Humans have caused climate change for 180 years: study

August 24, 2016
Australian National University researcher Associate Professor Nerilie Abram. Credit: Stuart Hay, ANU

An international research project has found human activity has been causing global warming for almost two centuries, proving human-induced climate change is not just a 20th century phenomenon.

Lead researcher Associate Professor Nerilie Abram from The Australian National University (ANU) said the study found warming began during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution and is first detectable in the Arctic and tropical oceans around the 1830s, much earlier than scientists had expected.

"It was an extraordinary finding," said Associate Professor Abram, from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.

"It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear. The we are witnessing today started about 180 years ago."

The new findings have important implications for assessing the extent that humans have caused the to move away from its pre-industrial state, and will help scientists understand the future impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.

"In the tropical oceans and the Arctic in particular, 180 years of warming has already caused the average climate to emerge above the range of variability that was normal in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution," Associate Professor Abram said.

The video will load shortly
Century-scale temperature trends for the continents and tropical oceans over the last 500 years. Colours show the regional 100-year temperature trends, for every year since 1500CE. Indicator bar below the map shows the time-span of the 100-year trends. Non-significant trends are masked in grey. Credit: Abram et al.

The research, published in Nature, involved 25 scientists from across Australia, the United States, Europe and Asia, working together as part of the international Past Global Changes 2000 year (PAGES 2K) Consortium.

Associate Professor Abram said anthropogenic was generally talked about as a 20th century phenomenon because direct measurements of climate are rare before the 1900s.

However, the team studied detailed reconstructions of climate spanning the past 500 years to identify when the current sustained warming trend really began.

Scientists examined natural records of climate variations across the world's oceans and continents. These included climate histories preserved in corals, cave decorations, tree rings and ice cores.

The research team also analysed thousands of years of , including experiments used for the latest report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to determine what caused the early warming.

The data and simulations pinpointed the early onset of warming to around the 1830s, and found the early warming was attributed to rising greenhouse gas levels.

Cave samples record changes in Earth’s climate. Credit: Christopher Maupin and Meaghan Gorman

Co-researcher Dr Helen McGregor, from the University of Wollongong's School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said humans only caused small increases in the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the 1800s.

"But the early onset of warming detected in this study indicates the Earth's climate did respond in a rapid and measureable way to even the small increase in carbon emissions during the start of the Industrial Age," Dr McGregor said.

The researchers also studied major volcanic eruptions in the early 1800s and found they were only a minor factor in the of climate warming.

Associate Professor Abram said the earliest signs of greenhouse-induced warming developed during the 1830s in the Arctic and in tropical oceans, followed soon after by Europe, Asia and North America.

However, climate warming appears to have been delayed in the Antarctic, possibly due to the way ocean circulation is pushing waters to the North and away from the frozen continent.

Explore further: UN climate panel to explore 1.5-degree warming goal

More information: Early onset of industrial-era warming across the oceans and continents, Nature, 2016. nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature19082

Related Stories

Fewer low clouds in the tropics

August 16, 2016

With the help of satellite data, ETH scientists have shown that low-level cloud cover in the tropics thins out as the earth warms. Since this cloud cover has a cooling effect on the climate, the two-degree warming target ...

Warmer climate could lower dengue risk

August 10, 2016

Health researchers predict that the transmission of dengue could decrease in a future warmer climate, countering previous projections that climate change would cause the potentially lethal virus to spread more easily.

Recommended for you

205 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jonnyrox
1.9 / 5 (23) Aug 24, 2016
lunacy of the highest order !
Zzzzzzzz
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2016
Its been more than two centuries.....
Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (21) Aug 24, 2016
lunacy of the highest order !

Delusion of the highest order......
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (20) Aug 24, 2016
from https://en.wikipe...relation

"Illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon is the formation of a false association between ..."
human activity and climate change.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (20) Aug 24, 2016
Correlation does not equal causation... except when we have a mechanism that quite literally shows that a change in one variable causes the change in the other. You do understand basic physics, right? We have a mechanism, a prediction of the impact of that mechanism on the system, and observable changes in the system. And you're looking at the last part and going "Well, that doesn't necessary *mean* anything" as though the first two don't exist. Sloppy thinking.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2016
It is interesting to know that climate is normally a constant and that any changes are due to man's intervention. We know this because we have models that include every possible cycle that could influence the earths climate.
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (20) Aug 24, 2016
And that is a shocking strawman. As you would know, being such an expert on the science. What we're talking about here is the *pace* and *rate* of change. GHG are a determinant of global climate through the greenhouse effect. We changed the levels of GHG, increasing the greenhouse effect. The climate changed. It actually is that simple. There are other ways the climate can change but there is no forcing agent as large as human intervention at the moment.
But you already know that - being such an expert on the science.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2016
And that is a shocking strawman. As you would know, being such an expert on the science. What we're talking about here is the *pace* and *rate* of change. GHG are a determinant of global climate through the greenhouse effect. We changed the levels of GHG, increasing the greenhouse effect. The climate changed. It actually is that simple. There are other ways the climate can change but there is no forcing agent as large as human intervention at the moment.
But you already know that - being such an expert on the science.
Cause this bears repeating:
GHG are a determinant of global climate through the greenhouse effect. We changed the levels of GHG, increasing the greenhouse effect. The climate changed.
Yes, it really is that simple. The evidence is overwhelming. Well said lee.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 24, 2016
We changed the levels of GHG, increasing the greenhouse effect. The climate changed. It actually is that simple. There are other ways the climate can change but there is no forcing agent as large as human intervention at the moment.

Where has the climate changed?
In which way or form did it change?
Cite a single peer reviewed study that supports your assertion, that manmade CO2 conclusively changed the climate.
Phys1
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2016
from https://en.wikipe...relation

"Illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon is the formation of a false association between ..."
human activity and climate change.

Your post qualifies qualifies as denialism.
https://en.wikipe...enialism
412horses
2.5 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2016
Doing something about climate change would probably get more traction if everyone stopped trying to prove what caused it. All that matters is that is real and it needs to be addressed now or your children's children's children might not have a place to live.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2016
And it's still too cold to raise wheat and dairy cattle on the island of Greenland. Yet wheat and dairy cattle were raised there for 400 fricking years (CE 800 - CE 1200).

A magnificent fraud, not that the climate changes, the climate always changes, but that climate change is bad, m'kay.. Warmer climates are nice to humans and other growing things (see Roman Climate Optimum and the Viking Warm Period.
guptm
1.5 / 5 (18) Aug 24, 2016
This study is totally wrong. Such publications should be discouraged. Humans started making shelters, damming rivers, chasing animals, even before 8000 years ago.

For some people, atmosphere is the only climate. They don't count animals, oceans, and countless many other factors. This paper is a testament to shortsightedness of fake scientists.
dustywells
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2016
Your post qualifies qualifies as denialism.


Well if you must resort to name calling...

I am in no way denying that climate is changing. I only express doubt as to our strength to significantly alter this immutable natural cycle that has been real for millions if not billions of years. Arbitrarily choosing any year as a baseline to maintain as an ideal and unalterable climate is foolish.

In science doubt, replication and proof are expected. So far science has only proven that climate is changing and has been changing for a very long time. Also proven and accepted is that during a short period of this climate change agriculture, industry and population has increased dramatically. That is simply a parallel series of events. It does not imply nor prove a causative relationship.

It is only in religion that doubt is equated with denial.
dustywells
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2016
Doing something about climate change would probably get more traction if everyone stopped trying to prove what caused it. All that matters is that is real and it needs to be addressed now or your children's children's children might not have a place to live.

That is the only sensible thing to do. We should embrace the fact that regardless of cause, climate is changing and prepare for the new reality.

Bickering and name calling will not stop the inundation of New Orleans and Florida due to rising sea levels, it will not prevent storms and droughts.
howhot3
4.9 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2016
And it's still too cold to raise wheat and dairy cattle on the island of Greenland.
Just give it 25 years an your might be able. Well, it may be ice free but wheat probably wouldn't like the soil. Maybe cold hardy grapes.
Well from the article;
The data and simulations pinpointed the early onset of warming to around the 1830s, and found the early warming was attributed to rising greenhouse gas levels.

So, both actual bonafide hand measure data and extreme modern simulations on some of the worlds largest supercomputers both agree. There has been a 99% consensus among scientists about global warming being caused by green house gasses from human development and fossil fuel combustion technology. What is not to understand?

dustywells
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2016
So, both actual bonafide hand measure data and extreme modern simulations on some of the worlds largest supercomputers both agree. There has been a 99% consensus among scientists about global warming being caused by green house gasses from human development and fossil fuel combustion technology. What is not to understand?

OK, suppose I agree with you. What are we going to do about it? Study some more or get ready to help all of us survive the change?
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2016
So we have to "cut back" to pre-industrial revolution levels to save the planet. Why stop there? A nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle for all, as decreed by the chosen few.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2016
A nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle for all, as decreed by the chosen few.

For all, other than those who made the decree. You have greenonions, berating and insulting the heretics, then boasting how he drove 1200 miles in 2 days.
BurnBabyBurn
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2016
More accurate title would be, "The day humans stopped being filthy beasts and took up the will to power". Would you go back to the days when millions died of preventable infections? If you think you're green, then you're a hypocrite, because from the time that humans freed themselves of the up and down cycles animals experience there was no outcome except human monoculture. So, which way is it to be? The same people that have the Nanny State protecting every.last.PRECIOUS human life, even if it has no worth to society. Which is it? Respect nature or breed like rabbits and save every last life? You can't have it both ways.

No, humans largely took up their mortality as their "ownmost possibility", to quote Heidegger, and have willed themselves to be more than animals. That's painful, but the great are up to it. "Those that would make a beast of themselves are spared the pain of being human". Liberals, that's you. Buy a gun and learn to kill something.
Omnishambles
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2016
What gives here?

"But the early onset of warming detected in this study indicates the Earth's climate did respond in a rapid and measureable way to even the small increase in carbon emissions during the start of the Industrial Age," Dr McGregor said.

So apparently we can get rapid climate change with both small and the current larger CO2 increases. Doesn't sound like much of a correlation. Good grief.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
*ergh*. Do i have to repeat this again?

GHG are a determinant of global climate through the greenhouse effect. We changed the levels of GHG, increasing the greenhouse effect. Ergo the climate has changed.

If you change the proportion of GHG in the atmosphere, you see a subsequent climatic change. That's like, Year 9 science.

The climatic change is proportional to the change in the forcing agent.

Or can you show me the part in this research where they claim we saw the same magnitude of change in 1850 as we're seeing now?

Bueller?
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
Your post qualifies qualifies as denialism.


Well if you must resort to name calling...

That is not name calling. Read the wikipage and you will recognise yourself.
I only express doubt

Doubt is fine, but you discard evidence without reason.
this immutable natural cycle

That is a dogmatic point of view.
if not billions of years.

if not?
Arbitrarily choosing any year as a baseline to maintain as an ideal and unalterable climate is foolish.

That is not what climate scientists are doing.
They are not excluding natural variation a priori.

It is only in religion that doubt is equated with denial.[/q
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2016
This study is totally wrong. Such publications should be discouraged. Humans started making shelters, damming rivers, chasing animals, even before 8000 years ago.

And some here would even deny _that_.
Still I don't see your point. The world population was insignificant 8000 years ago compared to today.
For some people, atmosphere is the only climate.

It is that for _all_ people. Climate is the behaviour of our atmosphere over long periods.
They don't count animals, oceans, and countless many other factors.

Of course they do. This is denialism in pure form.
This paper is a testament to shortsightedness of fake scientists.

A baseless accusation that returns to you like a boomerang.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2016

It is only in religion that doubt is equated with denial.

Wrong.
This is the hallmark of repression in general, not just of religion.
Science is not a repressive system
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 25, 2016
Doing something about climate change would probably get more traction if everyone stopped trying to prove what caused it. All that matters is that is real and it needs to be addressed now or your children's children's children might not have a place to live.

Yeah, let's stop trying to understand what is going on.
Brilliant.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2016
So we have to "cut back" to pre-industrial revolution levels to save the planet. Why stop there? A nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle for all, as decreed by the chosen few.
Interesting strawman there Acolyte. Maybe we should worship magic lightning bolts and hope that they come back and help us create new hieroglyphs so we can communicate with the lizard alien people from Beta Reticulus.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2016
And it's still too cold to raise wheat and dairy cattle on the island of Greenland. Yet wheat and dairy cattle were raised there for 400 fricking years (CE 800 - CE 1200).
Of course, wheat was never grown there.
A magnificent fraud, not that the climate changes, the climate always changes, but that climate change is bad, m'kay..
Is it that you can't read? Or is it comprehension that is your problem?
Warmer climates are nice to humans and other growing things (see Roman Climate Optimum and the Viking Warm Period.
Neither of which is real, nor global. The fraud here is you.

Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
All my life I have studied science.
In politics however, ignorance is at least as important.
The phys.org comment section is a great place to study it.
JongDan
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
And it's still too cold to raise wheat and dairy cattle on the island of Greenland. Yet wheat and dairy cattle were raised there for 400 fricking years (CE 800 - CE 1200).
Of course, wheat was never grown there.


Of course now. They grew barley and oats.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2016
And it's still too cold to raise wheat and dairy cattle on the island of Greenland. Yet wheat and dairy cattle were raised there for 400 fricking years (CE 800 - CE 1200).
Of course, wheat was never grown there.


Of course now. They grew barley and oats.

Barley. For a little while: http://sciencenor...reenland . No oats.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2016

Of course now. They grew barley and oats.

You say "Of course now " and then are immediately proven wrong.
That should make you doubt yourself. Does it ?
That would be good.
Doubt makes you check and double check your assumptions.
Believe your doubt.
thingumbobesquire
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2016
This proves my suspicion that humanity is unnatural except for the Queen of Great Britain and her consort Prince Philip, who has stated his desire to be reincarnated as a deadly virus to wipe out excess population. Hail Mother Earth! Hail Gaia!
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
All my life I have studied science.

-- The Retard of the Year
LOL. Well, that was a waste of time and money.
We saw how you scienced the hell outta "calculating" the height of the atmosphere.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2016
I need to see the DPA report that he really said that.
Then I still need to know if that report is correct.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2016
@antithinking
You still did not get the point I made ?
You are ignorance in its pure, innocent form. Rare.
A fascinating object of study.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
You still did not get the point I made ?

Being the Retard of the Year, you are incapable of realizing that with everyone of your "points" you confirm why you deserved the award.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
@antithink
You are missing the point that you are missing the point.
We don't all have to be knowledgeable, it takes ignoramuses, too.
Be careful, you nominated Niels Bohr "Retard of the Year" before me.
Without knowing it, of course.
As long as you are happy that way!
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2016
May I call you "Ignoracle", in reverence of your blissfull state?
RazorsEdge
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 25, 2016
OH more BS thanks to confirmation bias "The research team also analysed thousands of years of climate model simulations, including experiments used for the latest report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to determine what caused the early warming."
So they searched through thousands of years of simulations to find what they wanted to find.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2016
Confirmation bias involves _selectively discarding_ evidence. As far as I know this was not done in the present study. You seem to be know more than I do, so tell how you reached the conclusion that the authors selectively discarded evidence that would have invalidated their conclusion.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2016
Razors you are 101% correct, studying unproven climate models and using them as proof of your conclusion is ludicrous and that is being kind. An unkind person would call that an outright academic fraud.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2016
Oh silly me, academic fraud is impossible to commit if the "Research" proves AGW!
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2016
@MR166
Fraud is a serious accusation. If it is made without convincing evidence, that would be slander.
Since you present no evidence you are a slanderer that should be prosecuted.
The authors will not do this since you are insignificant slime. Lucky insignificant slime.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2016
OK, I will take back the "slime", that was uncalled for.
Just prove fraud or consider yourself lucky not to be a convict.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2016
Phys1 I ask you, how can somebody use

"The research team also analysed thousands of years of climate model simulations, including experiments used for the latest report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to determine what caused the early warming."

these unproven models as a basis to justify their conclusions?

Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2016
That is a good question and I would have to read the original work to know.
Don't reject the paper on basis of a PO article without understanding the details.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2016
Phys1 thank you for that verification of the scientific process.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2016
@MR166
Fraud is a serious accusation. If it is made without convincing evidence, that would be slander.
Since you present no evidence you are a slanderer that should be prosecuted.
The authors will not do this since you are insignificant slime. Lucky insignificant slime.

Despite overwhelming evidence; i.e. everyone of your posts, that confirms you the Retard of the Year, you refuse the honour. Of course, it's not your fault, as your condition precludes you from recognizing the fact. Unlucky significant tard.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2016
For the abstract I would conclude that their main conclusions are based on data alone. Here's all that the abstract says about models: "The development of Southern Hemisphere warming is delayed in reconstructions, but this apparent delay is not reproduced in climate simulations. "
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2016
I meant : _From the abstract_
dustywells
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2016
For the abstract I would conclude that their main conclusions are based on data alone. Here's all that the abstract says about models: "The development of Southern Hemisphere warming is delayed in reconstructions, but this apparent delay is not reproduced in climate simulations. "

Seems to me that you are making assumptions about their assumptions.
An international research project has found human activity has been causing global warming for almost two centuries, proving human-induced climate change is not just a 20th century phenomenon.

Perhaps, if they fund another international research project we will learn that human activity has caused global warming even before humans evolved. Maybe then they can call it australopithogenetic global warming. They wouldn't even have to change the acronym.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2016
For the abstract I would conclude that their main conclusions are based on data alone. Here's all that the abstract says about models: "The development of Southern Hemisphere warming is delayed in reconstructions, but this apparent delay is not reproduced in climate simulations. "

Seems to me that you are making assumptions about their assumptions.

Have you read the abstract ?

Perhaps, if they fund another international research project we will learn that human activity has caused global warming even before humans evolved. Maybe then they can call it australopithogenetic global warming. They wouldn't even have to change the acronym.

Strawman rubbish.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2016
@ignoracle
Despite overwhelming evidence; i.e. everyone of your posts, that confirms you the Retard of the Year, you refuse the honour. Of course, it's not your fault, as your condition precludes you from recognizing the fact. Unlucky significant tard.

I can not accept the honour, for that would put me at the same level as Niels Bohr, whom you first nominated.
An insult coming from you is really a compliment!
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2016

Seems to me that you are making assumptions about their assumptions.

Have you read the abstract ?


Yes I have. From the abstract I would conclude that their main conclusions are based on an admitted lack of data. Here's all that the abstract says about data: "Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change "

This, along with a couple of centuries of records from the LIA (little ice age) implies that the rest of their report is as accurate as reading chicken entrails to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

From Wikipedia: "The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum)."

So, naturally, after a period of cooling we would have a period of warming. To attribute the warming to CO2 and human activity is an illusory correlation.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2016
[qHere's all that the abstract says about data: "Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change "
It continues alittle more: "and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account."
I interpret this as saying that they do not have enough data to make a _global_ assession.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2016

So, naturally, after a period of cooling we would have a period of warming. To attribute the warming to CO2 and human activity is an illusory correlation.

And you decide that in a casual statement with no analysis to back it up.
At the same time you dismiss a study without knowing its detailed content.
Draw your own conclusions.
howhot3
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2016
So, both actual bonafide hand measure data and extreme modern simulations on some of the worlds largest supercomputers both agree. There has been a 99% consensus among scientists about global warming being caused by green house gasses from human development and fossil fuel combustion technology. What is not to understand?

OK, suppose I agree with you. What are we going to do about it? Study some more or get ready to help all of us survive the change?

Good question. We need to regulate and implement strict CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. We in the USA can do our part by electing politicians that are not bat-shit crazy deniers, and support the ones that accept regulation as a system GHG reduction. We need to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground. It's the CO2 already sequestered. Maybe to be fair mineral rights owners, we need to consider an eminent domain purchase of mineral rights to keep CO2 sequestered. Just some ideas.
dustywells
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
OK, suppose I agree with you. What are we going to do about it?
We need to regulate and implement strict CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. We in the USA can do our part by electing politicians that are not bat-shit crazy deniers, and support the ones that accept regulation as a system GHG reduction. We need to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground. It's the CO2 already sequestered. Maybe to be fair mineral rights owners, we need to consider an eminent domain purchase of mineral rights to keep CO2 sequestered.

I see two things that you might have overlooked.

The first is that scientists have told us that even if we stopped all human CO2 production, it would be decades to centuries before CO2 levels would return and cooling could begin.

The second may be a bit harder to accept but must also be considered; what if CO2 and other GHGs are not really the driving factors.

What then? People die while politicians argue. We don't get a do over.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
dusty
what if CO2 and other GHGs are not really the driving factors.
That is certainly an interesting thing to wonder about. What are the other possible drivers? Have they been explored yet? I think your chance at fame and fortune are at hand...
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2016
Here's all that the abstract says about data: "Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change "

It continues alittle more: "and that, in some regions, about 180 years of industrial-era warming has already caused surface temperatures to emerge above pre-industrial values, even when taking natural variability into account."
I interpret this as saying that they do not have enough data to make a _global_ assession.

If that is proof to you of AGW then you are reading your prejudice into the statement. It simply says that 180 years of warming have made it warmer than before. The only reference to GHG forcing is in reference to a model that they later say is faulty.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2016
Everybody knows the real reason is unicorn rainbow farts.
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2016
dusty
what if CO2 and other GHGs are not really the driving factors.
That is certainly an interesting thing to wonder about. What are the other possible drivers? Have they been explored yet? I think your chance at fame and fortune are at hand...
Every week PO carries several items that illustrate new discoveries in atmospheric science but unless they are seeking funding by mentioning CO2 forcing, they are ignored or worse, denounced by the bully trolls in the comments.

I think it's more important to look forward at how we can survive climate change than to bicker over a jigsaw with an unknown number of missing pieces.
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
I think it's more important to look forward at how we can survive climate change than to bicker over a jigsaw with an unknown number of missing pieces.
We bicker over many unknown missing pieces - it is called science - take dark matter for example. There are many unknown pieces to the puzzle of cancer. With your approach - we would not try to fill in the unknown pieces - but just resign ourselves to living with cancer. Others would rather we push back the boundaries of knowledge.
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2016
This is like saying that because we don't know everything about gravity works there's no reason to avoid jumping off buildings
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2016
We bicker over many unknown missing pieces - it is called science -

Maybe 'bicker' is the wrong word to use - perhaps 'flame wars' would be more appropriate. Nothing is gained by attacking a person who happens to question or disagree with the points raised in the article or in the comments. It is possible to have such discussions without resorting to personal attacks.

I generally value opinions that differ from mine and readily dive into the comments but when I run across the names of certain bully trolls, I know that to continue will be fruitless because they are unable to discuss, they only flame everyone whom they perceive to threaten their narrow and unwavering belief that they know everything about a subject and that they are always right.

leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
And the fact you don't know the difference between your opinion and science might be the problem here.
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2016
This is like saying that because we don't know everything about gravity works there's no reason to avoid jumping off buildings

Good example! Galileo's experiment did not stop other scientists continuing research and applying their findings. Even now, after centuries culminating with LIGO, we know that the science of gravity is still in its infancy. So how can we make the assumption that we know definitively all we need to know about atmospheric science with its many variables when many of the data points are implied, inferred and extrapolated.

If you believe that GHGs are bad for the environment then do something about it but do not deny that other factors such as clouds, water vapor, deforestation, VOCs, algae, carbon particles, dust, etc. can be just as effective or even more effective in causing climate change as GHGs
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2016
And the fact you don't know the difference between your opinion and science might be the problem here.

Could be. But then, how do I know that your comment is science and not just your opinion?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
dusty
It is possible to have such discussions without resorting to personal attacks.
Up to point. I would encourage you to take a long look at the comments of antigoracle, benni, et al They are clearly not here to have any kind of exchange of information. You can ignore them - but they troll the board - taunting people - and hurling childish insults. I also think it is very reasonable to ask people to support their opinion - with science. Science demands evidence. It is fine to speculate - but at some point you have to back up your speculation. You are asserting that 'other' factors may be causing the current warming - but you never identify those factors - and you never present evidence. After a certain point of asking for the science - it is understandable that people drop the discussion of information - and accuse you of being ignorant. cont.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2016
Yes - words like ignorant are inflamatory - and I suppose it would be nice to have never ending civil discussion about unicorn farts. However, there is a wider context. I live in a society that is stupid - to an extreme degree. Every morning - if I turn on the news - I learn who was murdered/raped/robbed etc. etc. overnight. It is distressing I could spend hours pointing to other examples (ISIS/Taliban/prison overcrowding/ pollution etc). Progress towards building a better society - that is not as monumentally stupid - is very slow. A lot of this is about pushing back against stupidity/ignorance/superstition. Sure - at some point - you have to put the trolls on ignore. Maybe it is a process of giving someone the benefit of the doubt - but then at some point calling them out for not being willing to support their assertions, and for trolling.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2016
I interpret this as saying that they do not have enough data to make a _global_ assession.

If that is proof to you of AGW then you are reading your prejudice into the statement. It simply says that 180 years of warming have made it warmer than before.
How I read this is that they don't have the GLOBAL data to conclude on GLOBAL warming over this entire period. Where ever they do have data it supports anthropogenic warming starting 180 years ago.
The only reference to GHG forcing is in reference to a model that they later say is faulty.

That is not what they say.
You baselessly reject any evidence that disproves your a priori position.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
Every week PO carries several items that illustrate new discoveries in atmospheric science

That can only be good.
but unless they are seeking funding by mentioning CO2 forcing, they are ignored or worse, denounced by the bully trolls in the comments.

I miss your point.
I think it's more important to look forward at how we can survive climate change

An assertion of what is happening to the best of our present knowledge and abilities, which is what these authors are aiming to do, is a necessary condition for this.
than to bicker over a jigsaw with an unknown number of missing pieces.

To stop climate research would be very stupid.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
Nothing is gained by attacking a person who happens to question or disagree with the points raised in the article or in the comments.

It is necessary to distinguish a fact based discussion from the venting of unbased preconceptions driven by anything except facts.
It is possible to have such discussions without resorting to personal attacks.

In your first post you accused the authors of reporting illusory correlations. Baselessly. Others, not you, used the words "BS" and "fraud". Baselessly. You must have known that this would be a dog fight between deniers and those who are interested in climate science. On the denier side there are some nasty trolls that should have been moderated away years ago. You are on their side.
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
And the fact you don't know the difference between your opinion and science might be the problem here.

Could be. But then, how do I know that your comment is science and not just your opinion?

An opinion based on observation and/or established theory (in casu mathematical models) is scientific. Note that there can be different even opposite scientific opinions. At some point such a debate will be decided by observation and model improvement.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2016
"Progress towards building a better society - that is not as monumentally stupid - is very slow. A lot of this is about pushing back against stupidity/ignorance/superstition."

Onions part of the problem is that what you termed stupidity/ignorance/superstition was actually working. If you look at the 50s and 60, except for the racial prejudice, society functioned pretty well. I will cite just one of many examples. After years of "Improvements" to society now 70% of black children are born to single mothers. Every science will admit to their failures except social science.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
Onions part of the problem is that what you termed stupidity/ignorance/superstition was actually working.
You would need to define working - and for who - and you would need to provide support for that assertion - as I don't buy it. You also have to understand that I am not just talking about the U.S. You have learned something from past discussion of the wonderful 50's - and now add your caveat about racism. I am not sure that a poor black person - living in the projects in a major city in the 50's - would agree with your assessment. Here is another view of things - https://indianaje...magical/
Guy_Underbridge
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
If you look at the 50s and 60, except for the racial prejudice, society functioned pretty well.
I guess it depends on your point of view. From the suburbs in California or East Berlin?
MR166
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
I'm talking about the US only. Harlem is a famous Black community in New York City. In the first half of the 1900s it was a well educated cultured community that was also an entertainment center that showcased their american culture . In the 80s after 20 years of social engineering it was a dangerous ghetto that most people feared to enter.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
Don't bother to tell me about slums either. Vast sections of 50s middle class NYC neighborhoods were turned into slums by the 80s due to socialist rent controls and the newly created welfare class.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2016
166, take it back to Breitbart. This is about climate change

Thanks.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
Don't bother to tell me about slums either.
Why not MR? If you are wanting to characterize a whole era - you should be willing to be honest about the whole picture. However - my purpose was not to get into a discussion of social policy. I think we would agree that the war on poverty, and attempts at social engineering here in the U.S. (and probably many other countries) - are a disgrace. Not my point. Progress against problems (cancer just for example) - depends on a systematic, rational process (science). The people attending a Benni Hinn faith healing service, or suicide bombers yelling Allahu Akbar - do not subscribe to that rational process. I submit that society moves forward - when we value education, and science. You cite young unmarried black women having children. Look at the stats in this report - http://blackdemog...eligion/ and wonder about that.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2016
Onions whereas you might have read about or been taught everything about the US culture from the 50s to today, I have actually lived through it and can tell you with certainty that many of the social changes that were instituted in the name of fairness have done great harm to those that these changes were supposed to help.
MR166
3 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2016
Onions I 101% agree that science and technology have been a boon to mankind. Without these advances most of us would be living dreadful lives. We differ in that I would also add cheap energy to that list.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
do not subscribe to that rational process.

-- onionTard
So, you are on this forum constantly berating and preaching to the heretics about the evils of CO2 and saving the environment. Then you boast about driving 1200 miles in 2 days, spewing over half a ton of CO2, when the annual average is 4.7 tons. Please enlighten us, as to what is rational about that?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
"166, take it back to Breitbart. This is about climate change

Thanks."

Ah, what's the matter GK am I pointing out some of the incongruities of your religion!
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
To stop climate research would be very stupid.
Indeed. But what about entrenching as a conclusion an opinion based on misleading assumptions?
dustywells
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
How I read this is that they don't have the GLOBAL data to conclude on GLOBAL warming over this entire period. Where ever they do have data it supports anthropogenic warming starting 180 years ago.
How I read this is that they found a trend of warming starting 180 years ago that happens to coincide with the industrial revolution. That is an illusory correlation. IE perceiving a relationship between variables even when no such relationship exists.

Unless there is proof that the industrial revolution caused the warming, which proof this article lacks, the relationship must be considered an illusion.

You baselessly reject any evidence that disproves your a priori position.
Right back at you :)
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
goracle
Please enlighten us, as to what is rational about that?
I did not boast about driving 1200 miles. I was making a point about the reality that EV's have limitations - but that there are alternatives to fill in the gap while we do the science to develop EV's that are equivalent or better than today's gas cars. I own 2 gas cars, and a gas motorcycle, and run my house on fossil fuels. I do not berate any one for living life - within the parameters of the current system - you are just a liar on that one.
You are the troll - who pollutes this board - with childish insults. You call people retards, turds and many other childish terms. The opinion of others regarding your childish behavior - is reflected in consistent down voting of your childishness.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2016
To stop climate research would be very stupid.
Indeed. But what about entrenching as a conclusion an opinion based on misleading assumptions?

That would not be a scientific opinion.
Tackle the assumptions if you come across this.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2016
That is an illusory correlation.

You are wrong. There is a real correlation. Does this imply causation? Not by itself. [
q]Unless there is proof that the industrial revolution caused the warming,
There is a clear correlation, there is a clear mechanism, all alternative explanations have been ruled out so far after extensive search. It is at present the only viable explanation. This is as good a proof as science can ever deliver.
which proof this article lacks,

It is in the literature and the article should refer to it. A letter to Nature does not report what is already known.
the relationship must be considered an illusion.

First you said that the correlation is illusory, which is _evidently_ wrong.
Now this.This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
This is denialism.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
That is an illusory correlation.

This requires proof that there is no correlation, but there is.
This is denialism.
Unless there is proof that the industrial revolution caused the warming,

There is a clear correlation, there is a clear mechanism, all alternative explanations have been ruled out so far after extensive search. It is at present the only viable explanation. This is as good a proof as science can ever deliver.
which proof this article lacks,

It is in the literature and the article should refer to it. A letter to Nature does not report what is already known.
the relationship must be considered an illusion.

First you said that the correlation is illusory, which is _evidently_ wrong.
This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
This is denialism.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
I own 2 gas cars, and a gas motorcycle, and run my house on fossil fuels. I do not berate any one for living life - within the parameters of the current system - you are just a liar on that one.

Uh huh. You don't come here braying to the heretics about saving the planet.
Based on just your 1200 mile jaunt, I can tell you that my CO2 emissions is but a small fraction compared to you.
So, enlighten us, how is you living your life saving the planet?
Imagine if everyone lived life like you, what would happen?
Have you any shame at all for not practicing what you preach?
Have you even attempted?
Steelwolf
4 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2016
The Mini Ice Age is well known to have been caused by volcanic activity in Indonesia, there is plenty of evidence for ash accumulation and accompanying cooling with ice cores, both from Antarctica and Greenland, also was written about. The sunsets were spectacular due tot he amount of material in the air. But just the same, there is the dust from Grecian and Roman copper and tin smelting and bronze making, they can also tell from the cores the approximate time that iron came into widespread use due to the higher temperatures the particles went through.

There is a Wealth of information that we can follow that tell us pretty exactly when we began overriding the natural environment, even India and China have long records that show when you devastate the land, it returns the favor and becomes uninhabitable, and when all the land around you is taken, where do you go? We also daily pour heat into our system, and it has no ready escape, so we WILL have to deal with consequences. Soon!
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2016
my CO2 emissions is but a small fraction compared to you.
So, enlighten us, how is you living your life saving the planet?
Imagine if everyone lived life like you, what would happen?
Have you any shame at all for not practicing what you preach?
Have you even attempted?

Aha, you actually _do_ agree with AGW mediated among others by atmospheric CO2.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2016
First you said that the correlation is illusory, which is _evidently_ wrong.
Now this.This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
Are you demanding that I prove a negative? There is nothing in the article or in the abstract that indicates directly that the warming is caused by human activity during the industrial era. It merely illustrates a series of warming trends and cooling trends from 1500CE to present. It carefully avoids linking either cooling or warming to human activity. Any link is of your own making.

This is as close as it gets to a causative link: "Synthetic trends are designed to capture known features of Earth's climate evolution, namely, a long-term gradual pre-industrial cooling trend followed by accelerating industrial-era warming with superimposed episodic volcanic cooling events."

This is denialism.
If you say so... But what am I denying?
greenonions
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
goracle
Uh huh. You don't come here braying to the heretics about saving the planet
No I don't. Read my last comment "I do not berate any one for living life - within the parameters of the current system - you are just a liar on that one."
I stand by my criticism of you for constantly polluting this board with childish insults.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2016
There is nothing in the article or in the abstract that indicates directly that the warming is caused by human activity during the industrial era.
My apologies, Phys1. I was wrong!

The article above does state "An international research project has found human activity has been causing global warming for almost two centuries, proving human-induced climate change is not just a 20th century phenomenon." After the clickbait title: "Humans have caused climate change for 180 years: study"

It is the author of the article who misrepresents the research with an unfounded conclusion. The abstract does not state that the accelerated warming is caused by human activity. I can now see where you were misled.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2016
Uh huh. What is " living life - within the parameters of the current system"?
Why does it permit you to drive 1200 miles in 2 days, spewing more than half a ton of CO2 and still have no shame?
Does it permit everyone to do as you?
sdrfz
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2016

These scientists don't even know the rate at which greenhouse gases were produced by humans back in the 19th century, so it's unscientific to claim that greenhouse gases were to blame for the warming trend starting in that period.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2016
goracle
Does it permit everyone to do as you?
Do you think other people need my permission for the decisions they make in their lives? Do you think I control any one else beside myself?
What is " living life - within the parameters of the current system"?
That is a very straight forward phrase - and I explained it clearly. It means that some people may be able to ride a bicycle to work, and others like Uncle Ira drive huge pickup - as they have to haul a lot of gear. We each make our own decisions. Why don't you clean up your own act (meaning stop spewing hate and filth at other people on the internet) - and do what I do - which is live and let live.
dustywells
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2016
These scientists don't even know the rate at which greenhouse gases were produced by humans back in the 19th century, so it's unscientific to claim that greenhouse gases were to blame for the warming trend starting in that period.
But here it isn't the scientists making the claim; it's a misrepresentation by the journalist. Kind of makes one wonder how much of this AGW frenzy is due to journalists with an agenda.

howhot3
5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2016
@Dusty and my friend @goracle, the AGW science of global warming is already solved and well known. Article like this one are interesting in that it shows how sensitive the atmosphere is to added CO2 (cause) and the temperature rise (effect). When you say AGW is not happening, you look like an instant fool that knows nothing of the subject except what you have been brain washed to say by Fox News, Rush Limpballs and all the rest of the AM radio talking rightwing goon squad, As deniers, you are now the instruments and the tools of the righwing profiteers to shield polluters, creators of toxic dumps, and industrial bio-exterminators.

So, in reply; the only "AGW frenzy" that exists is the frenzy among scientists of many disciplines to save the planet from ourselves and not let the rightwing lay waste to the planet.
Sometimes we need to sacrifice our greed for the betterment of the planet.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
First you said that the correlation is illusory, which is _evidently_ wrong.
Now this.This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
Are you demanding that I prove a negative?

No I don't. You claim an illusion. That is a testable assertion. Illusions can always be shown to be just that.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
the relationship must be considered an illusion.

This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
This is denialism.

If you say so... But what am I denying?

You are denying that there can be a relationship.
Without proof.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016

These scientists don't even know the rate at which greenhouse gases were produced by humans back in the 19th century, so it's unscientific to claim that greenhouse gases were to blame for the warming trend starting in that period.

That is a non-sequitur.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
There is nothing in the article or in the abstract that indicates directly that the warming is caused by human activity during the industrial era.
My apologies, Phys1. I was wrong!

I stopped reading here. Glad you see the light.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
These scientists don't even know the rate at which greenhouse gases were produced by humans back in the 19th century, so it's unscientific to claim that greenhouse gases were to blame for the warming trend starting in that period.
But here it isn't the scientists making the claim; it's a misrepresentation by the journalist. Kind of makes one wonder how much of this AGW frenzy is due to journalists with an agenda.


You are absolutely right that the PO articles are often not faithful to the articles they describe, which on top of this are often behind paywalls.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
There is nothing in the article or in the abstract that indicates directly that the warming is caused by human activity during the industrial era.
My apologies, Phys1. I was wrong!

I stopped reading here. Glad you see the light.
Are you admitting that you only read what conforms to your beliefs? :)

You should also admit that there is a large difference between the abstract and the article where the journalist injects text that is not supported in the abstract. That difference diminishes the scientific findings and pushes the article into the area of disinformation, fear mongering, politics and pseudo science with just enough of the science to make it believable.

To clarify, I am referring solely to the information in this abstract and the bias presented in this article and not to AGW or CC in total.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
There is nothing in the article or in the abstract that indicates directly that the warming is caused by human activity during the industrial era.
My apologies, Phys1. I was wrong!

I stopped reading here. Glad you see the light.
Are you admitting that you only read what conforms to your beliefs? :)

I would be lying if I did.
You should also admit that there is a large difference between the abstract and the article

There is a difference. Remember, the PO journalist read the whole article and you did not.
[qThat difference diminishes the scientific findings
It couldn't. It does not matter scientifically what a PO journalist writes.
and pushes the article into the area of disinformation, fear mongering, politics and pseudo science with just enough of the science to make it believable.

It is not clear what you mean. You use big words. Smells like denialism to me.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
the relationship must be considered an illusion.

This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
This is denialism.

If you say so... But what am I denying?

You are denying that there can be a relationship.
Without proof.

Where am I denying that a relationship MIGHT exist? There could very well be a relationship. However, the abstract carefully avoids drawing such a conclusion. It is only the text inserted by the journalist that creates the illusion that that the juxtaposition of warming and industrial era constitute proof of AGW.

What more proof do you want me to present? If you wish, we can dissect the article paragraph by paragraph.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
You make heavy accusations addressed at what are honest and skilled scientists making a valid point.
Unless you can back up ANYTHING of what you say, it remains the standard denialist narrative that I can hear on any right wing talk show.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
the illusion that that

If you say there is an illusion you have to report proof of that, but you don't and you don't have any.
If you say that the Nature abstract does not draw the conclusion, I agree.
Neither of us has access to the paper and the conclusion could still be draw in the main text of the article. This is likely as the conclusion is obvious for the three reasons that I named before.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
the relationship must be considered an illusion.

This requires proof that the relationship can not_ be true.
You do not provide any such proof.
This is denialism.

If you say so... But what am I denying?

You are denying that there can be a relationship.
Without proof.

Where am I denying that a relationship MIGHT exist? There could very well be a relationship.

You are welcome to shift position. Earlier you wrote "the relationship must be considered an illusion.".
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
Are you admitting that you only read what conforms to your beliefs? :)

I would be lying if I did.
I'm pleased.
You should also admit that there is a large difference between the abstract and the article

There is a difference. Remember, the PO journalist read the whole article and you did not.
That is an assumption. We would hope that the PO journalist would read the whole article, but there is nothing to indicate even a complete reading of the abstract.
That difference diminishes the scientific findings

It couldn't. It does not matter scientifically what a PO journalist writes.
No, it shouldn't. But it does matter who reads it and believes the journalistic bias to be the true findings of the research.

Most in the media don't do their own research and only bleat what they read. That is how misrepresentations become news and that news becomes "common knowledge."
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
There is a crucial point here.
To whatever extent carbon dioxide may have been being added to the air, it didn't deprave the weather so much, despite the claim that "temperatures rose". When using a surrogate to measure something, care should be taken. Note that there is no particular notice taken in writing of changes in conditions. And, frankly, if you look at paintings from the period, you don't see the bizarre conditions seen today, as many as four or five different types of cloud in the same patch of sky at once. There were no cases of depression or panic disorders from decreasing sunny days. Unnatural animal migrations weren't noted then. Strange weather is only in the most recent past and that is caused by chemtrails.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
Where am I denying that a relationship MIGHT exist?

Earlier you wrote "the relationship must be considered an illusion.".
But the abstract does not support a relationship.

OK, let's back up a bit. The abstract indicates that a warming event began at about the same time as the industrial era. That is coincidence.

Coincidence - happening more or less simultaneously.

Relationship - one affects the other in some form; whether causative, additive or subtractive.

Illusion - a false or misleading impression of reality.

The _abstract_ indicates that there is a coincidence of the two events. It does not indicate that either caused the other and neither does it indicate that one caused changes in the other. Therefore, it does not imply a relationship between the two.

The _article_, on the other hand creates the illusion that the research defines a causative link. Thus an _illusory correlation_ is created by the journalist
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2016
Dusty
That is coincidence.
If you assert that the warming trend starting at the same time as the beginning of the industrial revolution is coincidence - the next step is for you to provide an explanation for the increase in temps.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2016
That is a very straight forward phrase - and I explained it clearly. It means that some people may be able to ride a bicycle to work, and others like Uncle Ira drive huge pickup - as they have to haul a lot of gear. We each make our own decisions.

-- onionTard
The onionTard justifies his jaunt, driving 12000 miles in 2 days and spewing over half a ton of CO2, by comparing it to what others need for their jobs. Despite being the biggest fossil fuel burner on this forum, the onionTard has the audacity to bray about saving the planet.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
Phew, 12000 miles in 48 hours. Let me solve the ODE. 250 miles an hour.
That should be a record.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
Where am I denying that a relationship MIGHT exist?

Earlier you wrote "the relationship must be considered an illusion.".
But the abstract does not support a relationship.

Are you saying "the abstract does not support a relationship therefore the relationship must be considered an illusion" ?
That would be a non-sequitur.
Btw you no longer claim "the relationship must be considered an illusion."
Your POV is now "There could very well be a relationship".
This seems nitpicking, but that is what science often is: nitpicking.
Over a few ppm of CO2.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
If you assert that the warming trend starting at the same time as the beginning of the industrial revolution is coincidence - the next step is for you to provide an explanation for the increase in temps.
The abstract shows cycles beginning at 1500AD with the attached siZer images showing a severe cooling trend until about 1650AD, then a century of warming followed by several decades of cooling until about 1830AD before the present warming trend sets in. The timing varies somewhat depending on the models and the degree of smoothing.

While there is a possibility that the warming trend MAY be influenced by human activity, the abstract clearly states "Our findings imply that instrumental records are too short to comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change."

I don't disagree with the findings in the abstract, I disagree with the bias inserted into the article attributing conclusions that contradict the abstract.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
"comprehensively assess anthropogenic climate change"
It remains to be seen what was meant.
It could mean that the total anthropogenic impact on climate can not be established since it started to happen already 180 years ago and records are insufficient for assessment of the global climate.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
Are you saying "the abstract does not support a relationship therefore the relationship must be considered an illusion" ?.
Allow me to add a few words to your summary: "the abstract does not support a relationship BETWEEN WARMING AND ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE therefore the relationship EXPRESSED IN DETAIL BY THE JOURNALIST must be considered an illusion"

Your POV is now "There could very well be a relationship".
There is a vast difference between admitting the possibility of that human activity MAY influence a warming trend and stating stridently that it DOES definitely cause the warming.

This seems nitpicking, but that is what science often is: nitpicking.
Over a few ppm of CO2
Let's not start on CO2. LOL
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
dusty
I don't disagree with the findings in the abstract, I disagree with the bias inserted into the article attributing conclusions that contradict the abstract.
And as usual - deniers are all over the net - trying to discredit articles that are part of the body of science - being built around our earth's climate. But when pushed to explain what is causing the current warming trend - if not green house gases - they have nothing.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
dusty
I don't disagree with the findings in the abstract, I disagree with the bias inserted into the article attributing conclusions that contradict the abstract.
And as usual - deniers are all over the net - trying to discredit articles that are part of the body of science - being built around our earth's climate. But when pushed to explain what is causing the current warming trend - if not green house gases - they have nothing.
You are very funny, asking me to explain a single trend in a complex interlocking system. That's like asking me to explain where the population of California came from.

Please tell me where I am trying to discredit the science as it is expressed in the abstract.

You are mistaken, however, in claiming that the _PO article_ is science. It is part of the body of false information and pseudo science that the uninformed public is so eager to adopt.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2016
Dusty - here is your own words
"Illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon is the formation of a false association between ..."human activity and climate change.
But the body of science does assert an association between human activity and climate change. If you are not aware of that assertion - then you must know nothing about this subject. If you are aware of this assertion - then my statement is correct - and you are busy trying to discredit science. It is not that complex a question regarding the driver of the current warming trend. Science asserts that it is the build up of green house gases in our atmosphere. You want to dispute this assertion openly - but when pushed for a counter explanation - you have nothing.
BurnBabyBurn
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
Shootist 1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2016
And it's still too cold to raise wheat and dairy cattle on the island of Greenland. Yet wheat and dairy cattle were raised there for 400 fricking years (CE 800 - CE 1200).


And bean stalks grew thousands of feet up into the air in England, Jack! What kind of idiot are you?

dustywells
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
Dusty - here is your own words
"Illusory correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon is the formation of a false association between ..."human activity and climate change.
But the body of science does assert an association between human activity and climate change.
Actually, except for the last five words it is a quote from Wikipedia as my original post indicates. My comment was made in reference to the journalist's overlaying athropogenesis over a scientific article that neither confirms or denies human induced global warming.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
And as usual - deniers are all over the net - trying to discredit articles that are part of the body of science - being built around our earth's climate. But when pushed to explain what is causing the current warming trend - if not green house gases - they have nothing.

--onionTard
Fascinating, the mind of the Chicken Little retard, isn't it?
The retard believes manmade CO2 is warming the earth and berates the heretics about it, yet he goes on a 2 day, 1200 mile jaunt, emitting over half a ton of CO2 and then boasts about it.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
Science asserts that it is the build up of green house gases in our atmosphere. You want to dispute this assertion openly - but when pushed for a counter explanation - you have nothing.
Why are you asking me to disprove your belief system. If I were to do that you would have nothing. Be happy with your faith, don't ask me to make you miserable. Just don't push your faith on me.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2016
Why are you asking me to disprove your belief system.
I don't have a belief system - what a stupid thing to say. You don't understand that if you want to openly challenge something that is a widely understood piece of science - you need more than just an opinion. You need evidence. The lack of support you have for your assertion (that there is no association between human activity and climate change (and those 5 words were your 5 words - and were the critical words that established your assertion) - amounts to "you can't make me!" Pretty childish there dusty.
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
Why are you asking me to disprove your belief system.
I don't have a belief system
- what a stupid thing to say.
You don't understand that if you want to openly challenge something that is a widely understood piece of science - you need more than just an opinion.
You seem to be confused. We are not arguing over science but over a journalist's pseudo science.
You need evidence. Pretty childish there dusty.
Get a hold of yourself. You are asking me to explain an occurrence that the scientists clearly state they can not comprehensively assess. If they can't explain it what makes you think that I can?
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
@dustywells
The journalist may still be more or less correct. We don't know the full content of the Letter to Nature, only its abstract.To say that the journalists pushes pseudoscience is jumping to conclusions.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2016
You are asking me to explain an occurrence that the scientists clearly state they can not comprehensively assess.
Nope - you made a very clear assertion - that the association between human activity and climate change is false. I am telling you that in order to make that assertion - you need evidence. Again - I do not have a belief system - that is a stupid assertion.
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
Given the assumption of humans warming the planet, why would the natural climate of wildly erratic ice ages be preferable?
Skepticus_Rex
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
Of course, wheat was never grown there.


The old Encyclopedia Britannica editions had the following to say about old records stating that wheat was grown in Greenland:

The ancient Norwegian chronicles inform us, that Greenland formerly produced a great number of cattle; and that considerable quantities of butter and cheese were exported to Norway; and, on account of their peculiar excellency, set apart for the king's use. The same histories inform us, that some parts of the country yielded excellent wheat;...


It now has been confirmed via archaeology that barley and oats were grown there but we have yet to find wheat pollens. More work needs to be done (so far as I am aware; science always being tentative) so we cannot get too dogmatic about the non-existence of wheat in Greenland considering the old Norse chronicles did mention wheat in Greenland. Carry on. :-)
BackBurner
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
This "study" is complete crap. I thought this was a science blog. There's no science in this article.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
@BackBurner
Either that or you are crap.
dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
The journalist may still be more or less correct. We don't know the full content of the Letter to Nature, only its abstract.To say that the journalists pushes pseudoscience is jumping to conclusions.
That is true of course. We don't know if the journalist barely scanned the abstract or had access to the full report.

But since we don't have access to the full report we can only discuss what is made available to us. To allow journalistic latitude based on an unfounded assumption that the article reflects an unavailable report gives the journalist license to foist any kind of fiction or personal agenda on an uncritical audience.
goldminor
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
What caused the past Warm Periods which can be seen in any long term study of the planet? Or is the contention here that the Earth was born 180 years ago?
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
@BackBurner
This "study" is complete crap. I thought this was a science blog. There's no science in this article.
To some extent I will agree with you. That is the reason for the long "discussion." The article is "crap" as it makes some assertions that contradict the actual abstract of the study. The abstract of the study itself shows good science.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
@dustywells
The article ... makes some assertions that contradict the actual abstract of the study.

That is incorrect. They are not covered by the abstract, but do not contradict it. As I pointed out, they are likely covered by the full text.

you agree with BackBurner "to some extent", who claims that the study itself is "crap". Without reading and without arguments.
That is again a shift of position, in the direction of factless denialism.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
godlminor
What caused the past Warm Periods which can be seen in any long term study of the planet?
Do you know what Milankovich cycles are?
goldminor
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
@greenonions...the claim is that the warming is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. That is the argument. No one is saying that our land use changes do not have any effect in the long run on the climate. Although, that effect is most likely so small that it can not be calculated. The entire global warming consensus science is about increasing levels of CO2 and nothing more. That is why articles such as this one are pumped out on a regular basis to try and convince everyone that consensus science equates to natural reality.

Look at the last sentence in this article "...However, climate warming appears to have been delayed in the Antarctic, possibly due to the way ocean circulation is pushing warming waters to the North and away from the frozen continent....". Ocean circulation has not changed to my knowledge, so what is this sentence supposed to mean? The author appears to have a serious lack of understanding of ocean currents.

Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
What caused the past Warm Periods which can be seen in any long term study of the planet?

Which warm periods? The Carboniferous, the Devonian, the summer of 2003 ?
Or is the contention here that the Earth was born 180 years ago?

Is it because you are a minor that you ask such stupid questions?
greenonions
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
goldminor - do you know what Milankovich cycles are?
On your last comment - the article does not assert that ocean currents have changed. It is suggesting that because of the way ocean currents push the warmer waters to the north - the heat is pushed more towards the equator - and away from the Antarctic. One of the anomalies that is well recognized - is that the Antarctic is not showing as much warming as other parts of the world. This is a complex system - and heat moves around. Everything is not linear.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2016
Again - I do not have a belief system - that is a stupid assertion.
I haven't followed too many of your posts but you clearly do have a belief system.
For example: You believe:
that man is responsible for an excess of CO2.
that CO2 is the cause of AGW
that AGW causes climate change
that neither of your Civics is adequate for a 1200 mile road trip.
that no matter what I say, I am wrong
that you are right
that CC is responsible for the extreme weather events and
that no one who comments on PO is as knowledgeable as you.

I may not be 100% yet, but if I continue to study your posts, I think I can get pretty close.

BTW, I do agree with you on many of your posts, just not in these.

Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2016
you clearly do have a belief system.
For example: You believe:
that man is responsible for an excess of CO2.

That is considered an established fact. Science is not a belief system.
that CO2 is the cause of AGW

Another established fact, it is _a_ cause of it. Science is not a belief system.
that AGW causes climate change

Tautology.
that CC is responsible for the extreme weather events and[/]q
Nobody thinks that. It is expected that because of AGW extreme weather becomes more extreme. That is probably what greenonions believes. So do I.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
dusty
that no one who comments on PO is as knowledgeable as you.
Now you're getting more childish. Try growing up - or you look like goracle. I have no illusions that I am more knowledgeable than every one else - and just because I may believe that certain things are true - that does not mean I have a "belief system." Unless when you use the term 'belief system' you just mean that we all believe certain things are true. That would apply to pretty much all of us right (maybe some postmodernists would claim there is no objective truth) - in which case it is a meaningless term - and probably just meant to provoke. Just for the record - folks like Antialias, Phys1, Captain, howhot Uncle Ira etc. etc. seem to have much greater knowledge about science topics than me. I mostly add my two cents worth in defense of the process of science - which makes sense to me as the best way to evaluate how the universe works.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
@dustywells
The article ... makes some assertions that contradict the actual abstract of the study.

That is incorrect. They are not covered by the abstract, but do not contradict it. As I pointed out, they are likely covered by the full text.
If you can assume the journalist read the full text, why can't I assume that BackBurner read the PO article?

you agree with BackBurner "to some extent", who claims that the study itself is "crap". Without reading and without arguments.
The headline implies that the PO article is the study. My post tries to correct that impression by referring to and praising the abstract.
That is again a shift of position, in the direction of factless denialism.
I guess that happens when we make assumptions - we lose track of facts.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
dusty
BTW, I do agree with you on many of your posts, just not in these.
I do not care what you agree with - or disagree with - it is of no importance. What is important is understanding reality. I find it so strange - how many people think that opinion - is more relevant than fact. It is my opinion - that Stairway to Heaven is a great song. It is of course of no consequence to me - if you agree or not. It is very important that we get this climate change issue right. There are potentially dire consequences (just like the H bomb right?) - so it is important to me that I belong to a society that respects science - as that is the way we are going to get it right.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2016
that AGW causes climate change

Tautology. How is that tautology? AGW and CC may be related but they certainly are not synonymous.
goldminor
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2016
@greenonions...I got caught with the 3 comment rule so I had to wait to respond to your question regarding the Milankovitch cycle. I was referring to the MWP at 1000AD, the RWP at 1AD, and the MWP around 1300BC. Yes, I know what the Milankovitch cycle is.

Unlike Phys 1 who seems to think that a debate is won by attacking the other debater, I will never stoop to that level of making personal attacks. I have been in this conversation for the last 8+ years, and I have never stooped to that level of discourse. Phys 1 is a typical true believer as attacking the other person is typically their main method of "debating".
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2016
A tautology doesn't mean synonymous. It means a self-evident truth. So yes, "AGW causes climate change" is a tautology in the same way that "jumping off a 30 story building causes death" is. Which is why people get frustrated over the fact we still seem to be having these conversations with people who can't grasp basic physics. It is a thing that is true. The end! Now can we please talk about what we need to do to reduce emissions to zero by mid century at the latest?
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2016
goldminor
I was referring to the MWP at 1000AD, the RWP at 1AD, and the MWP around 1300BC. Yes, I know what the Milankovitch cycle is.
So then I guess the question is 'what is the point is posting this question?' Google is your friend - and you can find answers on the net. Here is a pretty succinct discussion of the Mid Holocene Warm Period - http://www.ncdc.n...ene.html Deniers raise the issue of the MWP all the time. One dilemma deniers face - is depending on the data collected over hundreds of years of science to understand climate history - but then not being willing to accept the conclusions - of said scientists - such as the MWP was a regional event - not a global one. Pop a mole is OK for a while - but it does get old.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2016
Tautology is when two expression have identical meaning, but use other words.
AGW _is_ climate change, like a cow is a bovine.
Perhaps tautology is not the correct term.
Does anybody have a better term for this?
A shower causes rain?
Pain leads to discomfort ?
Phys1
not rated yet Aug 28, 2016
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do... http://www.14earnpath.com

This domain is registered in Panama.
I wonder what kind of business they have there :-).
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2016
"A tautology doesn't mean synonymous. It means a self-evident truth. So yes, "AGW causes climate change" is a tautology in the same way that "jumping off a 30 story building causes death" is. Which is why people get frustrated over the fact we still seem to be having these conversations with people who can't grasp basic physics.

Fine so Co2 causes some degree of warming. It has not been proven that this warming is at all linear. Some claim that today's levels of Co2 absorb pretty much all of the available energy and increasing the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere will have little additional effect.

There are those that think that mankind should have no measurable effect on the earth and are willing to lower the standard of living of the poor and middle class in order to attain this goal. The rich will still fly to their global warming conferences in their private jets.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
Dustywells, you are not a credible participant in a climate change discussion. Your comment regarding humans ability to effect change on the natural climate cycles that have been going on for billions of years was It? Shows that you have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter to discuss it intelligently. The ability to sound like you might have some intelligence of knowledge does not fool anyone who actually possesses it. You are simply pushing your delusion in hope of finding validation. Perhaps that is gratifying for you, but it has less than zero value in an actual discussion of Science.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2016
@leetennant
@Phys1
Tautology is when two expression have identical meaning, but use other words
Thank you for the correction. My connotation was missing the "other words" part and took "identical meaning" as synonymous.

Help me some more now. "AGW _is_ climate change, like a cow is a bovine." I understand that a cow is a subset of bovine but a bovine is not necessarily a cow and yet AGW and CC seem to be used interchangably where AGW is CC and CC is AGW.

Looks like Zzzzzz may be right, I may "have insufficient knowledge of the subject matter to discuss it intelligently."
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2016
It is very important that we get this climate change issue right. There are potentially dire consequences (just like the H bomb right?) - so it is important to me that I belong to a society that respects science - as that is the way we are going to get it right.

-- onionTard

Uh huh, science the "god" of the AGW Cult's Chicken Littles will make things right as rain, while the retards spew tons of CO2 going on 2 day, 1200 mile jaunts. The annual average is 4.7 tons, yet the onionTard has the audacity to claim his emissions are low and preach about dire consequences.
ab3a
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
It may even be true. So What?

Instead of adapting, we have the "let's change the climate back to the way it was 'supposed' to be" movement. That's as stupid as the "balance of nature" folk. Nature is not balanced. It changes. The climate also changes with or without us. Yes, we are a part of it. Yes we have had an effect on it. But whether we can actually reverse those effects and whether we can actually set reasonable targets --WHO KNOWS?

Moreover, even if it WERE possible to set a planetary thermostat of sorts, where should it be set? Wars could be fought over that subject alone.

Think this through all the way. You'll realize that regardless of what the Earth's climate is doing, the notion that we can do anything but adapt to it is ludicrous.
tinitus
Aug 28, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2016
". In particular, the consumption of fossil fuels before two hundred years was quite minimal, so that such a study could be used as an argument against anthropogenic warming model as easily, as for it."

That's why they invented the "Hockey Stick"!
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
ab3a
we have the "let's change the climate back to the way it was 'supposed' to be" movement.
Just wow - you have a huge misunderstanding of even the social/political side of this issue. All of the goals of things like the Paris climate agreement - is to try to hold the warming in check.
Countries will aim to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius, and for the first time to pursue efforts to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees C.


From - http://www.nature...Xf7w_wcB

We are in the process of finding ways to reduce ghg emissions - at the same time as reducing the cost of energy, creating jobs, and cleaning up our environment - a win/win/win.
ab3a
3 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Just wow - you have a huge misunderstanding of even the social/political side of this issue. All of the goals of things like the Paris climate agreement - is to try to hold the warming in check.


Greenonions, the one thing the Paris climate agreement leaves out is any effort at how such things will be verified and how people measure "what-would-have-beens" for GHG measurements caused by humanity.

Again, YOU don't understand what you're doing. You may be very well read, but you have completely missed the bigger picture. You can't control what you can't measure.

And by the way, should a country be awarded bonus points for having a major volcanic eruption within one's borders? It makes about as much sense...
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
We are in the process of finding ways to reduce ghg emissions - at the same time as reducing the cost of energy, creating jobs, and cleaning up our environment - a win/win/win.
-- onionTard
Yep, WE are seeing how you are reducing GHG by spewing over half a ton in 2 days, when the annual average is 4.7 tons.
WINNING.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
ab3a - none of your excuses takes away from the fact that you said this
we have the "let's change the climate back to the way it was 'supposed' to be" movement.
And that is not what is happening - and I demonstrated that. No one is wanting to "change the climate back to the way it was 'supposed' to be" People are simply arguing in favor of trying to limit the warming. If we can do that in a win/win/win way - surely that is good. Many are not in favor of a crap shoot. 'Let's play with the climate and see what happens' is not a good approach. There are some 'for sures' in here - like the ice sheets will keep melting - and we will either have to shift populations in land - or spend a lot of money on mitigation.
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Now can we please talk about what we need to do to reduce emissions to zero by mid century at the latest?
Seven billion people have to stop breathing.
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
@ignoracle
Don't you get sick of yourself?
Don't your mama or your wife, poor thing, smack you ?
You are such a public nuisance, do you often end up in bar fights, road rage incidents?
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Now can we please talk about what we need to do to reduce emissions to zero by mid century at the latest?
Seven billion people have to stop breathing.

As long as people don't eat fossil food, breathing by itself s carbon neutral.
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Now can we please talk about what we need to do to reduce emissions to zero by mid century at the latest?
Seven billion people have to stop breathing.

As long as people don't eat fossil food, breathing by itself s carbon neutral.
Oh? ... ? ... ?

Is fossil food derived from fossil fuels? When leetennant says "to reduce emissions to zero" he doesn't mean zero, he just means we need to eliminate fossil food/fuels.

Is this tautology again? Is "carbon neutral" a subset of "reduce emissions to zero" or is it the other way around or are they both synonymous with "eliminate fossil food/fuels"?

Seriously, I am trying to understand the idioms so that I may "have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to discuss it intelligently."
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2016
Is fossil food derived from fossil fuels?

It was joke. Haha. Nobody eats petrochemical products. I hope, wait , let me check the small print ...
When leetennant says "to reduce emissions to zero" he doesn't mean zero, he just means we need to eliminate fossil food/fuels.
That would be zero emission.
Is this tautology again? Is "carbon neutral" a subset of "reduce emissions to zero"

One is a sort of adjective and the other is an action, so no. Impossible.
or is it the other way around or are they both synonymous with "eliminate fossil food/fuels"?

If you keep guessing like this you will never get it right.
But seriously. Say you grow wheat. The CO2 comes from the atmosphere. You eat the wheat. Your body metabolises the wheat resulting in H2O, gotta go, and CO2 that you breath out. Better add some fibers though. That's carbon neutral.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2016
People are simply arguing in favor of trying to limit the warming. If we can do that in a win/win/win way - surely that is good. Many are not in favor of a crap shoot. 'Let's play with the climate and see what happens' is not a good approach. There are some 'for sures' in here - like the ice sheets will keep melting - and we will either have to shift populations in land - or spend a lot of money on mitigation

Oh NO, the ice sheets are melting, so let me drive 1200 miles in 2 days and spew over half a ton of CO2, when the annual average is 4.7 tons. That "for sure" will keep the ice sheets cool. Well, what would you expect from those who anointed, False "Profit" Al, their High Priest.
WINNING!
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Dustywells, you admit my post was correct, but you persist. The demands of delusion must be too powerful to deny.
ab3a, you appear to be quite similar to Dustywells. Worthless in a scientific discussion. People like you have rendered this discussion forum nearly worthless.
lengould100
5 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2016
Phys1 -- That's carbon neutral.


Well, agreed provided you didn't dig up and burn a bunch of petroleum tor agricultural machinery and trucks, and coal to smelt steel for machinery or to generate electricity to grind the wheat and cook bread.
dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2016
@Zzzzzzzz
Dustywells, you admit my post was correct, but you persist. The demands of delusion must be too powerful to deny.
ab3a, you appear to be quite similar to Dustywells. Worthless in a scientific discussion. People like you have rendered this discussion forum nearly worthless.
I am trying to learn by questioning. If inconsistencies appear I want them explained.

Why do you insist on participating in a discussion that you consider "worthless" ? Trolling?
dustywells
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2016
Is this tautology again? Is "carbon neutral" a subset of "reduce emissions to zero"

One is a sort of adjective and the other is an action, so no. Impossible.

You did say "science often is nitpicking" didn't you? :) So I have to re-phrase the question: What if any, is the difference between "carbon neutral" and "zero emission"?
Phys1
not rated yet Aug 28, 2016
Dusty, I see no difference.
FritzVonDago
2 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Climate change is all Hogwash! It was invented so so-called climate experts could live off of GOVERNMENT GRANTS!
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2016
Phys1 -- That's carbon neutral.


Well, agreed provided you didn't dig up and burn a bunch of petroleum tor agricultural machinery and trucks, and coal to smelt steel for machinery or to generate electricity to grind the wheat and cook bread.
So, it seems that in order to become carbon neutral we have to return to the twelfth century - before coal became a fuel commodity.
dustywells
not rated yet Aug 28, 2016
@Phys1
Is fossil food derived from fossil fuels?

It was joke. Haha. Nobody eats petrochemical products. I hope, wait , let me check the small print ...
If you check the labels you will find that many of our foods contain petroleum byproducts including thickeners, colorings, flavorings, etc. and lengould100's comment about the FF input requirements carries a lot of weight as well.
Manfred Particleboard
5 / 5 (9) Aug 28, 2016
Science: a+b=c ! Denier: a and c aren't the same, tard! S: except that they are related by b.
D: b is a liberal plot to erode our freedom S: it's an algebraic relationship and has nothing to do with ideology. D: Because you are all too stupid to see the truth! (link to whacko right wing conspiracy site) S: What's that got to do with anything, a and b are related to c. D: says you taking one day to burn gazillions of tons of fuel and make CO2....Tard! S: Why am I having this discussion with a moron troll? D: Algebra is just to keep mathematicians in paid Government jobs It's a complete con!!!! ( puts on tin foil hat and crouches in the corner waiting for the voices to subside)
someone11235813
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2016
I would have thought it obvious that humans have been causing climate change from about ten thousand years ago when agriculture started to become widespread. It began slowly and has been steadily increasing.
leetennant
5 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2016
Phys1 -- That's carbon neutral.


Well, agreed provided you didn't dig up and burn a bunch of petroleum tor agricultural machinery and trucks, and coal to smelt steel for machinery or to generate electricity to grind the wheat and cook bread.
So, it seems that in order to become carbon neutral we have to return to the twelfth century - before coal became a fuel commodity.


Yes, because we have no other technology able to produce electricity in a way that's carbon neutral.

Oh, wait...
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
Phys1 -- That's carbon neutral.


Well, agreed provided you didn't dig up and burn a bunch of petroleum tor agricultural machinery and trucks, and coal to smelt steel for machinery or to generate electricity to grind the wheat and cook bread.
So, it seems that in order to become carbon neutral we have to return to the twelfth century - before coal became a fuel commodity.

Unless we find a way to manage our energy economy with a much restricted carbon emission. Thorium, fusion, solar, wind. Reduce energy use while producing the same or more.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2016
I would have thought it obvious that humans have been causing climate change from about ten thousand years ago when agriculture started to become widespread. It began slowly and has been steadily increasing.

You should have realised that 10.000 years ago people were not mining fossil fuels,
that there were 4 million humans and not 7 billion as now, that they were not driving around in cars, flying around in planes, taking hot showers, running the washing machine and the dish washer a few times a day. And so on and so forth.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2016
I would have thought it obvious that humans have been causing climate change from about ten thousand years ago when agriculture started to become widespread. It began slowly and has been steadily increasing.

You should have realised that 10.000 years ago people were not mining fossil fuels,
that there were 4 million humans and not 7 billion as now, that they were not driving around in cars, flying around in planes, taking hot showers, running the washing machine and the dish washer a few times a day. And so on and so forth.
Then what caused the global warming if there really was any warming at all?
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2016
And it's turtles. All the way down.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2016
You should have realised that 10.000 years ago people were not mining fossil fuels,
that there were 4 million humans and not 7 billion as now, that they were not driving around in cars, flying around in planes, taking hot showers, running the washing machine and the dish washer a few times a day. And so on and so forth.

I said, it *began* 10,000 years ago, that would be about 2,000 years after the age of agriculture began so humans were well on the way to begin land clearing, and animal farming, and while it would have been negligible then, it has been steadily increasing, with an extra bump as technology improved for example when Haber worked out how to produce fertiliser from the air, which allowed the population to really take off. The point I'm making is that to say it began in earnest 180 years ago is not big surprise. FFIW, burning down forests is as bad as burning fossil fuels or worse because you are releasing the carbon while destroying the trees at the same time
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2016
Soon even more sophisticated computer models, using data "adjusted" to properly remove any data points going in the politically incorrect direction, will be able to not only pin it down to the date and hour Global Cooling, er, GlobalWarming, um, Anthropogenic Global Warming, ah, Global Climate Disruption, oops, I mean Climate Change began, but which greedy robber baron initiated it. Then, rolling the "analysis" forward, they'll be able to precisely determine the Climate Change contribution of every specific evil capitalist-roader who has raped Gaia.

philstacy9
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 29, 2016
"plenty of snout-space at the trough for all those rent-seekers, crooks, greed-heads, scamsters and shills involved in the "decarbonisation" industry."

http://www.breitb...for-all/
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2016
"plenty of snout-space at the trough for all those rent-seekers, crooks, greed-heads, scamsters and shills involved in the "decarbonisation" industry."

http://www.breitb...for-all/

Are you paid to push that filthy website ?

ab3a
1 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2016
No one is wanting to "change the climate back to the way it was 'supposed' to be" People are simply arguing in favor of trying to limit the warming. If we can do that in a win/win/win way - surely that is good.


This is what the road to Hell is paved with. I don't deny your good intentions. However, people naturally gravitate toward centrally managed economies where government chooses winners and losers. This inevitably leads to doling out carbon-dioxide indulgences. And if you think this can ever work, well, would you like to buy a bridge in New York City?

If you have any sense of history whatsoever, please read carefully what transpired in the last century. Centrally managed societies and economies don't work. More people have died at the hands of their own government than from any other foreign source. Giving your government still more authority to rule your life is a recipe for more Hell.

That's why I like the science, but I'm skeptical of the answers.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2016
ab3a - still does not change the fact that your statement was incorrect. I understand that you do not like government. So we should leave lead in gasoline, not worry about mercury in our water supply, and repeal the clean air act (according to your approach). I am in favor of listening to the science - and comfortable with government playing a role in keeping our world on track.
greenonions
5 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2016
plenty of snout-space at the trough for all those rent-seekers
It's a very large trough. Has to have enough room for the Military industrial complex - those boys really need looking after. Next there is the fossil fuel boys - they take up half the trough. Don't forget big pharma - and the health insurance companies. Can you say epi-pen - http://usuncut.co...r-money/
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Aug 29, 2016
60% of the groundwater in South Asia is now unfit for human consumption or agriculture thanks to ab3a's philosophy. Well done, buddy. That's awesome. I'm personally all about arsenic contamination in my water supply. Corporations able to pollute without restriction and no pricing for externalities? Yay!
Manfred Particleboard
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2016
Actually the Arsenic in the ground water is a natural phenomena, in Bangladesh at least. Although there are similar problems in the Californian ground water in some areas. That doesn't get the big polluters like Rio Tinto of the hook. Look what they have done to PNG without government regulation.
BurnBabyBurn
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2016
@anti The weak enslave themselves.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2016
@anti The weak enslave themselves.

What is that supposed to mean?
A permission to abuse people?
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2016
@RazorsEdge
OH more BS thanks to confirmation bias "The research team also analysed thousands of years of climate model simulations, including experiments used for the latest report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to determine what caused the early warming."
So they searched through thousands of years of simulations to find what they wanted to find.

Do you think the report only covers 500 years instead of those thousands because the rest didn't conform to the desired IPCC outcome?

Can anyone provide a link to a similar report that covers two or more millennia?
dustywells
not rated yet Aug 30, 2016
Can anyone provide a link to a similar report that covers two or more millennia?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

This NASA report, titled "Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today" . Still looking...
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2016
Well there @dusty; all the really bad news is found on

https://www.climate.gov/

You should really look at that 'Global Climate Dashboard' thingy.
dustywells
not rated yet Sep 01, 2016
Well there @dusty; all the really bad news is found on https://www.climate.gov/ You should really look at that 'Global Climate Dashboard' thingy.
Thanks for the link but it seems to cover only a short period with various years used as baselines. I offered the NASA link because it covers 20,000 years of sea level change.

I am looking for links that likewise cover thousands of years showing indicators of climate change and how the last couple of centuries and particularly the last couple of decades are unprecedented anomalies.

Whether news is bad, good, or just information depends largely on what we make of it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.