outputs begin to resemble actual data. Methane, of course, is second to water in its 'greenhouse' effects (radiative properties). Finally, when WATER is included, and allowed to RISE in the stratosphere, lo and behold, the model output slam-dunks the actual data. So, when CO2, and N2 and O2, and other trace gases are used as proxies for the warming of the stratosphere, you get garbage. When the two major 'greenhouse' gases are included (along with the other trace GHGs), then you get almost a perfect match. I rest my case. CO2 is meaningless in terms of planet warming. Common sense will tell you that, and scientific modelling in conjunction with accurate satellite measurements will also tell you that. Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter orbiting the planet, and understood heliocentrism at once. Then it took 100 years to shake the "scientific consensus" away from Ptolemy. So, should I believe my "lying eyes," or the prevailing "scientific consensus"? As I've said: I know enough. PaV

Why do you think co2 was rocketing up in the last few thousand years?

I’m not really sure, but I suspect it is because earth’s core has been warming up slightly. But it certainly is NOT due to man-made sources.

No, I mean why do you think that statement is true? It's not. It moved 10ppm in 5k years. A tiny blip compared to the >100ppm we've added in a few centuries.

Why else call it a “greenhouse gas” if it doesn’t rise. Water vapor certainly rises in a “greenhouse” and is THE ‘greenhouse gas’ par excellent. And with water vapor, heat goes up inside a “greenhouse” as well. And, yes, the CO2 levels in a “greenhouse”—all else be equal—should go DOWN. So why in the world is it called a “greenhouse gas”? Is it convenient for the argument. What is the actual percentage of CO2 in a “greenhouse”? Well, it is only 0.03% in the air, and, given photosynthesis, it should be a little less. And, in a “greenhouse,” what is the percentage of H20? Well, it’s likely 80 to 90%. Meanwhile, CO2 is LESS than .03%. IOW, it should be entirely ignored, and not considered a true “greenhouse gas.”

These are hardly sentences, much less joined-up ideas. FWIW, greenhouse gases don't work like greenhouses, so direct analogies are pretty useless. That the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere is low is not an argument for anything.

I see you’ve used the plural form: “greenhouse gases.” If you really believed what you’re saying, you would have said ‘CO2’ instead of ‘greenhouse gases.’

This is getting dumber and dumber...

I know enough. I know all I need to know.

I'll admit this one made me laugh. Good luck with that, I guess. wd400

Here are two sentences from the above cited paper of Shindell:

Though not fully understood, the increased transport of water vapor to the stratosphere seems to have been caused at least partially by human activities. Because rising greenhouse gas emissions account for all or part of the water vapor increase, it is likely to continue for many decades.

You'll notice that it is impossible to logically get from the first sentence to the second. And Figure 1 contradicts the first sentence. But that's how 'dogma' works. PaV

Well, here's the chart that will end all controversies (or, at least one would hope!): NASA Graph It's from a 2001 study by Drew Shindell. The description of the graph is here:

Figure 1: Annually averaged temperature trends relative to 1980 over 60°N - 60°S, at 0.7 mb (~50 km altitude). Modeled values are taken from runs with greenhouse gas (ghg) increases, but fixed water and ozone (G); Ozone, with ghg and chlorine changes, calculated ozone, and fixed water vapor (G + O); MethOx, with ghg and chlorine changes, calculated ozone, and water vapor increases due to methane oxidation (G + O + M); and Water, with ghg and chlorine changes, calculated ozone, and increased water from methane oxidation and transport (G + O + M + W). In the MethOx and Water runs, water is allowed to change throughout the stratosphere and ozone is allowed to respond. Observations were taken by the Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) satellite borne instrument over roughly 44-56 km altitude.

I've tried importing the graph, but can't. What we see is that when all "greenhouse gases" (ghgs) are modelled, but water vapor stays constant, then they cannot match actual data. Only when "water vapor" is allowed to increase does the model correctly predict actual measurements. Case closed. End of story!!! Why? Because the whole AGW scam is predicated on the notion that CO2 drifts up into the stratosphere, and from there radiates back energy which in turn heats up water, which in turns heats up the lower atmosphere where temperatures are recorded. But when modelling simply ghgs, the data don't match. End of story! PaV

PaV, If you question unguided material processes can produce life in all its multifarious forms, well according to wd400 you just don't understand evolution. And when you question that human civilization is doomed because of CO2, well according to wd400 you just don't understand global warming. Same M.O. different scenario. PaV, wd400 is, and always has been, a one trick pony. I think Barry Arrington even posted a few articles on wd400's 'you just don't understand' argument at one time,,, here is one where wd400 accuses Francis Collins himself of not understanding evolution; https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/wd400-doubles-down-on-dobzhanskys-maxim/ bornagain77

wd400: You're acting like no more than a "troll." If the substance of your posts don't change, then I will simply see fit to edit them out. PaV

Why do you think co2 was rocketing up in the last few thousand years?

I'm not really sure, but I suspect it is because earth's core has been warming up slightly. But it certainly is NOT due to man-made sources.

Why do you think plant growth would add co2?

Why else call it a "greenhouse gas" if it doesn't rise. Water vapor certainly rises in a "greenhouse" and is THE 'greenhouse gas' par excellent. And with water vapor, heat goes up inside a "greenhouse" as well. And, yes, the CO2 levels in a "greenhouse"---all else be equal---should go DOWN. So why in the world is it called a "greenhouse gas"? Is it convenient for the argument. What is the actual percentage of CO2 in a "greenhouse"? Well, it is only 0.03% in the air, and, given photosynthesis, it should be a little less. And, in a "greenhouse," what is the percentage of H20? Well, it's likely 80 to 90%. Meanwhile, CO2 is LESS than .03%. IOW, it should be entirely ignored, and not considered a true "greenhouse gas."

Why do you insist on claiming that evidence that solar radiation cause warming in the past means greenhouse gases can’t do the same now?

I see you've used the plural form: "greenhouse gases." If you really believed what you're saying, you would have said 'CO2' instead of 'greenhouse gases.'

Did you read my last comment, or check out the data?

These are words that apply to you, not me. In my last post, I indicated that while temperatures remain steady to slightly declinging, CO2 levels shot up. Well, if you look at the graph that CLAVDIVS linked to, it's all rather clear. This rising of CO2 during steady temperatures---something that happened for thousands of years---tells a true scientist all he/she needs to know about the matter.

Why do you have such strong opinions about something you know so little about?

I know enough. I know all I need to know. I encourage people to go to "The Galileo Movement" for more information. [Aptly named organization since recent scholarship reveals that the single biggest reason the Church rejected Galileo's heliocentrism was because the vast majority of other scientists didn't agree with him: you know, the "scientific consensus."] PaV

Did you read my last comment, or check out the data? Why do you think co2 was rocketing up in the last few thousand years? Why do you think plant growth would add co2? (Have you heard of photosynthesis?) Why do you insist on claiming that evidence that solar radiation cause warming in the past means greenhouse gases can't do the same now? Why do you have such strong opinions about something you know so little about? wd400

Not “out of hand”, but certainly with reference to the wealth of data that rules out those possibilities.

Yet the Mankovitch cycle, illustrated by the graph in question, shows temperature fluctuations, and CO2 levels lagging behind the temperature fluctuations. IOW, it's the amount of solar radiation that is DIRECTLY related to changes in temperature.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known since 1896.

Think about what this means. If you have a greenhouse, then you have plants inside. If there is no CO2, the plants would die. Greenhouses are made so as to spur the growth of the plants within; I would think more vigorous plant growth would lead to a slightly higher level of CO2. So, to say it's a "greenhouse gas" doesn't really say much. As I've stated on this blog before, when you walk into a 'greenhouse,' you don't choke because the CO2 levels are so high; rather, you sweat, because the H20 levels are so high. H20 is 25 times more powerful a 'greenhouse' gas than CO2, and that's why the temperature of the mantle, related to the earth's core temperatures and reactions, is also related to temperatures of both sea and air. This is what I wrote in the post you're responding to:

The CO2 levels world-wide go up, and yet, per your own reading of the graph, we can see that temperatures are edging downward.

You respond:

The handful of pixels that make the last 5k years in your graph are too hard to read. But it’s from the Vostok ice core data, which has an almost dead flat trend over the last 5k years (other proxies have a slight downward trend)

You've made no mention of CO2 levels, the source of your contradiction. Instead, you actually confirm what I said: that temperatures were downward trending slightly. If you want to insist on the picayune point, unsupported by the actual data, BTW, then nothing changes: for thousands of years the earth's temperatures stayed the same while CO2 levels were rocketing up. I'm afraid your contradiction still stands. PaV

You say CO2 isn’t the only thing causing temperatures to rise, but AGW advocates, when you mention heat from the earth’s core, or from the sun, dismiss this right out of hand.

Not "out of hand", but certainly with reference to the wealth of data that rules out those possibilities.

but we don’t have “evidence” that CO2 levels cause warming.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This has been known since 1896.

There’s this little problem with your statement: it contradicts the graph I posted in the OP. Just a slight problem, this.

No it doesn't. The handful of pixels that make the last 5k years in your graph are too hard to read. But it's from the Vostok ice core data, which has an almost dead flat trend over the last 5k years (other proxies have a slight downward trend)

hen how do you explain that starting about 8,000 years ago CO2 levels began “rising”?!

It didn't really. There'a about a 10ppm raise over 5k years (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt) wd400

PaV @ 106 What would you predict temperatures today should be doing, just from the sawtooth graph itself showing the effects of natural forces over long periods? - Rising - Falling - Staying steady CLAVDIVS

Temperatures are going up.

This is the standard, tired, Global Warmer meme. Anyone with the faintest notion of what a scientific idea is realizes that the temperature measurements depend on where and when you are recording temperatures. 'Temperatures are going down.' -Just as valid. Andrew asauber

wd400:

How? The mainstream science position is not that CO2 is the only thing that can make the climate warmer.

The mainstream science position is that elevated levels of CO2 "will" cause the climate to become warmer: that is, temperatures to rise. Do you want to dispute that? Yet, the graph shows temperature going up, while CO2 levels do not, and CO2 levels going up without temperature increasing. There is no 'cause and effect' seen. Furthermore, CO2 is a "lagging" indicator, a byproduct of warmer temperatures---until recent times. You say CO2 isn't the only thing causing temperatures to rise, but AGW advocates, when you mention heat from the earth's core, or from the sun, dismiss this right out of hand. So you don't speak for the "mainstream science position."

As you have been told multiple times, the pattern you see in these graphs is orbital forcing.

Where, and when, did this happen, exactly? And, BTW, "orbital forcing" has to do with increased solar radiation based on the tilt of earth's axis. But, of course, according to the "mainstream" scientists, it's not the sun but added CO2 that is causing present day warming. So, take up your argument with them.

Are you really claiming the fact the earth can be warmed as a result of a change in tilt is evidence that it can’t be warmed by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?

I'm saying we have "evidence" that "the earth can be warmed as a result of a change in tilt," but we don't have "evidence" that CO2 levels cause warming. In fact, as I'll point out in a second, we have "evidence" to the contrary---evidence, in fact, you point out.

Temperatures are going up. Claudius is talking about the last 5000 years, in which the earth was slowly cooling back down from the last interglacial. The temperature cycle is “disrupted”, in that we should be on the downswing now (and we were for thousands of years), but messing up the carbon cycle has caused the earth to warm (more quickly that it does in an interglacial too).

There's this little problem with your statement: it contradicts the graph I posted in the OP. Just a slight problem, this. You say that "we should be on the downswing now (and we were for thousands of years) but messing up the carbon cycle has caused the earth to warm." OK. Then how do you explain that starting about 8,000 years ago CO2 levels began "rising"?! Do you see the contradiction here? The CO2 levels world-wide go up, and yet, per your own reading of the graph, we can see that temperatures are edging downward. PaV

of related note to long term temperature stability on earth:

Another Reason to Thank God for Earthquakes - September 26th, 2016 - Dr. Hugh Ross Excerpt: Without plate tectonics, there exists no possibility for compensating for the increasing luminosity of the Sun (see figure below) so that Earth’s surface temperature remains at levels that life can tolerate.4 The primary means by which plate tectonics compensate for the Sun’s increasing luminosity is through the erosion of exposed silicates.''',,, 4. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016) Ibid., 143–64. http://www.reasons.org/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/another-reason-to-thank-god-for-earthquakes Figure: The Sun brightens as it fuses hydrogen into helium in its nuclear furnace. The luminosity or brightness percentages on the y-axis are relative to the Sun’s present luminosity (over billions of years). http://www.reasonsblogs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/faint-Sun-paradox.001-1024x576.jpeg

bornagain77

From the CATO Institute

Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. But global warming is also a very complicated and difficult issue that can provoke very unwise policy in response to political pressure. Although there are many different legislative proposals for substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, there is no operational or tested suite of technologies that can accomplish the goals of such legislation. Fortunately, and contrary to much of the rhetoric surrounding climate change, there is ample time to develop such technologies, which will require substantial capital investment by individuals.

rhampton7

PaV,

temperatures increased for a considerable time period (thousands of years) at the same time that CO2 levels did NOT rise. This contradicts the thesis of global warming alarmists.

How? The mainstream science position is not that CO2 is the only thing that can make the climate warmer. As you have been told multiple times, the pattern you see in these graphs is orbital forcing. Are you really claiming the fact the earth can be warmed as a result of a change in tilt is evidence that it can't be warmed by adding greenhouse gasses to the atmoshere?

ou’re saying that CO2 levels are going up, and temperature is going down

No one is saying this. Temperatures are going up. Claudius is talking about the last 5000 years, in which the earth was slowly cooling back down from the last interglacial. The temperature cycle is "disrupted", in that we should be on the downswing now (and we were for thousands of years), but messing up the carbon cycle has caused the earth to warm (more quickly that it does in an interglacial too). wd400

Let’s focus in on one of Al Gore’s “predictions” (see comment #67):

[E]arlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale-- a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency-- a climate crisis that demands immediate action to… avert catastrophe.

Notice the hype and spin. There is “enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea.” No he is not actually claiming that is what is going to happen, nevertheless he uses a healthy dose of extreme hyperbole and rhetoric to create the false impression of impending doom. But why not stick to the facts and tell his audience what could really happen? Maybe it’s because he doesn’t really know-- indeed, maybe it’s because nobody really knows. And if we don’t know how can Gore or anyone claim “we are facing a planetary emergency-- a climate crisis…” Did Gore think that his audience was going to read between the lines and ponder and analyze what he said? Come on, we all know what he’s trying to do here. It’s called demagoguery, fear mongering or alarmism. I am very skeptical about people, especially former politicians, who resort to such tactics. But why resort to such tactics if you really know the truth? Maybe it’s because you don’t. john_a_designer

Here's my biggest problem with the Climate Change alarmists: why is warmer and more CO2 a bad thing? 1) Crops grow better 2) The amount of arable land increases 3) Migration due to slow changes in environments (e.g. water level rises at the shoreline) has ALWAYS occurred, and is no big deal 4) Animals thrive in warmer temps 5) The northwest passage has been open multiple times in the past. Less ice opens new transportation routes for northern nation states. 6) Animals have also always migrated due to weather pattern changes 7) Colder temperatures have the opposite effect on crops and animals 8) The cost of migration is built-in to normal human movement - very few people live in one location for their entire lives anymore 9) Every environment change predicted is already being lived in successfully at this moment in time - there are deserts, rainforests, plains, woodlands, riverlands, islands, coastal lands, etc. Even at its worst predictions, climate change won't create anything new that humans aren't already living in and have adapted to. 10) Longer warm seasons results in increased human productivity globally. 10) Not a single predicted model's horrible consequences (such as flooding, crop losses, mass migration, disappearing land masses, animal extinctions, etc.) have shown any signs of occurring (e.g. polar bear populations are increasing, crop yields are up, island masses are on average stable, etc.). So, basically, climate change activists want us to spend trillions of dollars to prevent any good things for the environment from happening. Dollars that could be spent on improving living conditions in 3rd-world countries. Or developing new technologies for clean water and bountiful food. Or for charitable organizations. Or education. Or expanding internet access. Or research. Or space exploration. Or...(you get the point). Climate change is a scam. The environment changes. Warmer is better. Exploit it, don't be afraid of it! drc466

CLAVDIVS @ 84: Like most commentators here who disagree with ID, you take an arrogant tone. What ill-informed, hands scraping the ground, people are these! Please desist. I don't know how you can persist in claiming that a temperature and CO2 chart that is slightly different in its fourth manifestation now means that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. We call that hysteria. We should expect the earth to warm up, not cool down. That is, it is a safer conjecture to expect temperatures will go somewhat sideways and then up, then, based on 4 cycles, to believe that temperatures will now decline simply because the pattern is slightly broken. If you can't see that logic, then maybe something is blinding you.

Have you forgotten so quickly?

No, I haven't forgotten anything. The problem is that what you consider "evidence" is not "evidence" but supposition, so I had to try and figure out what you were talking about.

Look at the chart @ 15 which is better than your outdated 1999 one. Both charts show temperature and CO2 should currently be decreasing according to the sawtooth pattern, if only natural forces are at work. But in fact temperature has stayed steady whilst CO2 has risen to historical highs.

And this proves what? That we're living in the Industrial Age? What else does it prove? According to you, that temperatures should be declining. And---trying to understand your logic---I guess this means that the fact that temperatures haven't fallen is an indication of the effects of CO2 (This is the best that I can make of your logic). Now, as I mentioned @ 78, if you look closely at the chart---even your more excellent one; in fact, "your" chart is the one I was talking about---you will see that temperatures increased for a considerable time period (thousands of years) at the same time that CO2 levels did NOT rise. This contradicts the thesis of global warming alarmists. You causally sweep this under the rug, and then have the temerity to claim I'm doing something like that. Absolutely not. By "sawtooth" pattern, you mean a pattern in which temperature is going up and down. This means that the "average" temperature during this time period has stayed the same! Meanwhile, CO2 levels were lower that this 'average' temperature---that is, NOT 'tracking'---and then 'caught up', and are now much higher. With all of the CO2 fluctuating like this, the temperature has stayed the SAME! The only logical explanation is: (1) CO2 levels DON'T determine global temperatures, (2) man-made CO2 is causing these levels to rise. And, so, what is the cause for alarm here? In fact, based on the 'fun' argument I gave up above, it is likely that the world will adapt to higher CO2 with a growth in fauna around the planet. That is, I think we should expect CO2 levels to start leveling off, and, if there is no upsurge in industrial use of fossil fuels, to begin decreasing.

This is prima facie evidence that the natural temperature cycle has been disrupted in the past few decades, in association with massive increases of anthropogenic CO2.

If you are a proponent of AGW, this statement is self-contradictory. You're saying that CO2 levels are going up, and temperature is going down (yes, you've disguised this reality by phrasing it instead as "temperature cycle has been disrupted", but I've just filled in the blanks for you). Please stop sweeping the obvious under the rug. Based on the graph in the OP, there appears nothing to be concerned about. That's the real bottom line. BTW, your statement also contains a blunder. The "disruption" of the temperature cycle has been going on for about 10,000 years, and you say that it's only been the past few decades. How do you account for 10,000 years of "disruption" when, for most of that time, CO2 levels were at historically lower levels? You can't have it both ways here. PaV

Whatever VY, it is your dog and I'm just telling you 'that dog won't hunt!' Nothing personal. This is my last response to you on that subject on this thread. bornagain77

I consider your arguments above par save for when you venture into YEC territory.

Same here. :)

And I would hope that we could focus on where you excel instead of where you lack.

Well, I certainly wouldn't let um, weird, remarks against YEC slide. Vy

They did not even acknowledge the paper I cited

You keep repeating this so I gotta ask, so what??? Does every paper on topic X acknowledge every other paper on topic X? Feel free to ignore this again.

much less overturn it with new research.

So you claim.

i.e. They either were completely ignorant of the paper of ignored it.

No kidding.

I dug into the paper and found it robust.

Perhaps because you presuppose the BB is true?

You really have selective way a viewing empirical science.

Maybe, but you certainly do. Vy

Whatever Vy. I consider your arguments above par save for when you venture into YEC territory. And I would hope that you would focus on where you excel instead of where you lack. Atheists will continue to pick on this weak YEC point of yours and ignore the bigger issues you excel at. IMHO, YEC is a side issue and a losing proposition at that. Moreover, it is doctrinally unnecessary. bornagain77

They did not even acknowledge the paper I cited much less overturn it with new research. i.e. They either were completely ignorant of the paper of ignored it. I dug into the paper and found it robust. You really have selective way a viewing empirical science. bornagain77

I let the YEC position slide because I would rather have YECs as close friends than antagonists.

And yet it seems you prefer beating down strawmen YEC arguments. That's not very friendly. Vy

Vy, I actually recall that you were the one who ignored my main points to focus on what was being overturned. Don’t try to claim victory in that argument when you are the one who ignored the science!

Like I said the last time, whatever makes you feel sleep well at night. I remember your claim that I ignored your most important quote. The same one I quoted, highlighted the relevant parts (more that once), and showed how new research rendered it invalid. But of course like you said, I "ignored" it. Maybe the meaning of "ignore" has changed in the last few weeks... Vy

Vy, I actually recall that you were the one who ignored my main points to focus, and refocus, on the point that was being overturned. Don't try to claim victory in that argument when you are the one who ignored the science! Overall, I let the YEC position slide because I would rather have YECs as close friends than antagonists. bornagain77

Claude, so I'm suppose to be embarrassed because you made a Theistic argument for atheism, i.e. 1+1=2? An argument that backfired on you in such a humorous way? Well by golly Claude, if defending the atheistic worldview with such self imploding arguments is your definition of embarrassing a Christian, then please keep the embarrassment coming! What is you next supposed proof for atheism besides the broad category of 'any subject'? Claude's present stance: http://img.memecdn.com/must-find-a-way-to-backfire_webm_6475785.gif bornagain77

And because your position can so easily be shown to be unreasonable

So far all you've done to back this unsubstantiated claim is ignore my posts, regurgitate Darwinian arguments and repeat the same things like saying it a million times makes it true.

... best to just not discuss it.

It was less than a week ago I "defended" YEC on site and it wasn't much of a defense, just me talking to someone who ignored my posts and repeated the same things. Much like you're doing. I'd rather not do that again, not immediately anyway.

You don’t have to explain how “dating method x is invalid” for all dating methods. What you have to explain is why, if they are all invalid (as you claim) they all converge on the same ages.

From my post @29:

When your dating methods over a certain age are corrected against themselves, the fact that they match up “just right” is not a coincidence. It’s more like circular reasoning.

Vy

Andre, What Al Gore actually said was that there are scientists who are predicting that the north pole (that's one pole) would be ice free in the summer time by around 2013. So far it hasn't happened but it's gotten close the past several years. goodusername

bornagain77 This is about your ridiculous claim @ 55 that people who use atheist arguments should be regarded as atheists themselves. You made that claim about me. It's obviously ridiculous. Laughable. I'm embarrassed for you. So now you're desperately trying to divert attention to avoid looking too stupid. Too late. CLAVDIVS

Claude at 64 "So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too? What a ridiculous argument." Claude at 66 "So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too – that’s your argument. That’s ridiculous." Claude at 85 after being shown that 1+1=2 is an argument for theism "It’s your stupid argument, bornagain77, that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist. It doesn’t matter if the subject is “1+1”" Claude scoring own goals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPr-8jsBODQ An own goal is when a player scores in their own team's net or scoring area, not the opposing team's, during sports games bornagain77

The deception of the graph is that c02 and methane proceed warming cycles - only problem is if you expand the graph's X axis, we see c02 levels ALWAYS, lag warming periods as gigatons are driven from the oceans during warming along with more rotting vegetation, etc. This is the purpose of their graph it to show some 1:1 relationship of c02 with temp, but we have known for about 30 years now, c02 increases have NEVER preceded heat - it is the inverse.. Tom Robbins

bornagain77 @ 83 It's your stupid argument, bornagain77, that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist. It doesn't matter if the subject is "1+1" or "Ganesh is a false god". Your argument is still ridiculous, as anyone can see. So don't try to blame your own goal on me. See if you can get anyone here to agree with you that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist. CLAVDIVS

PaV @ 78

First, I like your quote from Galileo. I think it pefectly reflects the debate we have here at UD with Darwinists. They close their eyes to the truth. As to this comment:

You are not dealing with the evidence contrary to your position. You are just trying to sweep it under the rug,

I can only respond by asking: what contrary evidence? Would you like to point it out to me, please?

I already did, and you already commented on it. Have you forgotten so quickly? Look at the chart @ 15 which is better than your outdated 1999 one. Both charts show temperature and CO2 should currently be decreasing according to the sawtooth pattern, if only natural forces are at work. But in fact temperature has stayed steady whilst CO2 has risen to historical highs. This is prima facie evidence that the natural temperature cycle has been disrupted in the past few decades, in association with massive increases of anthropogenic CO2. Now, when Bob O'H referred to this evidence you said: "The comment I made was based on the graph in the OP. Would you like to contradict my statement using that graph?" This is Exhibit A for you sweeping the evidence under the rug, instead of dealing with it. This is what Galileo was talking about. CLAVDIVS

Claude states "And now you’re trying to backpedal." And yet Claude himself has backpedaled in his very next statement: "that agreeing with an atheist on "any subject" makes one an atheist" So instead of the 1=1=2 example he repeatedly used, now it is "any subject" once he realized that he could not defend that 1+1=2 example. And Claude wonders why no one takes him seriously. bornagain77

Andre @ 75

You’ve been highly irrational on these pages on numerous occasions so there are no presumptions, I don’t think you are a materialist I just think based on the evidence you are wrong most of the time.

That's not credible. I think your posts @ 68 and 71 just showcase an irrational prejudice that anyone who disagrees with an ID proponent must be an atheist, materialist evolutionist. As I predicted @ 64. And now you're trying to backpedal. And you haven't acknowledged that bornagain77's argument - that agreeing with an atheist on any subject makes one an atheist - is ridiculous. It is, isn't it? CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS states

"So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too – that’s your argument. That’s ridiculous."

No CLAVDIVS, what is ridiculous in your entire line of reasoning of agreeing with atheists that 1+1=2 is true is the fact that 1+1=2 is true cannot even be grounded within the naturalistic worldview in the first place. To put it simply, if 1+1=2 is true then atheism is false! In others words, the ability of the human mind to even be able to do mathematics in the first place is a proof for Theism and is not a proof for atheism. And yet you act as if it is completely reasonable for atheists to assume 1+1=2 is true, and for you to 'agree with them', without pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that 1+1=2 is true undermines atheism itself. A few notes:

"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine." - Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13 Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics - video (excerpted from BBC's 'Dangerous Knowledge' documentary) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1119397401406525/?type=2&theater An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – William Lane Craig – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF25AA4dgGg 1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists. "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands." Albert Einstein - Letters to Solovine - New York, Philosophical Library, 1987 "Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation." Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, 1910 The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html

Claude, perhaps you should use some other example that does not point so directly to Theism in you want to 'agree with atheists' and show Theists and Christians, and Intelligent Design advocates overall, to be the unreasonable bigots that you imagine us to be? Trouble is in finding another example that would make the point you are trying to make is that atheism has been worse than useless in science. bornagain77

CLAVDIVS: As I look back over your comments, I suspect the "evidence" you think I'm overlooking is that temperatures appear to be "cooling." Yes, there is a different character to the pattern, but we don't know what that means. If you want to 'predict' cooling, go right ahead. They were doing that back in the 70's. But everyone is predicting 'warming.' Based on your "evidence," shouldn't you be telling the alarmists they're wrong? Isn't that what it means to follow the "evidence"? Just asking. But, there's more. If you want to notice things, let me notice something. For the last part of the curve, for the last 12-15,000 years, temperatures have risen, while CO2 levels have not. Well, if CO2 causes warming, something is wrong here, no? Are you willing to look at that? Going back to the putative "cooling," my point is this: I believe more in the long-term pattern than I do in what we're seeing in just this latest cycle. IOW, I expect the world to warm another couple of degrees! But don't get scared---I think this warming will take place over the next 2-3,000 years based on the graph. (If you want to nit-pick the numbers, then go right ahead. But it is no more than simply "missing the forest for the trees.") PaV

And wd400 isn't paying much attention or else he would have noticed that I haven't commented on the article, but simply asked about it. PaV

CLAVDIVS: First, I like your quote from Galileo. I think it pefectly reflects the debate we have here at UD with Darwinists. They close their eyes to the truth. As to this comment: You are not dealing with the evidence contrary to your position. You are just trying to sweep it under the rug, I can only respond by asking: what contrary evidence? Would you like to point it out to me, please? PaV

Bob O'H: You wrote: PaV – I think reality is a better tool to contradict what you wrote. The graph simply doesn’t have the resolution for you to see clearly what happened. I didn't say there was a 'continuous' increase in temperature. I said that temperatures were increasing. Just look at the graph. It doesn't contradict me at all. Or else you wouldn't have to make mention of a different graph. The important point here is that we've seen this pattern before, and that nothing that is now happening is outside of the charts temperature wise. Let's put it another way: if CO2 causes "warming," then, since CO2 is 'off the charts,' then why is temperature within a normal range? Science is done by comparing theory to actual measurements---well, at least until the present era, when, science having been stripped away from religion, and with it philosophy (love of wisdom ["The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom"]), no longer searches for the truth, but, instead, what tickles the fancy---a la the "multiverse," etc. If your contention is that CO2 will lead to warmer temperatures, then why is CO2 off the charts, literally, but not temperatures? And why have CO2 levels risen over the last twenty years, but not temperature? Aren't these just basic questions? And on the basis of these questions, isn't AGW ruled out? Certainly one simple look at this graph should do so. Let me just tell the story of a graph that was published by the L.A. Times in the 90's. The graph was printed with a shaded area (= cool) and an unshaded area (= warm). The demarcation point was at the temperature for around 1940. This, apparently, was meant to "prove" how temperatures were rising. Well, they may very well have been, based on the graph in the OP. However, I noticed that the slope within the 'shaded' area (cool), was rising at a slightly higher rate than the slope in the 'unshaded' area (warm). This starts in 1940. Well, this is the kind of thoughtless propaganda we get from the alarmists. If, indeed, 'man-made' CO2 is the cause of "warming," then how do you explain temperatures rising 'faster' when 'man-made' CO2 levels were lower? And why were they rising in the 1800's? (BTW, I tend to notice things. Once, in the early 70's, I read an article in Newsweek having to do with a recent court decision permitting the FBI to raid homes under certain circumstances. Newsweek carried a photo with the caption reading: "FBI breaks into private offices," or something to that effect. Well, if you looked at the photo, you noticed door hinges. Door hinges are always on the 'inside.' So, how exactly do you 'break in' from the 'inside'? A question that Newsweek could not explain to me.) PaV

WD400 Right excuse my incorrect wording let me rephrase.... Al Gore Scare mongered, gullible people like yourself that by 2013/2014 there would be no more ice left at the poles. He regurgitated this a few times over the course of the years, it has not happened but it seems it has not stopped irrational nincompoops like yourself to actually process the truth and distance yourself from such nonsense. Here you are defending false information. Better? The videos both of them Al Gore clearly states that the ice caps would be gone...... why are you so dishonest Wd400? Lastly and this is important! Climate change is a misnomer the climate changes all the time, that is why its called climate! Andre

CLAVDIVS You've been highly irrational on these pages on numerous occasions so there are no presumptions, I don't think you are a materialist I just think based on the evidence you are wrong most of the time. Andre

Andre, The meme that you regurgitated was that "Al Gore predicted" that the ice caps would have melted. That text and the video you linked doesn't include Gore making such a prediction. As I said, what particular US politicians think about climate science is not very relevant to the truth of climate change. But is interesting how these memes ("Al Gore claimed...", "No warminng since 1998"...) get propagated despite their inaccuracy. wd400

Andre @

How does one agree with the notion that we are just bags of chemicals and whatever our chemical reaction is that’s just how it is…..

Dont ask me - I don't agree with it. Do you agree with bornagain77 that if someone agrees with an atheist on some subject, that makes them an atheist? Don’t you think it’s highly prejudicial to just assume I’m a materialist simply because I disagreed with bornagain77’s stupid argument? CLAVDIVS

John_a_designer @ 67

Do we still have polar ice caps? Have they shrunk any?

Yes and yes. CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS How does one agree with the notion that we are just bags of chemicals and whatever our chemical reaction is that's just how it is..... There is nothing to agree to and they may be right they may be wrong but in the end it means nothing as materialism says we are shaped for fitness not for truth. What have you been shaped for CLAVDIVS? Andre

Andre @ 68 How should I know? I'm not a materialist. Do you agree with bornagain77 that if someone agrees with an atheist on some subject, that makes them an atheist? ETA: Don't you think it's highly prejudicial to just assume I'm a materialist simply because I disagreed with bornagain77's stupid argument? CLAVDIVS

john_a_designer I am Gobsmacked that WD400 reckons Al Gore never said any of it, I am telling you WD400 is a dishonest man. but then again if materialism is true there is no such thing as honesty or dishonesty, things just are..... Andre

CLAVDIVS

if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2

Tell me how does a materialist come to the conclusion that 1+1=2? How does he trust his mind in anyway? What is his unchanging standard to get to such truth? Andre

Here are a few excerpts from a speech AL Gore gave on Sept. 18, 2006:

A few days ago, scientists announced alarming new evidence of the rapid melting of the perennial ice of the north polar cap, continuing a trend of the past several years that now confronts us with the prospect that human activities, if unchecked in the next decade, could destroy one of the earth’s principle mechanisms for cooling itself. Another group of scientists presented evidence that human activities are responsible for the dramatic warming of sea surface temperatures in the areas of the ocean where hurricanes form… Scientific American introduces the lead article in its special issue this month with the following sentence: “The debate on global warming is over.” Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could?—?within as little as 10 years?—?make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization. In this regard, just a few weeks ago, another group of scientists reported on the unexpectedly rapid increases in the release of carbon and methane emissions from frozen tundra in Siberia, now beginning to thaw because of human caused increases in global temperature… Similarly, earlier this year, yet another team of scientists reported that the previous twelve months saw 32 glacial earthquakes on Greenland between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale?—?a disturbing sign that a massive destabilization may now be underway deep within the second largest accumulation of ice on the planet, enough ice to raise sea level 20 feet worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each passing day brings yet more evidence that we are now facing a planetary emergency?—?a climate crisis that demands immediate action to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down the earth’s thermostat and avert catastrophe. The serious debate over the climate crisis has now moved on to the question of how we can craft emergency solutions in order to avoid this catastrophic damage.

https://thinkprogress.org/al-gore-nyu-law-9-18-06-60acdb2cb08f#.rmgz95isk Well, it is a decade later. How well did Al Gore do with his predictions? Do we still have polar ice caps? Have they shrunk any? john_a_designer

bornagain77 So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too - that's your argument. That's ridiculous. CLAVDIVS

Then a duck you are! https://waterman99.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image10.png I guess that makes me a duck bigot for treating that which acts like a duck like a duck! :) bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 55

I do not know your heart of heart, only God does, but from your very own words, despite your denial, most of the time I find it very hard to distinguish your arguments than those of atheists.

So if somebody agrees with an atheist that 1+1=2, that makes them an atheist too? What a ridiculous argument.

Perhaps it is time for you to clear the air once again and state clearly what your exact position is?

Nope, I'd rather give people the opportunity to showcase their prejudices for all to see. CLAVDIVS

Vy @ 54

While it would be um, nice, to get into a “dating method x is invalid because …” discussion with you, posting article by article contradicting your “beyond reasonable doubt” claims, I have better things to do.

And because your position can so easily be shown to be unreasonable, best to just not discuss it. You don't have to explain how "dating method x is invalid" for all dating methods. What you have to explain is why, if they are all invalid (as you claim) they all converge on the same ages. CLAVDIVS

Oh I also thought the planet had too many people and that animals are to be awarded equal rights. I supported consensus and I thought socialism is the saviour of the world. Today I know with very reasonable certainty that my worldview was wrong. WD400 and his merry band of chemical bags are wrong and due to their status as just chemical bags they will remain ignorant of the truth until they realise their actual value. Andre

In 2007 I was an atheist and like most materialists here I hung onto every word spoken by the Darwin crown and every word the AGW crowd had to say, but in 2010 something amazing happened and THE truth set me free. Andre

And wd400 only thought he 'listened' to a video and that he read an article.

Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

And although Hoffman tries to limit his results to just visual perceptions and ignore the conclusions as applied to our cognitive faculties more generally, the following article rightly points out that there is no reason to presuppose that his results should not be applied more generally to our cognitive faculties overall since evolution is supposedly ultimately responsible for everything we are and think:

The Case Against Reality – May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/

Moreover, there is the small matter of ‘reliable observation/perception’ being a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself:

Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

Thus, since the mathematics of population genetics forces Darwinists to believe that their observations/perceptions of reality are illusory, then either Darwinian evolution must be false at some fundamental level or else all of science must necessarily be undermined. Humorously, I think many hard-core Darwinists would opt for the latter option as the best answer :) In what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!

Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself – Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html

Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html

Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the math of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! Verses and Music:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Hillsong United – Taya Smith – Touch The Sky – Acoustic Cover – Live – HD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyl34fHQi3U

bornagain77

So Andre didn't listen to the video, and pav didn't read the article (s)he commented on. wd400

Al Gore did say the poles would be ice free!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhTsI Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler Andre

Al Gore did say in 2007 that in 7 years the poles would be ice free.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVpBjhi0n2s Andre

Vy @ 49 - ah, the foundations are so shaky that one of the people who carried out the study (where, incidentally they found their model didn't match the data) said

“You can say at the end of the Younger Dryas it warmed 10, plus or minus five, degrees Celsius. But what happened on this pathway into the event, you can’t see,” Carlson says.

So we might not understand the details, but the Younger Dryas still happened. Bob O'H

CLAVDIVS, or it could be that you really are a duck! I do not know your heart of heart, only God does, but from your very own words, despite your denial, most of the time I find it very hard to distinguish your arguments than those of atheists. Perhaps it is time for you to clear the air once again and state clearly what your exact position is? bornagain77

You think they’re random too? Just like the sawtooth pattern in the OP? Of course not.

And Milankovitch cycles are valid? The articles I linked to earlier show otherwise.

Ice core layers are annual, beyond reasonable doubt, because the ages observed are correlated with: – Milankovitch cycles – Radioisotope dates (of various methods) – Coral growth – Plankton layering – Varves in freshwater lakes – Patterns of nuclides from space – Tree rings – The Earth’s rotation – … lots of other things

Interesting list. While it would be um, nice, to get into a "dating method x is invalid because ..." discussion with you, posting article by article contradicting your "beyond reasonable doubt" claims, I have better things to do. Corals are lovely. :D Vy

Vy @ 52 Get a grip. Milankovitch cycles are validated by the laws of orbital mechanics. You think they're random too? Just like the sawtooth pattern in the OP? Of course not. Ice core layers are annual, beyond reasonable doubt, because the ages observed are correlated with: - Milankovitch cycles - Radioisotope dates (of various methods) - Coral growth - Plankton layering - Varves in freshwater lakes - Patterns of nuclides from space - Tree rings - The Earth's rotation - ... lots of other things CLAVDIVS

Irrelevant.

Really?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles in ice cores.

Yes it does. Sedimentary layers are dated/have their dates calibrated against Milankovitch cycles (among other things). Ice cores are dated/against sedimentary layers and Milankovitch cycles. The validity of Milankovitch cycles is then based on sedimentary layers and ice cores (among other things). So when they all "match up" in a supposedly non-random way, it's not surprising. Did you miss this? Vy

bornagain77 No, I don't find it peculiar, because many ID proponents on this blog assume anyone contradicting them *must* be an evolutionist and an atheist ... regardless of the truth of the matter and despite correction. Speaks volumes. CLAVDIVS

CLAVDIVS "I’m not an evolutionist or an atheist." Don't you find it peculiar that you have to constantly keep reminding people on UD that you are not an atheist over and over again? Perhaps its time for you to finally concede that you really are a duck? https://waterman99.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image10.png bornagain77

Vy – huh? The “shaky foundations” are this post. have you looked at any other data?

Sorry about that. Here's the corrected link. Vy

South America Excerpt: Ironically, the site with perhaps the best claim to a pre-12,000 BP date in the Americas is among the farthest south, Monte Verde, in south central Chile. Here Tom Dillehay and his crew have excavated a camp site that has been radiocarbon-dated to about 13,000 years ago, and below the levels of that age are layers of tools and debris that may be much older, perhaps up to 33,000 years old.(26),,, Dozens and dozens of hulking blocks lay scattered in all directions, tossed like matchsticks, Posnansky argued, in the terrible natural disaster that had overtaken Tiahuanaco during the eleventh millennium BC: This catastrophe was caused by seismic movements which resulted in an overflow of the waters of Lake Titicaca and in volcanic eruptions… In addition, fragments of human and animal skeletons had been found lying in chaotic disorder among wrought stones, utensils, tools and an endless variety of other things. All of this has been moved, broken and accumulated in a confused heap. Anyone who would dig a trench here two metres deep could not deny that the destructive force of water, in combination with brusque movements of the earth, must have accumulated those different kinds of bones, mixing them with pottery, jewels, tools and utensils…(152) http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm etc.. etc..

As to South America in particular, Charles Darwin himself predicted that a geological formation that he had looked at in South America must have been formed 'gradually', yet the formation is now known to have been formed by a catastrophic mega-flood:

Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o

Moreover, the dating of the first 'advanced' human civilization is approx. 12,000 years before the present in South-eastern Turkey:

Stone Age Temple May Be Birthplace of Civilization Excerpt: The elaborate temple at Gobelki Tepe in southeastern Turkey, near the Syrian border, is staggeringly ancient: 11,500 years old, from a time just before humans learned to farm grains and domesticate animals. According to the German archaeologist in charge of excavations at the site, it might be the birthplace of agriculture, of organized religion — of civilization itself. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/gobeklitepe/index

Southeastern Turkey just so happens to be close to where Noah's Ark is said to have come to rest in the Bible. Of related interest, there is far more water deep beneath the earth than was expected. Enough water to cover the mountains:

Study: Deep beneath the earth, more water than in all the oceans combined – June 16, 2014 Excerpt: And its a good thing, too, Jacobsen told New Scientist: “We should be grateful for this deep reservoir. If it wasn’t there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountain tops would be the only land poking out.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/16/study-deep-beneath-north-america-theres-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/

This deep reservoir of water underneath the earth, a reservoir that could potentially cover the mountains, matches what is said in the Bible, i.e. 'the fountains of the great deep burst open':

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

Music:

Jars Of Clay - Flood (Original Version) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNGLU_VsePg

bornagain77

Vy @ 30

CLAVDIVS: Seriously? You’re telling me when you look at the chart in the OP the peaks and troughs look random to you?

Vy: The universe and life is designed and yet evodelusionists and their theistic brethren say it’s randomness. Are you sure you’re in a place to be asking such a question?

I'm not an evolutionist or an atheist. Now will you answer the question?

CLAVDIVS: Vy, that paper is talking about deposition of rocks in the ocean, not ice cores. Did you even read it?

Vy: Are the inferences from the Milankovitch cycles with respect to climate exclusive to ice cores?

Irrelevant. The paper explains why its more difficult to detect Milankovich cycles in sedimentary layers due to the specific physics of underwater deposition. It has absolutely nothing to do with Milankovitch cycles in ice cores. CLAVDIVS

As to catastrophic climate change, scientific evidence for catastrophic megafloods, across the globe, approx. 13 to 14 thousand years before the present has now become compelling.

Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124) What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt – all at once, everywhere – by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion – from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124) A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83) http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm

Evidence of catastrophic megaflooding is present on every continent:

Catastrophic Flooding from Ancient Lake May Have Triggered Cold Period Excerpt: Imagine a lake three times the size of the present-day Lake Ontario breaking through a dam and flooding down the Hudson River Valley past New York City and into the North Atlantic. The results would be catastrophic if it happened today, but it did happen some 13,400 years ago during the retreat of glaciers over North America http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=9779&tid=282&cid=2078&ct=162 Mega-flood triggered cooling 13,000 years ago: scientists – March 2010 Excerpt: Bateman and his team confirmed the path of the floodwaters from Lake Agassiz that covered part of what is now Canada and the northern United States. The lake had formed in front of the ice-sheet that once covered a large part of North America. Scientists had previously guessed that a giant flood unleashed from the lake probably caused the Younger Dryas cooling but couldn’t confirm the route of the floodwaters. Bateman found that the waters flowed down the Mackenzie River, Canada’s longest, rather than the Saint Lawrence Seaway that had previously seemed the most likely route. Studying sediments from cliff sections along the river delta, he said the evidence spanned a large area at many altitudes. This could only be explained by a mega-flood from Lake Agassiz. Dating of the sediments helped the team pin down the date of the flooding, showing that it occurred right at the start of the Younger Dryas. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/31/us-climate-cooling-flood-idUSTRE62U44D20100331 Lake Bonneville and the Bonneville Flood Excerpt: Ice Age Lake Bonneville, which existed around 14,500 years ago, covered more than 20,000 square miles in Utah and parts of Idaho and Nevada. For hundreds of years, the water level of Lake Bonneville maintained a fairly constant level. The water level dropped almost 400 feet when part of Red Rock Pass, which was holding back the water, eroded. The floodwaters flowed down the Snake River and joined the Columbia River near the Tri-Cities. For a short period of time, the resulting floodwaters from Lake Bonneville increased the size of the Snake River and the Columbia River by more than 20 times their normal flow. After the flood occurred, the water levels of the Great Salt Lake eventually subsided close to what they are now. Lake Bonneville drained only once, with catastrophic results. http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_bonneville.html Siberia Ancient Earth Flood Created Martian-Like Landscape, Researchers Find - July 2010 Excerpt: This summer, he will continue the work he started at Mason by traveling to Siberia to study a series of mega floods that happened between 45,000 and 13,000 years ago. http://news.gmu.edu/articles/3416 Ancient mega floods in the monsoon tropics of Australia coincide with climatic instability (approx. 15, 000 years ago) http://www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/MediaCentre/News/ACS013099#sthash.Wbwf2HUM.dpuf

bornagain77

PaV @ 42 The original article is here. Yes, they removed the reference to climate change. And no, neither the original nor the rewritten article claim the hurricane was caused by global warming. CLAVDIVS

LOL!

PaV: The comment I made was based on the graph in the OP. Would you like to contradict my statement using that graph?

You are not dealing with the evidence contrary to your position. You are just trying to sweep it under the rug. Reminds me of a letter Galileo wrote to Kepler:

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth." Galileo Galilei

CLAVDIVS

Vy - huh? The "shaky foundations" are this post. have you looked at any other data? PaV - I think reality is a better tool to contradict what you wrote. The graph simply doesn't have the resolution for you to see clearly what happened. Bob O'H

wd400: John claims that Fox News deleted mention of 'climate change' in the article. Do you have access to the article prior to deleting? PaV

Bob O'H: The comment I made was based on the graph in the OP. Would you like to contradict my statement using that graph? PaV

... cooling during the Younger Dryas ...

... rests on shaky foundations.

It takes about 2mins of googling to find Gore didn’t make this “prediction”.

Say what? Vy

What particular American politicians say about climate isn't all that relevant to wether science is right about the topic. But... John, if you read carefully you'll find neither of the articles you discuss claim the storm was caused by global warming. Andre, It takes about 2mins of googling to find Gore didn't make this "prediction". wd400

It’s been getting warmer for the last 15,000 years plus.

*sigh* Look at a plot of the last 15k years and you'll see a different story: cooling during the Younger Dryas, followed by warming and then (until recently) relatively stable global temperatures. Bob O'H

Al Gore did predict in 2007 that by 2013 the Ice caps would have melted. Has that happened? I rest my case..... Andre

Here is more irrational hysteria on the part of a so-called media watchdog group, Media Matters, which is anything but unbiased. The introduction should tell you everything you need to know.

For one brief moment over the weekend, Fox News did the unthinkable: acknowledge some of the real-world impacts of climate change in an online article about Tropical Storm Hermine. Soon afterward, though, Fox got back on message, erasing all mentions of global warming from the piece.

http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/06/exposed-fox-news-scrubs-climate-change-mention-article-about-tropical-storm-hermine/212858 Again, THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL about a hurricane hitting Florida in late August/ early September. Furthermore, Hermine was a very weak category one storm. Listen to me carefully, folks: It had nothing to do with global warming. Fox did the responsible thing by editing out the left wing propaganda and pseudo-science. john_a_designer

BTW, I just read about a study that tracked the amount of coastline throughout the world. Guess what? It increased by about 44,000 acres (figure off the top of my head). Weren't sea levels supposed to rise? Oh well . . . PaV

In 1995 the IPCC report said there was no sea level rise acceleration in the 20th century. That was before money corrupted science. BartM

Here is an example of AGW hype fueled by irrational hysteria:

“Another threat to our country is climate change,” [Hillary Clinton said recently at a campaign event,] “2015 was the hottest year on record, and the science is clear. It’s real. It’s wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week’s hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause, and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine… But this is not the last one that’s going to hit Florida, given what’s happening in the climate… Nobody knows that better than folks right here in Tampa and in the broader region. Sea levels have been rising here about an inch per decade since the 1950s. At the rate we are going, by 2030, which is not that far away, $70 billion of coastal property in this state will be flooding at high tide. And whenever our infrastructure is threatened, so too is our homeland security.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/07/hillary-blames-hermine-climate-change-problem-first-hurricane-make-landfall-fl-11-years-387648#ixzz4LCS7SYRD Florida getting hit in August by a category one hurricane is evidence of climate change? Can someone explain to me the logic behind Mrs. Clinton’s rhetoric? I honestly don’t see it. john_a_designer

Anyone that wants to make much of this graph might want look up the current atmospheric CO2 concentration and compare it... That the last interglacial was a little warmer than now ("current" in ice core data usually means 1950 btw..) is well known. But the earth was on the downslope of this cycle, having cooled for about 5000 years, prior to us changing the atmosphere. The most important thing to know about the last interglacial is that it's maximum temperature is about in line with the best case scenarios from the ipcc. Sea levels where about 5m higher than today during that time... wd400

CLAVDIVS:

However, the effect of CO2 on global mean temperature is not linear. This is because not all human CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural sinks, so the levels of CO2 increase via a compounding effect – they are currently at an historical high at around 390 ppm. Historically it has taken from 5000 to 20000 years for CO2 to increase by 100ppm by natural processes. However, the modern increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. In addition to this, we have all heard of the runaway greenhouse effect – the more CO2, the higher the mean temperature, which in turn leads to a release of more CO2 from reservoirs, which in turn increases mean temperature, etc…

Textbook alarmist explanation. Now, since none of this can be taken seriously, let me offer a different, purely plausible, view that I now posit just for fun: "Since global temperatures are rising, this likely means less clouds, and more radiant energy striking vegetation throughout the whole planet. Now, since this added radiant energy can be used by plants, then plants should be more vigorous, and grow to larger sizes. Further, since temperatures are higher, the length of time that plants use to grow should be greater (that is, winters shorter and springs longer). And, since plants respire O2 and take in CO2 in photosynthesis, then all things being equal, CO2 levels should fall. And, of course, this means global cooling. And with that cooling, more CO2 will be stored in oceans." We have a Mexican stand-off, it appears. But, now, let me add another scenario: "Let's suppose that the earth's core has a fluctuating temperature over time, perhaps due to gravitational effects in our solar system and local galaxy. Well, if the core heats up ever so slightly over an extended period of time then this added heat must find some route of escape or the whole earth would eventually blow up. So the heat passes through the crust to the bottom of oceans and to the surface of the earth. Now this added heat causes ocean temperatures to rise ever so slightly, and with this rise in temperatures, CO2, held in a solid form in the oceans, will begin to 'melt' and CO2 gas will rise up out of the oceans and into the atmosphere. The heat at the bottom of the ocean will travel to the surface, and the net result will be slightly higher surface temperatures and slightly higher surface water temperatures, and an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence, CO2 'lags' behind temperatures of earth's surface and water." Well, I've just explained the graph I posted in the OP. Would you like to use AGW to explain it? Can't be done, of course. But the important point in all of this is that CO2 doesn't 'cause' warming, but is a 'result' of warming. That CO2 invisibly causes there to be more water vapor--the real cause of the "hothouse" effect---is just surmise on the part of interested parties: scientists receiving grants, and businessmen and rich corporations who stand to profit from tax-payer money. I live in California. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as governor, spent $5 billion on global warming. You can surely feel the cooling effects of all that money that was spent, right? PaV

Seriously? You’re telling me when you look at the chart in the OP the peaks and troughs look random to you?

The universe and life is designed and yet evodelusionists and their theistic brethren say it's randomness. Are you sure you're in a place to be asking such a question?

Vy, that paper is talking about deposition of rocks in the ocean, not ice cores. Did you even read it?

Are the inferences from the Milankovitch cycles with respect to climate exclusive to ice cores? Vy

Your claims are almost exactly the same as those of Paul Seely @ CMI here:

Seely superficially analyzes the main methods of counting annual layers. He concludes that my reinterpretation is invalid because the timescale has been corroborated by up to three independent annual measuring methods that agree with volcanic acidity spikes and deep-sea cores:

The first 110,000 annual layers of snow in that ice core (GISP2) have been visually counted and corroborated by two to three different and independent methods as well as by correlation with volcanic eruptions and other datable events.

However, contrary to what Seely believes, neither the annual layer counting methods nor the external correlation methods are independent, they are all tied to the same starting assumptions of deep time. The 110,000 annual layers are based on the assumptions that the Greenland Ice Sheet has been in equilibrium for several million years and that ice ages oscillate between glacials and interglacials with a period of 100,000 years based on the astronomical theory of the ice age (the Milankovitch mechanism). Equilibrium means that the annual snowfall and height of the ice sheet have remained nearly constant for several million years. All late ‘Cenozoic’ climatic data sets, including deep-sea cores, must (according to the reigning paradigm) follow this assumed mechanism, which has innumerable problems.6,7,8,9,10 The deep-sea core timescale, based on the astronomical theory of the ice age, provides the timescale for ice cores by dating such events as the Younger Dryas and the stage 5e interglacial in the broad-scale oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores. Then glacial flow models are tuned to this scale, assuming equilibrium of the ice sheets. The flow model then provides the first guess for the annual layer counting. Seely is aware of this bias, but denies it operates in the counting of annual layers:

Contrary to Oard, the expected annual thickness of the layers down the core does not determine what uniformitarian scientists conclude with these latter methods. The truth is exactly the opposite: LLS counting is used to correct the initial estimated thickness of the annual layers.

LLS (laser light scattering) is a method for counting dust bands by passing a laser beam through the ice. Seely is technically correct, but generally incorrect. He must have misinterpreted my statements because such constraints on annual layer thickness do determine the general annual layer thickness within certain limits. I have used the term first guess or estimated annual layer thickness in my articles on the subject:

Based on their expected annual thickness [from flow models], uniformitarian scientists take enough measurements to resolve what they believe are annual cycles.

In other words, the counted annual layers can deviate a little from the first guess, but the first guess constrains the limits of variability. It is like numerical analysis in which a first guess is required to begin and then successive computer iterations change the first guess somewhat to arrive at hopefully the correct answer. For instance, if the first guess concludes that the annual layer thickness at the 2,500-metre depth is around 1 centimetre, annual layer counting will not allow an annual layer thickness of 5 centimetres, let alone about 3 metres as in the creationist model. The variability in the measured parameters and the impact of non-periodic events provide adequate scope to find a preferred fit to the data.

When your dating methods over a certain age are corrected against themselves, the fact that they match up "just right" is not a coincidence. It's more like circular reasoning. Vy

CLAVDIVS, Aren't you making a design inference with relation to AGW? Hmm. CannuckianYankee

Vy @ 24 You cite an article that references Dexter, Kowalewski and Read, “Distinguishing Milankovitch-Driven Processes in the Rock Record from Stochasticity Using Computer-Simulated Stratigraphy,” The Journal of Geology, 2009, Volume 117, p. 349-361 as evidence that Milankovitch cycles cannot be distinguished from randomness. Vy, that paper is talking about deposition of rocks in the ocean, not ice cores. Did you even read it? CLAVDIVS

Vy @ 24 Seriously? You're telling me when you look at the chart in the OP the peaks and troughs look random to you? CLAVDIVS

Vy We know the eccentricity of the earth's orbit carries the earth closer to the sun at some times, and further away than others, on a cycle of around 100,000 years. We know this because we have measured and calculated the earth's orbit. We know that if the earth is closer to the sun it gets more heat from the sun - even a toddler understands that. We know that when snow falls and is compacted into permafrost it forms observable layers, because we see this happening in the present day. We know that we have counted layers in the ice cores, and measured temperature proxies in those layers. And we know that the temperature proxies from ice-cores follow a cycle every 100,000 layers. My position is: the layers are annual, because its just blindingly obvious and common sense that this is so, based on what we know. Not only that, there are other isotope periodicities in ice cores (and ocean sediments too) that match different rhythmic patterns in the earth's orbit - such as the precession of the equinoxes ~ 20,000 cycle. This is a double-confirmation that the ice layers are annual. Not only that, we can detect material from events - like volcanic eruptions - of known (historical) age in ice layers, and confirm that the count of layers matches the known age of the event. This is triple-confirmation that the ice layers are annual. If your position is that all of this is just a mind-bogglingly improbable coincidence, then fine. You're entitled to your unreasonable opinion. That's why I said ice layers are seen as annual by all reasonably open-minded people. CLAVDIVS

About that mysteriously "specific" 100,000-year cycle figure, it is more like randomness. Vy

PaV

According to historical records, temperatures should be expected to rise, irrespective of human CO2 production, which, at the site from which you obtained your chart, is only 1%, not 3.7%, of total CO2. Heavens, that 1% is a real killer.

Your figures appear to be correct: Total atmospheric CO2 = 3.0E12 tons Humans contribute around 2.7E10 tons of CO2 annually, so yes about 1% However, the effect of CO2 on global mean temperature is not linear. This is because not all human CO2 emissions are absorbed by natural sinks, so the levels of CO2 increase via a compounding effect - they are currently at an historical high at around 390 ppm. Historically it has taken from 5000 to 20000 years for CO2 to increase by 100ppm by natural processes. However, the modern increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. In addition to this, we have all heard of the runaway greenhouse effect - the more CO2, the higher the mean temperature, which in turn leads to a release of more CO2 from reservoirs, which in turn increases mean temperature, etc... The evidence says adding 1% annually to CO2 can be quite significant. CLAVDIVS

Yes, the ice-core data completely disproves young-earth creationism.

Unsubstantiated claim.

The cyclic pattern of CO2/CH4 in the ice-core data is due to characteristics of the earth’s orbit that have a known frequency e.g. eccentricity of our orbit that changes the amount of solar radiation the earth receives on an approx 100,000 year cycle. You can see this cycle in the chart clearly.

That's an assumption based on assumptions.

This demonstrates to any reasonably open mind that the ice core layers are in fact annual.

Yet another assumption. Vy

CLAVDIVS: It's amazingly simple to see that the world was hotter in the past, and that humans were not the cause of it. That you want to say that temperatures should be cooling, based on your look at the graph, is fine with me. That's exactly what might be going on. I made this point earlier. Isn't it clear that for the last 25,000 years, or so, temperatures have been going up. Obviously it isn't because of man-made CO2. According to historical records, temperatures should be expected to rise, irrespective of human CO2 production, which, at the site from which you obtained your chart, is only 1%, not 3.7%, of total CO2. Heavens, that 1% is a real killer. Obviously, the world has survived higher temperatures. "The sky is falling; the sky is falling!" What would liberals do without a "crisis"? PaV

Here is an interesting article that discusses the alleged historical correlation between CO2 and temperature. Whatever correlation exists, it doesn’t support AGW. High levels of CO2 (even higher than today) appeared tens of thousands of years ago before the appearance human civilization and industrialization. Furthermore, elevated levels of CO2 did not lead to run-away and irreversible global warming. Abstract:

Recent discussion of the Shakun et al. (Nature 2012) paper has illuminated issues in its presentation of the history of CO2 versus temperature… In addition to those investigations, another helpful approach may be to take a step back and cross-check with other sources. In general, does CO2 correlate with temperature in climate history? The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate. Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time scales well:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/ BTW I am very much in favor in reducing CO2 emissions but for “local” environmental reasons, not “global” the sky-is-falling kind of hysteria. I would suggest we build more nuclear power plants. They emit zero CO2. john_a_designer

No PaV. You have misunderstood my amazingly simple point. The temperature (in blue on my chart, in red on your chart), breaks the historical pattern. It should be decreasing right now, according to the "sawtooth" pattern, where the temperature sharply increases to a 'spike' and then immediately declines sharply. However, in recent times this pattern is not observed. This break in pattern is evident in the picture you posted - I'm just pointing it out. (ETA: The break in pattern is more obvious in the 2014 chart I posted than in the chart you posted which is based on data collected 1995-1999.) I also, as a separate matter, mentioned the massive, unprecedented level of modern CO2 that only appears on my chart. Currently CO2 is at about 390 parts per million; ice core data show an historical maximum of no more than 300 parts per million. CLAVDIVS

CLAUDIVS: I just visited the site you got your graph from. How interesting that it is a site that debunks global warming. The chart you've presented is taken from May 2014 blog entry overlaying temperatures and CO2 levels. The point they were making in this anti-AGW blog was that CO2 levels "lag behind" temperature; not the other way around. Your statement that the temperature is "breaking the historical pattern" comes from you interpreting CO2 levels, in red, for the actual temperatures, which are in blue. You'll notice no such "break" in historical temperatures: which was, of course, my whole point in posting the graph in the first place. PaV

CLAVDIVS: Where did this graph of yours appear from? It looks like the "hockey stick" version of the graph I posted above. As you know, Mann's methods in arriving at this "hockey stick" are suspect at best, and downright devious at worst. And, BTW, scientists are predicting cooling in the near future. And, in the 1980's, they awaited a significant cooling period, before they installed digital measuring devices, corrected them, and then declared that runaway temperature rises were on the way. Again, where did this graph come from? And how was it 'adjusted'? PaV

Vy @ 12 Yes, the ice-core data completely disproves young-earth creationism. The cyclic pattern of CO2/CH4 in the ice-core data is due to characteristics of the earth's orbit that have a known frequency e.g. eccentricity of our orbit that changes the amount of solar radiation the earth receives on an approx 100,000 year cycle. You can see this cycle in the chart clearly. This demonstrates to any reasonably open mind that the ice core layers are in fact annual. CLAVDIVS

Mr Arrington Of course I 'admit' in the past it was much warmer than it is now due to purely natural forces. This is taught at school round here. Here is a version of the chart in the OP with very recent data shown more clearly: https://globalfreezingyourassoff.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/400000yearslarge1.gif You can see the massive, unprecedented spike in CO2 in recent times and the temperature breaking the historical pattern - which was my point @ 10. CLAVDIVS

Of related note to AGW alarmism, The Climate Is Not Clear for Change Vy

CLAVDIVS, Your fellow alarmist (rvb8) chose to rant instead of address the thrust of the OP. Telling, very telling. You take another tack, choosing to redirect from the glaringly obvious and indisputable. I will lay it out for your one more time: The point of the graph is that in the past it was a lot hotter than it is now. When it was getting hotter, the increase in heat was not caused by human activity. Now, pay attention here, this is the point: It follows that when it got hotter, even much hotter, than it is now, purely natural forces where the cause. Here's a simple question which I expect you to evade or ignore, but I will ask anyway: Do you admit that in the past it was much warmer than it is now and that purely natural forces were the cause? Barry Arrington

Of related note: The ice core data completely disproves young-earth creationism.

Mhmm. Does it really? Completely? Vy

Isn't the graph a reflection of half a million years of ice ages? Seqenenre

PaV Based on the pattern in your graph, in the present day we should be experiencing cooling. Instead we are warming up. This is prima facie evidence that current warming is not part of that natural cycle. CLAVDIVS

Of related note: The ice core data completely disproves young-earth creationism. CLAVDIVS

Some see evolution everywhere, some see climate change everywhere. Me, I see design everywhere. Design. Everywhere. Waning gibbous Harvest Moon. Very awesome:) ppolish

rvb8: This comment cannot go unanswered:

Alternatively, you could cherry pick one graph, that supposedly supports your position, and ignore the afore mentioned mountain of evidence. Hmm, I wonder what this amazingly science orientated site will do?

This is simply elitist brow-beating. Nothing more. There's plenty of science at this site, when warranted. The problem with Darwinism--and supposed AGW---is that contradictory evidence is routinely ignored. There's a word for it: "unfalsifiability." And any theory that is 'unfalsifiable,' cannot truly form the basis of what we would call 'science.' Climate models are most accurate in their earliest predictions, with uncertainties mounting as they work into the future. What do we SEE (at least those of us with our eyes open)? A complete disconnect between computer model predictions and actual temperatures. But why let actual facts get into your way. After all, you're a "real" scientist. Please come back when you have real facts that point to something real. Hand-waving is not allowed at UD. PaV

rvb8: You arrogantly assume your view is correct. Now, tell me, looking at this graph: (1) Was anthropogenic CO2 the cause for these four cycles spanning 400,000 years? I'll presume your answer is "no." Then, (2) based on the graph as shown, and, from your presumed "no" to question (1), from natural processes alone, what do you expect the temperature to be, relative to our present-day temperatures over the next few thousand years? (3) Are you willing to admit that world temperatures were warmer--by almost 4 degrees than today---in the past? And, BTW, things really aren't warming up, are they? Not for the last twenty years; and, even admitted to by the alarmists, into the near future. So much, I must say, for those vaunted climate models. AGW alarmism will be proof-positive in the end of the saying we've heard now for decades: "junk in"; "junk out." PaV

rvb8

Go to all the serious universities (maybe not Bob Jones’s fine establishment), to ALL national science agencies, to all miltary structures (inside the US and without), to ALL insurance companies etc etc, and I am afraid BA you will be dissapointed.

Actually, any educated person who knows how to read a scientific report knows that the Darwinists and climate change freaks are all liars--institutionally protected liars to be sure--but liars nonetheless. StephenB

Heh:) "Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo psuedoscience." Go to all the serious universities (maybe not Bob Jones's fine establishment), to ALL national science agencies, to all miltary structures (inside the US and without), to ALL insurance companies etc etc, and I am afraid BA you will be dissapointed. However, screed on! Likewise the other psuedoscience; evolution! rvb8

Global warming is a scam. The so called mountain of evidence, much like the evidence for Darwinian evolution, only exists in the imagination of true believers. And also much like Darwinian evolution, Global warming is " Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience"

Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKY5DzrcLI

Frankly, I stopped taking 'the sky is falling Chicken Littles' of Global warming seriously after the deliberately deceptive hockey stick 'hide the decline' fiasco several years back, i.e. 'Climate Gate':

Hide the decline - satire on global warming alarmists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc Climate Alarmism Has Undermined Science Itself - June 20, 2015 Excerpt: There was the southern hemisphere hockey-stick that had been created by the omission of inconvenient data series. There was the infamous “hide the decline” incident when a tree-ring-derived graph had been truncated to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling. And of course there was the mother of all scandals, the “hockey stick” itself: a graph that purported to show the warming of the last three decades of the twentieth century as unprecedented in a millennium, a graph that the IPCC was so thrilled with that it published it six times in its third assessment report and displayed it behind the IPCC chairman at his press conference. It was a graph that persuaded me to abandon my scepticism (until I found out about its flaws), because I thought Nature magazine would never have published it without checking. And it is a graph that was systematically shown by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to be wholly misleading, as McKitrick recounts in glorious detail in his chapter in The Facts. Its hockey-stick shape depended heavily on one set of data from bristlecone pine trees in the American south-west, enhanced by a statistical approach to over-emphasise some 200 times any hockey-stick shaped graph. Yet bristlecone tree-rings do not, according to those who collected the data, reflect temperature at all. What is more, the scientist behind the original paper, Michael Mann, had known all along that his data depended heavily on these inappropriate trees and a few other series, because when finally prevailed upon to release his data he accidentally included a file called “censored” that proved as much: he had tested the effect of removing the bristlecone pine series and one other, and found that the hockey-stick shape disappeared. In March this year Dr Mann published a paper claiming the Gulf Stream was slowing down. This garnered headlines all across the world. Astonishingly, his evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down came not from the Gulf Stream, but from “proxies” which included—yes—bristlecone pine trees in Arizona, upside-down lake sediments in Scandinavia and larch trees in Siberia. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/climate-alarmism-has-undermined-science-itself/

bornagain77

So now the IPCC is a reliable source of AGW data? Did you look at the mountain of evidence at that site? I do, regularly. Go read it, just casually, and then return and make yout poor assertions again. Don't read the scientists there too closely though, you might learn something. Alternatively, you could cherry pick one graph, that supposedly supports your position, and ignore the afore mentioned mountain of evidence. Hmm, I wonder what this amazingly science orientated site will do? rvb8

Semi related: I am now reading Dr. Hugh Ross's new book "Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home" which was published September 6th 2016

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801016894

If anyone thinks that the habitability of earth is just a fluke and that humans are not really intended to be here, using the resources of the earth for our benefit, and believes that humans themselves are merely 'random' accidents (which is, IMHO, the basic philosophy behind the entire Global warming scare), then this is the book for you.

From the Inside Flap Are we really just the result of innumerable coincidences? Or is there a more reasonable explanation? Most of us remember the basics from science classes about how Earth came to be the only known planet that sustains complex life. But what most people don't know is that the more thoroughly researchers investigate the history of our planet, the more astonishing the story of our existence becomes. The number and complexity of the astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological features recognized as essential to human existence have expanded explosively within the past decade. An understanding of what is required to make possible a large human population and advanced civilizations has raised profound questions about life, our purpose, and our destiny. This fascinating book helps nonscientists understand the countless miracles that undergird the exquisitely fine-tuned planet we call home--as if Someone had us in mind all along.

Here is a recent podcast on the book:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity's Home. - Frank Turek interviews Hugh Ross – Sept. 17, 2016 http://player.subsplash.com/8b92f21

Supplemental notes:

“Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.”  Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56 Eric Metaxas - Does Science Argue for or against God? – (2015) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain bacteria for 90 days or less: Probability for occurrence of all 501 parameters approx. 10-614 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-303 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^22 Probability for occurrence of all 501 parameters approx. 10^-333 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^311 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. Requirements to sustain unicellar life for three billion year: Probability for occurrence of all 676 parameters approx. 10^-859 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-303 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^22 Probability for occurrence of all 676 parameters approx. 10^-578 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^556 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf

As to the stability and fine-tuning of the atmosphere in particular

A Stable Atmosphere: Another Reason Our Planet Is Special - Daniel Bakken - January 20, 2015 Excerpt: David Waltham's central argument in Lucky Planet is that the geological evidence shows the Earth has had a "surprisingly stable climate."1 There are many reasons the Earth shouldn't have one. He observes, "[O]ur beautiful, complex biosphere could never have occurred if Earth had not enjoyed billions of years of reasonably good weather."2 There are many processes that keep Earth's environment habitable, "which [in] the Earth's case may be special rather than universal."3  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/a_stable_atmosp092851.html The Cold Trap: How It Works - Michael Denton - May 10, 2014 Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,, ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,, Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/the_cold_trap_h085441.html

Verse and Music:

Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” Creed by Rich Mullins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-61MaWETiU

bornagain77