Global Warming is over.

[parkerbink]

What you said was we haven't been recording the data long enough. While this is true, we have methods to determine past conditions with a degree of precision that is accurate enough to gain a level of understanding to make the conclusions we presently have.

Science never has 100% answers, that's why the answer evolves as our level of understanding grows, even laws are relative simplistic accumulations of theories with known outcomes. We do not need a 100% answer to come to the reasonable conclusion that the climate is changing as a result of mans influence. If you're holding out for that 100%, you're going to be waiting quite literally forever.

qft

Ice cores and climate change

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

It never ceases to amaze me how people can formulate strong opinions without any data.

"I think ocelots are really geese" Really why? "I just think so"

Oh ok......

[marshallnoise]

From the article above:

"Summary

Ice cores provide direct information about how greenhouse gas concentrations have changed in the past, and they also provide direct evidence that the climate can change abruptly under some circumstances. However, they provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 comparable to those of the next century."

So...humans.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[cale]

It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2 overleaf). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years.

Yes humans.

The sad thing is, that summary actually highlights the abruptness of the impact we've had, and you confuse it to mean something else.

[parkerbink]

Clearly, our behavior has severely reduced the trees thereby curtailing the ability of the planet to cure it's self while releasing billions of years of C02, stored in coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

Or maybe it is just a previously unheard of cyclic event......

[Wschnitz]

No. The world is bowl shaped, that's how the water stays in.

Woah, Dude are you a scientist?

[BraveUlysses]

get your popcorn

Analysis of 187 documents concludes Exxon "misled the public" on climate change

A review of 187 ExxonMobil documents, published by two Harvard researchers on Wednesday, has found that the company ”misled the public” on climate change.

The documents included internal papers published by journalists at InsideClimate News as well as 50 “peer-reviewed articles on climate research and related policy analysis” written by ExxonMobil researchers. The oil and gas company made the internal papers public and challenged anyone to “read all of these documents and make up your own mind,” accusing journalists of cherry-picking data.

Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, from Harvard's Department of the History of Science, took up that challenge, comparing the information in the documents cited by ExxonMobil against the information conveyed in the publicly-available advertorial columns published by the company on anthropogenic (or human-caused) climate change in the New York Times. They found that “83 percent of peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12 percent of advertorials do so, with 81 percent instead expressing doubt.”

The research comes at a tricky time for ExxonMobil, when Attorneys General from 17 states as well as the officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission have launched investigations of the company due to allegations that ExxonMobil misled the public and investors on the risks of anthropogenic climate change. Recently, investors voted that the company should produce an annual report on the risks that climate change policies might pose to ExxonMobil’s global businesses, despite opposition from the company’s executives.

The Harvard analysis, published this week in the journal Environmental Research Letters, focused on communication and research produced by ExxonMobil between 1977-2014. The researchers compared the internal and research reports to a couple dozen advertorials placed by ExxonMobil in the New York Times during those years. Advertorials (meaning, paid-content columns written in the style of opinion pieces) were chosen to represent ExxonMobil's communication with the public because the columns “come directly from ExxonMobil and are an unequivocally public form of communication” designed to affect public opinion.

The researchers then used a detailed "point" system to assess the advertorials. With their numbered ratings, they were able to sort them based on whether they expressed reasonable or unreasonable doubt of climate change. “We recognize that all science involves uncertainties, and therefore that doubt is not, ipso facto, an inappropriate response to complex scientific information,” the researchers wrote. Advertorials expressing doubt of climate change that were published on or before 1990 were considered to express a reasonable doubt. On or before 1995, the researchers considered doubt over human-caused climate change to be reasonable. (The researchers stress that these are conservative thresholds.)

Similar analysis is applied to internal knowledge vs. external communication on the impacts of climate change, and the possibility of climate change and policy leading to “stranded fossil fuel assets,” which would affect investors.

The paper states that ExxonMobil does not appear to have “suppressed” climate science. Instead, ”in public, ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it.“

“On the question of whether ExxonMobil misled non-scientific audiences about climate science, our analysis supports the conclusion that it did,” the researchers write. “Internal documents show that by the early 1980s, ExxonMobil scientists and managers were sufficiently informed about climate science and its prevailing uncertainties to identify AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] as a potential threat to its business interests.”

The researchers also note that to find all of ExxonMobil’s scientific climate studies, they required access to Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries, as well as international interlibrary loans—a level of research support that a layperson would not generally have.

Ars contacted Exxon, but the company did not respond to a request for comment. To Reuters, Exxon spokesperson Scott Silvestri "said the researchers' study was ‘inaccurate and preposterous’ and that their goal was to attack the company's reputation at the expense of its shareholders.”

[Wschnitz]

Not really surprising. Why would a company whose main profit generator is fossil fuel products and chemicals tell people using their products could be hurting the environment.

[cale]

Inb4 liberal corrupted institutions are corrupted.

[gwb72tii]

Clearly, our behavior has severely reduced the trees thereby curtailing the ability of the planet to cure it's self while releasing billions of years of C02, stored in coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

Or maybe it is just a previously unheard of cyclic event......

as this is 180* from reality I assume you're being sarcastic

[cale]

George is right, it's plant food after all.

[Hooffenstein HD]

Global warming is a man made phenomena. Its being run by the Zionic Marxists. They're using it to legitimise their manufactured "refugee crisis" and push Kalergi's plan of white genocide on European nations. Wake up, guys. Global warming is a just a couple Ashkenazi pressing buttons in the HAARP base.

[parkerbink]

Global warming is a man made phenomena. Its being run by the Zionic Marxists. They're using it to legitimise their manufactured "refugee crisis" and push Kalergi's plan of white genocide on European nations. Wake up, guys. Global warming is a just a couple Ashkenazi pressing buttons in the HAARP base.

This is only slightly crazier than most of your posts.

[z31maniac]

George is right, it's plant food after all.

To be fair, it's my understanding (although it's been awhile since I really researched it) that the ocean, because of plankton and the like, absorb far more C02 than the forests of the world.

Not that deforestation/slash-and-burn farming haven't had a detrimental impact on more than just C02 absorption.

[gwb72tii]

To be fair, it's my understanding (although it's been awhile since I really researched it) that the ocean, because of plankton and the like, absorb far more C02 than the forests of the world.

Not that deforestation/slash-and-burn farming haven't had a detrimental impact on more than just C02 absorption.

the world is greener than it has been in recorded history.
From NASA

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[gwb72tii]

and in before the tired arguments that any weather phenomena is global warming, as in Michael Mann proving without doubt he's ignorant

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/31/michael-manns-claims-that-harvey-was-caused-by-global-warming-are-destroyed-by-an-operational-meteorologist/