See below. Because scientifically illiterate opinions don't belong in science.
From the horse's mouth
You're jumping to the conclusion you want when this single paper you cited doesn't
From the horse's mouth
Figure 1a reveals remarkable correspondence of Vostok temperature and global GHG climate forcing. The temperature change appears to usually lead the gas changes by typically several hundred years, as discussed below and indicated in figure 1b. This suggests that warming climate causes a net release of these GHGs by the ocean, soils and biosphere. GHGs are thus a powerful amplifier of climate change, comparable to the surface albedo feedback, as quantified below. The GHGs, because they change almost simultaneously with the climate, are a major ‘cause’ of glacial-to-interglacial climate change, as shown below, even if, as seems likely, they slightly lag the climate change and thus are not the initial instigator of change.
The temperature–GHG lag is imprecise because the time required for snow to pile high enough (approx. 100 m) to seal off air bubbles is typically a few thousand years in central Antarctica. The estimated age difference between ice and its air bubbles is accounted for in the time-scale of figure 1, which refers to the ice age. Despite multiple careful studies, uncertainties in the ice–gas age differences for the Vostok ice core remain of the order of 1 kyr (Bender et al. 2006). Therefore, we can only say with certainty that the temperature and gas changes are nearly synchronous. Data from a different Antarctic (Dome C) ice core with slightly higher snow accumulation rate (Monnin et al. 2001) and an independent analysis based on argon isotopes (Caillon et al. 2003) support temperature leading GHGs by ca 600–800 years. In addition, carbon cycle models yield increases of GHGs in response to warming oceans and receding ice sheets. Ice cores from Maud Land (EPICA 2006), which has very high snow deposition rates, should establish leads and lags accurately, but the present paper has only slight dependence on that result.
So what's the deal? If temperature leads "GHG Forcing", but CO2 provides "positive feedback", why does the temperature go down? By the definition of hoopla in climastrology, that should not be happening.
And how about that correlation? Do you suppose it is statistically "significant"? The fact it was verified by others must mean something. There is a difference between saying something is statistically "minor" versus "significant", and that's where you've been tripped up. Note how they immediately impute a hypothesis without contrary considerations, too.
As I keep harping on, the physics behind this matter is NOT settled , and you certainly will not prove otherwise. If anything, you'll wind up doing something like this, if you explore the topic deep enough:
http://www.nada.kth.se/~cgjoh/atmothermo.pdf
To that end, it seems the more the physics is unwound, the trickier it gets for the "climate scientists" whose livelihoods depend on "modelling" disaster. When are you going to admit the politics have poisoned the well?
All of this hubbub wouldn't be on the radar if Al Gore and his chums weren't trying to capitalize upon carbon-credit schemes, "according to the experts."
With all of the resources, those minds would have been better put to use in developing electromagnetic propulsion systems. Leave the CO2 to do what it does best; grow bigger crops.
View attachment 3555186
That must be why dozens of different governments are developing renewable energy source and cutting GHG emissions, huh?
Well, New York was supposed to be underwater several years ago, the ice caps all gone, and dozens of other calamities. None of which has happened. The only thing to have changed, it seems, is GLOBAL WARMING has changed to CLIMATE CHANGE. Because there hasn't been the results that were predicted by the doomsday proponents. All those "SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE" exhale co2 all day long. Let's face it. The only solution is to execute 85% of all living things. The climate change zealots should be volunteering to be first if they truly believe their rhetoric.
Governments have been developing green technology for how long now? Yet still no cost efficient alternative to fossil fuels. All the lies our government has told us and you believe this one? Remind me again how the numerous ice ages have expanded and contracted prior to the discovery of fossil fuels?
Government reacts to the demands of its populace if it wants to stay in power. Do you have any predictions based on the theory that have actually occurred?
One more point I would like to make. The government/s gains more revenue taxing fossil fuels than it ever could with green technology. Do yourself a favor and take a hard look at all angles. This is a power grab that has not ever been seen before at this level.
Well if you break it down to just my contribution. Yes I drive a vehicle that burns gasoline everyday. Yes I use electricity at home everyday but, I'll bet kWh hours compared to my portion used at work, I would say more kwh's are used at work. I keep my house cool in the winter and warmer in the summer. Yet, I still contribute albeit most likely less than many others who are more gluttonous than I. And I'm sure I contribute more than say many who aren't fortunate enough to enjoy my meager but, pleasant in a humble way, lifestyle.
A fucking men.
turn off fox news and check out what NASA has to say.
i just got tax credits and rebates for installing 96% efficiency furnace and 4 new andersen windows.
killing people is your solution to everything red.
What consensus?
Don't give me that 97% figure, please. Were you not around when we examined those claims?
Hey so did I. Installed new heater and Ac unit. house already has great windows. Also installed solar panels. Tax rebates. I ride an electric recumbent trike to commute back and forth to work. Love that thing. All electric. 70 mile range @25mph. top speed of 40 mph. (range goes down to 15 miles at that speed).
Actually all of the temperature records are up for debate and should be debated as part of a healthy scientific process. There is no global thermometer, so any global temp records are going to go through a man made amalgamation process to come up with a proxy.
You're implying climate scientists are stealing taxpayers money
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Yeah, you are. That's ^^^ you jumping to conclusions. I quoted the article you cited that said "it appears", which is one single paper that would seem to directly contradict the scientific consensus, which is made up of thousands of peer reviewed papers
Yeah, I would agree with that, but claiming "It hasn't warmed in 18 years." isn't a debate. Objective, scientifically verifiable facts are not up for debate. 2014 was the hottest year and 2000-2010 was the hottest decade we have on record. If it hasn't warmed in 18 years, how could that be possible?;
