Global Warming? are humans to blame?

the one you showed has been doctored to hide the spike in CO2

If you look at the post in which I did a side by side you can pretty clearly see that although they display the same information one is detrended, most likely yours, although I'd have to look pretty close at the original data and then at the plot system each used to figure it out. But thats not realy the problem. The 100,000 year increments on the one you posted very obviously are intended to mask the spike in CO2 at the far right. Not only that but yours fails to even note the high of 390+

its clearly been doctored because no self respecting scientist no mater which side of the fence they were on would have tried to hide data like that.

That graph is either from the IPCC or NASA somewhere I can't remember but those lines that yours has in it were added later, I'm sure of it. Hell I'll go find the original and note its source and date, then you can check yours and see when it was doctored by finding its original poster. To do that your going to have to note where you got it.

 

Ok so here it is in its original form from the IPCC TARR 2001 if your still having difficulty believing this is the original you can always go look up the TARR report and probably find an even earlier date.

I think

iagain yours has been detrended so its hard to tell

lets lay them side by side and see what the data dispersal looks like





yup that was originally data compiled and turned into the IPCC. The IPCC itself doesn't do any research.

as you can see in the IPCC original the spike in CO2 is very clear and its also obviously not cyclical. In the graph you found the spike is hidden by the year delineation lines which were pretty obviously put there to do exactly that.

Pretty damn deceptive if you ask me

My bet is whatever site you got that from is fraught with that kinda fraudulent nonsense

its really pretty easy to spot crap like that, the graph was in F not C and they screwed up the conversions. Also they used as fat a lines as possible, never happens that way in an actual scientific graph. Screws up the resolution. Something else that tipped me off was that the time delineations were the same color as the CO2 polynomial fit, no self respecting scientist would have done that if he could have avoided it. Oh and I'd see that data set before so that graph was familiar, now that I can see its definetly the same data set its been wildly detrended from its original, probably to help hide the obvious spike in CO2

 

Not if you count in binary, it isn't.

Classic example of making assumptions there......

PDW

 

i doubt there would be a conspiracy to mask data that was readily available on similar charts but with slightly different arrangement.
The blue spike isn't obscured to me. I see it readily enough.
Having the two graphs superposed, is one of the advantages of graphing data.
It permits at a glance to see coincidence. Lines or numbers that coincide.
It appears that all previous warming or cooling periods, the co2 and temperatures roughly make the same amplitudes varying by a squiggle here and there.

The current graphed levels show the co2 much more elevated than the temperature.
I know that alarms you, because you expect a flare of heat to match it.
Isn't it curious that the lack of a similar elevated temperature spike is not there, on either graph? Neither the superposed nor the separated?
What does that mean? They normally move up and down together, but co2 left temperature behind this time.
Thought provoking isn't it? darned curious.

 

well you weren't doubting exactly that just a few posts ago.

and Not at all, the rise in CO2 is so rapid that the system hasn't had a chance to catch up yet and find the new equilibrium.

Its plain as day the temps are rising and the reason they are rising are equally as plain as day

can't admit that graph has been doctored eh. or that its about as non cyclical as it gets

thats grim
thats really grim

 

nope. grim is learning you have an incurable, untreatable, fatal desease.

All I see on the graph are the graphed levels of co2 and temperatures over millenia.
Am I missing something, an invisible ink graph of the hidden agenda or malicious intent, or evilness of the graphs assembler?

 

or are you jumping to conclusions again?

 

yes your most definitely missing something, are you seriously trying to tell us that you can't see a difference in the original graph and the one thats been doctored. Can't see how its been lengthened and shortened, IE detrended. So it looks like there is less of a spike than there really is ? Your the one who wanted to get back to original data sources and sets, OK then, how about practicing what you preach eh.

okie dokie then ya, maybe some glasses would help that massive case of denial

this is the original graph and this is your own question

hell no that doesn't look cyclical to me
anyone else see a gigantic whopping spike in CO2 anywhere else but right there in modern times ?

how about if we then move on to the temp data and include the latest study from Berkley

Funded by the deniers by the way

if you go to page three you can clearly see they agree quite nicely with the previous three major studies all showing temp to be increasing.

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf

 

and here's the temp response to all that CO2

 

In a post far back, I lamented you can't tell a significant trend in climatology over a few years or even a few hundred.

Referring again to any of the multi millenia charts you prefer. The slope of the spikes including the spike we are on is much steeper than current rise in temperature. Yes, things are warming up a couple average degrees every couple hundred years. But thats not what the controversy is about.
The global warming controversy is supposedly, an enormous upswing in rate of temperature climb. A dangerous anomaly that will frie the planet.

It's not there. Actually the increase is at a slower rate, a more gradual slope than you would expect from examing previous warming periods.

Co2 is elevated. No denying. You say temperature hasn't caught up yet!
Well, maybe it will catch up and maybe it won't.

In the USA, and (not alone other countries enjoy that freedom) we have freedom of speech. That does not allow yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or "bomb" in a crowded airport.
If you do and someone gets trampled to death in the panic, you will be charged with 2nd degree murder.

So, what kind of scientist would cry "pending doom" on a crowded planet? Even before the temperatures start catching up, but we will hold them responsible anyway. Are you a responsible person, Boston?

 

LMAO

holly **** dude you gotta be kidding me

another cute story
does absolutely nothing to prove your point

I gotta admit even Hoyt and his vindictively taking hundreds of points from me while I turn the proverbial cheek ( wasn't a face cheek I turned Hoyt ) didn't surprise me as much as the mindless denial I'm hearing now. Its mind numbing to hear the illogic.

I am seldom rendered speechless by a denier. Most have at least some ability to comprehend the basics, but I gotta admit

wow
just wow

and you don't even recognize how much you've embarrassed yourself with this complete lack of comprehension.

Sorry I'm just stunned

absolutely stunned

wow

 

Have you ever taken a class in logic?
It's one of the math disciplines and a required class to graduate with a degree in math.
So is statistics, probability, both integral and differential calculus, analytical geometry, trigonometry, and algebra. Though most math majors test out of algebra cause most had 2 or 3 years of it in high school

 

Sure have and aced it as a mater of fact. whats that got to do with anything. Your not suggesting your refusal to put 2 and 2 together is logical are you ?

couldn't help but notice your on to another distraction rather than stick with one subject, determine whats correct and what isn't, and then move on, in a "logical" manor

Jumping from one topic to another in any science discussion without building a proper base of understanding with which to continue is a classic tactic of denial. Means we've gotten nowhere.

 

so far you've admitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that its rising in the atmosphere. You've still not admitted that the present rise is not represented in any cyclical pattern found in any of the data sets developed to date. But who knows, maybe some day. And you've just now admitted that temps have risen about 2°C over the last 200 years. Although without any supporting data at all you'd like to think thats normal.

now lets see if we can't put it all together

CO2 is a greenhouse gas

greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmospher.
more greenhouse gas = more heat trapped = warmer average temps
CO2 is rising
Temps are rising

HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
wonder whats causeing the temps to rise like that eh

anyone

anyone at all just sing right out if you know this one

 

nope. was curious you called me illogical, and I thought, 3 posibles. You don't know what logic is. you forget whom you're adressing. you're frustrated and petulant.
Thanks for clearing it up.