Climate Change Indicators in the United States

[Trakar]

​

Climate Change Indicators in the United States
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/download.html
The information on this website is drawn from the second edition of EPA's Climate Change Indicators in the United States (PDF) (84 pp, 18.2MB), published in 2012. This report presents 26 indicators, each describing trends related to the causes and effects of climate change. It focuses primarily on the United States, but in some cases global trends are presented to provide context or a basis for comparison. The online version will be updated periodically as new data become available, and thus may differ from the printed version available below.
2012 Edition
Full Report (PDF) (84 pp, 18.2MB)
Technical Documentation (PDF) (180 pp, 2.5MB)
Summary Brochure (PDF) (4 pp, 6.4MB)
Individual Sections
· Front cover, table of contents, and acknowledgments (PDF) (4 pp, 534K)
· Introduction (PDF) (3 pp, 2.9MB)
· Summary of Key Points (PDF) (4 pp, 391K)
· Greenhouse Gases (PDF) (12 pp, 3.0MB)
· Weather and Climate (PDF) (14 pp, 2.7MB)
· Oceans (PDF) (10 pp, 2.4MB)
· Snow and Ice (PDF) (14 pp, 4.4MB)
· Society and Ecosystems (PDF) (14 pp, 3.4MB)
· Climate Change Indicators and Human Health (PDF) (1 pg, 154K)
· Resources, endnotes, and back cover (PDF) (8 pp, 2.2MB)
The 2012 edition includes three new indicators and provides updates and revisions to several existing indicators since the 2010 edition.
2010 Edition
The first edition of EPA's Climate Change Indicators in the United States report is available below.
Full Report (PDF) (80 pp, 13.2MB)
Technical Documentation (PDF) (150 pp, 719K)
Additional Information
For more information and/or to contact EPA about the Climate Change Indicators in the United States report, please email [email protected].
For more information about environmental indicators, view EPA's Report on the Environment.

 

[westwall]

More horse crap from the mentally deficient. I love the section where they claim that CO2 can remain for thousands of years. Provable and laughably wrong. Typical of a propagandist organisation that no longer cares about its original remit.

 

[Trakar]

More horse crap from the mentally deficient. I love the section where they claim that CO2 can remain for thousands of years. Provable and laughably wrong. Typical of a propagandist organisation that no longer cares about its original remit.

Your reading "ability" seems to explain the difficulty you have understanding science.

From source - "* Carbon dioxide’s lifetime is poorly defined because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide will be absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments."


A few supporting references:

"Carbon is forever" - Nature Reports Climate Change - doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

"Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide" -
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2009. 37:117–34 -

doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

"Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle" - The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

"Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis" - TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide - AR4 WGI Technical Summary​

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2. Since 1750, it is estimated that about 2/3rds of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have come from fossil fuel burning and about 1/3rd from land use change. About 45% of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, while about 30% has been taken up by the oceans and the remainder has been taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. About half of a CO2 pulse to the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. {7.3}
​

"[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]2" - http://melts.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]"The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" - The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]More available upon request.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[westwall]

More horse crap from the mentally deficient. I love the section where they claim that CO2 can remain for thousands of years. Provable and laughably wrong. Typical of a propagandist organisation that no longer cares about its original remit.

Your reading "ability" seems to explain the difficulty you have understanding science.

From source - "* Carbon dioxide’s lifetime is poorly defined because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide will be absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments."


A few supporting references:

"Carbon is forever" - Nature Reports Climate Change - doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change

"Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide" -
Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2009. 37:117–34 -

doi: 10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf

"Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle" - The Carbon Cycle : Feature Articles

"Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis" - TS.2.1.1 Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide - AR4 WGI Technical Summary​

Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2. Since 1750, it is estimated that about 2/3rds of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have come from fossil fuel burning and about 1/3rd from land use change. About 45% of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, while about 30% has been taken up by the oceans and the remainder has been taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. About half of a CO2 pulse to the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. {7.3}
​

"[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]2" - http://melts.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]"The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" - The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]More available upon request.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

I'll counter with this....


"Where, then, is all the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels that is not in the atmosphere [35]? Geoscientists have long known that most atmospheric carbon dioxide cycles through the upper ocean every 5-10 years [36]. Some new carbon dioxide, with estimates of 20-35 percent of new emissions from all sources [37], cycles down into cold deep waters where its solubility is greatest and where recycling times slow to hundreds or thousands of years [38]. Some carbon dioxide goes into organic and inorganic deposition of calcium carbonate that ends up in the sediments on the ocean floor. Life processes have sequestered significant carbon in new biomass, particularly in phytoplankton [39] and non-edible hydrocarbons [40] in the oceans. Accelerated rock weathering also occurs [41] with the calcium released precipitated as carbonate in soils and ocean sediments."


Archive 4. carbon dioxide | America's Uncommon Sense



Even your very own high priests website admits it....then trys to obfuscate that with irrelevant drivel...backed up by zero scientific observational data.

Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.


CO2 has a short residence time

 

[Old Rocks]

Really dumb, Walleyes. Under normal conditions the ocean both emits and absorbs CO2. At about the same rate. Because of our burning of fossil fuels, it is now absorbing more than it emits. And that is showing up in the acidification of the ocean.

And, once again, you are using blog sites to counter sites from scientific sources. Obese junkies are fine to listen to on the radio, and cite in conversations with drunken and ignorant buddies, they get you laughed out of the room in a scientific conversation.

And a sentence or two from your own post "Individual carbon molecules have a short lifetime of around five years in the atmsphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they are simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same, the extra CO2 remains there for centuries".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When you can't point to a single repeatable experiment that demonstrates how a 100ppm increase in CO2 raises temperature a few degrees, you have to post a whole lot of links and sources and other irrelevant data

 

[westwall]

Really dumb, Walleyes. Under normal conditions the ocean both emits and absorbs CO2. At about the same rate. Because of our burning of fossil fuels, it is now absorbing more than it emits. And that is showing up in the acidification of the ocean.

And, once again, you are using blog sites to counter sites from scientific sources. Obese junkies are fine to listen to on the radio, and cite in conversations with drunken and ignorant buddies, they get you laughed out of the room in a scientific conversation.

And a sentence or two from your own post "Individual carbon molecules have a short lifetime of around five years in the atmsphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they are simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same, the extra CO2 remains there for centuries".

Prove it. My theory that the current CO2 increase is based on the warming from the MWP is supported by actual evidence from the Vostock ice core data, unlike your theory which is based on computer fantasies.

 

[RollingThunder]

Really dumb, Walleyes. Under normal conditions the ocean both emits and absorbs CO2. At about the same rate. Because of our burning of fossil fuels, it is now absorbing more than it emits. And that is showing up in the acidification of the ocean.

And, once again, you are using blog sites to counter sites from scientific sources. Obese junkies are fine to listen to on the radio, and cite in conversations with drunken and ignorant buddies, they get you laughed out of the room in a scientific conversation.

And a sentence or two from your own post "Individual carbon molecules have a short lifetime of around five years in the atmsphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they are simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same, the extra CO2 remains there for centuries".

Prove it. My theory that the current CO2 increase is based on the warming from the MWP is supported by actual evidence from the Vostock ice core data, unlike your theory which is based on computer fantasies.

Your "theory" about the source of the current CO2 increase is as ignorant and crackpot as all of your delusional fantasies, you poor brain damaged retard. Isotope analysis proves that most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels.

 

[westwall]

Really dumb, Walleyes. Under normal conditions the ocean both emits and absorbs CO2. At about the same rate. Because of our burning of fossil fuels, it is now absorbing more than it emits. And that is showing up in the acidification of the ocean.

And, once again, you are using blog sites to counter sites from scientific sources. Obese junkies are fine to listen to on the radio, and cite in conversations with drunken and ignorant buddies, they get you laughed out of the room in a scientific conversation.

And a sentence or two from your own post "Individual carbon molecules have a short lifetime of around five years in the atmsphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they are simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of CO2 in the atmosphere remains the same, the extra CO2 remains there for centuries".

Prove it. My theory that the current CO2 increase is based on the warming from the MWP is supported by actual evidence from the Vostock ice core data, unlike your theory which is based on computer fantasies.

Your "theory" about the source of the current CO2 increase is as ignorant and crackpot as all of your delusional fantasies, you poor brain damaged retard. Isotope analysis proves that most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels.

Actually it's not. The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from warming to an increase in CO2. Interestingly enough it has been 800 years since the end of the MWP. But that would be a fact and we all know you don't "do" facts.

 

[RollingThunder]

Prove it. My theory that the current CO2 increase is based on the warming from the MWP is supported by actual evidence from the Vostock ice core data, unlike your theory which is based on computer fantasies.

Your "theory" about the source of the current CO2 increase is as ignorant and crackpot as all of your delusional fantasies, you poor brain damaged retard. Isotope analysis proves that most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels.

Actually it's not.

Actually it is. Your "theory" actually is ignorant, delusional, crackpot nonsense, and exactly what we've all come to expect from you.

The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from warming to an increase in CO2. Interestingly enough it has been 800 years since the end of the MWP. But that would be a fact and we all know you don't "do" facts.

As you make very obvious, you have no freaking idea what "fact" actually means. You also have no freaking idea what any of the science means because you a brainwashed, delusional and very ignorant anti-science retard. Let's compare you and your ignorance-based crackpot nonsense to an actual expert on this subject and the well researched, observationally-based, sound science that he produces.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
RealClimate
Dr. Eric Steig*
6 December 2004

*Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He was a senior editor of the journal Quaternary Research, and is currently director of the Quaternary Research Center. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals. ​

 

[westwall]

Your "theory" about the source of the current CO2 increase is as ignorant and crackpot as all of your delusional fantasies, you poor brain damaged retard. Isotope analysis proves that most of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels.

Actually it's not.

Actually it is. Your "theory" actually is ignorant, delusional, crackpot nonsense, and exactly what we've all come to expect from you.

The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from warming to an increase in CO2. Interestingly enough it has been 800 years since the end of the MWP. But that would be a fact and we all know you don't "do" facts.

As you make very obvious, you have no freaking idea what "fact" actually means. You also have no freaking idea what any of the science means because you a brainwashed, delusional and very ignorant anti-science retard. Let's compare you and your ignorance-based crackpot nonsense to an actual expert on this subject and the well researched, observationally-based, sound science that he produces.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
RealClimate
Dr. Eric Steig*
6 December 2004

*Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He was a senior editor of the journal Quaternary Research, and is currently director of the Quaternary Research Center. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals. ​

Once again prove it. Computer models and waving your hands around saying this is it because I said so, doesn't cut it in the real world.

 

[RollingThunder]

Actually it's not.

Actually it is. Your "theory" actually is ignorant, delusional, crackpot nonsense, and exactly what we've all come to expect from you.

The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from warming to an increase in CO2. Interestingly enough it has been 800 years since the end of the MWP. But that would be a fact and we all know you don't "do" facts.

As you make very obvious, you have no freaking idea what "fact" actually means. You also have no freaking idea what any of the science means because you a brainwashed, delusional and very ignorant anti-science retard. Let's compare you and your ignorance-based crackpot nonsense to an actual expert on this subject and the well researched, observationally-based, sound science that he produces.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
RealClimate
Dr. Eric Steig*
6 December 2004

*Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He was a senior editor of the journal Quaternary Research, and is currently director of the Quaternary Research Center. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals. ​

Once again prove it.

Sorry, but no one can "prove" anything to a clueless brainwashed retard like you who is so obviously completely incapable of understanding what is being said.

Computer models

Since you were too retarded and intellectually lazy to bother reading the rebuttal of your braindead claims that I just cited, I'll mention an important point - scientific analysis of the physical records of historic atmospheric carbon isotope ratios has nothing to do with computer climate models.

waving your hands around saying this is it because I said so, doesn't cut it in the real world.

That's exactly what everyone is always telling you, walleyed, but you keep futilely trying to pull off that trick anyway, failing miserably every time and inevitably ending up looking even more like a clueless idiot than you did before (a difficult feat in itself, I have to admit, given how incredibly idiotic you come across ordinarily).

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually it's not.

Actually it is. Your "theory" actually is ignorant, delusional, crackpot nonsense, and exactly what we've all come to expect from you.

The Vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag from warming to an increase in CO2. Interestingly enough it has been 800 years since the end of the MWP. But that would be a fact and we all know you don't "do" facts.

As you make very obvious, you have no freaking idea what "fact" actually means. You also have no freaking idea what any of the science means because you a brainwashed, delusional and very ignorant anti-science retard. Let's compare you and your ignorance-based crackpot nonsense to an actual expert on this subject and the well researched, observationally-based, sound science that he produces.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
RealClimate
Dr. Eric Steig*
6 December 2004

*Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He was a senior editor of the journal Quaternary Research, and is currently director of the Quaternary Research Center. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals. ​

Once again prove it. Computer models and waving your hands around saying this is it because I said so, doesn't cut it in the real world.

Isotopal analysis is hardly computer models. You are getting dumber by the post.

 

[westwall]

Actually it is. Your "theory" actually is ignorant, delusional, crackpot nonsense, and exactly what we've all come to expect from you.




As you make very obvious, you have no freaking idea what "fact" actually means. You also have no freaking idea what any of the science means because you a brainwashed, delusional and very ignorant anti-science retard. Let's compare you and your ignorance-based crackpot nonsense to an actual expert on this subject and the well researched, observationally-based, sound science that he produces.

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
RealClimate
Dr. Eric Steig*
6 December 2004

*Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle. His primary research interest is use of ice core records to document climate variability in the past. He also works on the geological history of ice sheets, on ice sheet dynamics, on statistical climate analysis, and on atmospheric chemistry.

He received a BA from Hampshire College at Amherst, MA, and M.S. and PhDs in Geological Sciences at the University of Washington, and was a DOE Global Change Graduate fellow. He was on the research faculty at the University of Colorado and taught at the University of Pennsylvania prior to returning to the University of Washington 2001. He has served on the national steering committees for the Ice Core Working Group, the Paleoenvironmental Arctic Sciences initiative, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Initiative, all sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. He was a senior editor of the journal Quaternary Research, and is currently director of the Quaternary Research Center. He has published more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in international journals. ​

Once again prove it. Computer models and waving your hands around saying this is it because I said so, doesn't cut it in the real world.

Isotopal analysis is hardly computer models. You are getting dumber by the post.

Wrong buckwheat. This is yet more correlation equals causation horsecrap. I love his lead in assumption where he states it just is because he says so. And this is another moron with a PhD who can't do advanced math.

 

[RollingThunder]

Once again prove it. Computer models and waving your hands around saying this is it because I said so, doesn't cut it in the real world.

Isotopal analysis is hardly computer models. You are getting dumber by the post.

Wrong buckwheat.

That's sort of true, walleyed, in that you couldn't possibly get any dumber, even though it sure seems like that sometimes...but it is clear that you have hit some kind of rock bottom on sheer stupidity (below which you just turn into a drooling zombie, I think).

This is yet more correlation equals causation horsecrap.

Your silly slogans won't help you now. This is about the fact that, without using any of the computer climate models you so idiotically disdain, scientists can compare the current atmospheric carbon isotope ratios, as determined by laboratory analysis of the physical evidence, with the historic ratios, again determined by analysis of the natural physical records, and show that an increased percentage of the CO2 in the air is coming from fossil carbon sources that have a different isotope ratio than most of the naturally occurring CO2 emission sources that controlled atmospheric ratios before mankind started pumping tens of gigatons of fossil carbon into the air every year.

I love his lead in assumption where he states it just is because he says so. And this is another moron with a PhD who can't do advanced math.

Hey, nice insane rant there, walleyed, filled with pointless incomprehensible gibberish and more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

 

[westwall]

Isotopal analysis is hardly computer models. You are getting dumber by the post.

Wrong buckwheat.

That's sort of true, walleyed, in that you couldn't possibly get any dumber, even though it sure seems like that sometimes...but it is clear that you have hit some kind of rock bottom on sheer stupidity (below which you just turn into a drooling zombie, I think).

This is yet more correlation equals causation horsecrap.

Your silly slogans won't help you now. This is about the fact that, without using any of the computer climate models you so idiotically disdain, scientists can compare the current atmospheric carbon isotope ratios, as determined by laboratory analysis of the physical evidence, with the historic ratios, again determined by analysis of the natural physical records, and show that an increased percentage of the CO2 in the air is coming from fossil carbon sources that have a different isotope ratio than most of the naturally occurring CO2 emission sources that controlled atmospheric ratios before mankind started pumping tens of gigatons of fossil carbon into the air every year.

I love his lead in assumption where he states it just is because he says so. And this is another moron with a PhD who can't do advanced math.

Hey, nice insane rant there, walleyed, filled with pointless incomprehensible gibberish and more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

Yes, I believe you are the Type Classification subject for the D-K effect.

 

[IanC]

Steig is the author of that paper that made the front page of Nature. After the blogosphere demolished it on the web Gavin Schmidt challenged them to write their own paper, so they did. Contrary to ethics the journal put Stteig and other Team members on the review list. Various improprieties ensued but the paper was finally published to rebut Steig's methods and results.

This hasbeen discussed on this board so Old Rocks knows about it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Steig is the author of that paper that made the front page of Nature. After the blogosphere demolished it on the web Gavin Schmidt challenged them to write their own paper, so they did. Contrary to ethics the journal put Stteig and other Team members on the review list. Various improprieties ensued but the paper was finally published to rebut Steig's methods and results.

This hasbeen discussed on this board so Old Rocks knows about it.

"Blogosphere" blather doesn't count unless you can cite something real.

Nor is the evidence for the human connection to the current abrupt warming trend dependent on a single paper.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Steig is the author of that paper that made the front page of Nature. After the blogosphere demolished it on the web Gavin Schmidt challenged them to write their own paper, so they did. Contrary to ethics the journal put Stteig and other Team members on the review list. Various improprieties ensued but the paper was finally published to rebut Steig's methods and results.

This hasbeen discussed on this board so Old Rocks knows about it.

"Blogosphere" blather doesn't count unless you can cite something real.

Nor is the evidence for the human connection to the current abrupt warming trend dependent on a single paper.

Did you mean the "Abrupt" 8 degree warming trend that started 14,000 years ago?

 

[Staidhup]

Climate change is an evolutionary phenomenon, it has been occurring for billions of years ,will continue to happen for billions of more years, regardless if humans are present or not. Some of you worship the scientific community as if they are some kind of God when in fact they are only trying to explain the course of natural events, well at least some, others, well there are nut cases everywhere.