Scientist prove the earth earth has been cooling for 2000 years

The source you gave is from one of the stupidest AGW believing blogs on the net.They have been made fool of in various places the last couple years as they are well known for their low level dishonest misleading B.S.

Such as these posts:

How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)

and,

The Worst Cookbook Interview Ever?

and,

“Cooking the books” Monckton replies to Cook

Notice that John Cook never did leave a comment at Jo Nova to defend his dishonest crap.He also would not continue to post at my forum after leaving a statement and link to his unskeptical blog in the guest forum.We made some replies and he never answers:

Guest comment

In the same guest forum is this post I made to him he never answers either:

Post #2

What a tool!

I never said the chart was wrong but it is MISLEADING because it does not support your claim at all.The CO2 spike is added onto the chart at the far right edge but no corresponding temperature is following it.

I also never said there has been no warming either.It has been warming since the 1680s (the bottom of the cold temperatures level) and since the 1850’s after the end of the Dalton Minimum phase.

Here is a link to a thread where I specifically showed that there has been warming since the 1850’s.There is no evidence of the CAWG happening in it and NO temperature acceleration either.Dr. Jones agrees that all the warming trends since the 1850’s are very similar:

In a reply to BUZZ

Post #733

and the next 4 posts In reply to a screwed up CAWG believer.

Here is a chart that I used several times

to a stoneheaded Buzz who seems miss the screaming obvious point of the chart.

There is NO AGW signal in it at all.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:15, topic:35360”]
Further, it seems obvious that levels of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] do have an impact on global temperature. Ice cores tell us this:

And if humans are adding more CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into the atmosphere, even if it only accounts for 25% of total CO[sub]2[/sub], while the temperature may go down at some later time, the added CO[SUB]2[/SUB] will certainly not allow it to fall as much, and the temperature range that the Earth fluctuates at will rise.
[/quote]I’d say we should handle it the same way we handled acid rain. Counter it, don’t spend far more in order to mildly slow it’s growth.

How is that a repeating trend when the maximum keeps getting higher? Your first increase on that graph ends at 0, the last one is at 0.5. That would be an increasing trend.

Anyway, as for my chart, it has the CO[sub]2[/sub] levels on the far right because, as you can see, this spans hundreds of thousands of years. It was added on as an indicator for present levels. We’re not going to use ice cores for recent CO[sub]2[/sub] levels. A more recent chart will better show modern increases:

Notice that present day levels are around 400 ppm. Ice cores show levels have never been that high. The only difference between then and now is human presence, so that spike up to 400 ppm is most logically attributed to humans. Your chart you provided shows that temperature is increasing. If you’re going to read it as some repeating trend that will fall back down, I don’t know what to tell you, because it is trending most definitely upward.

you can have all the charts you want but if the initial research is corrupted which it is in this case, the charts are void and useless.

Which part, the temperature rises, the CO[sub]2[/sub] rises, or both?

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:24, topic:35360”]
How is that a repeating trend when the maximum keeps getting higher? Your first increase on that graph ends at 0, the last one is at 0.5. That would be an increasing trend.

Anyway, as for my chart, it has the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels on the far right because, as you can see, this spans hundreds of thousands of years. It was added on as an indicator for present levels. We’re not going to use ice cores for recent CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels. A more recent chart will better show modern increases:

Notice that present day levels are around 400 ppm. Ice cores show levels have never been that high. The only difference between then and now is human presence, so that spike up to 400 ppm is most logically attributed to humans. Your chart you provided shows that temperature is increasing. If you’re going to read it as some repeating trend that will fall back down, I don’t know what to tell you, because it is trending most definitely upward.
[/quote]When we step outside of the modern era, the Earth is presently carbon starved.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c011570af58e1970b-pi

And carbon historically seems to lag temperature rises, rather than lead it.

[quote=“njc17, post:25, topic:35360”]
you can have all the charts you want but if the initial research is corrupted which it is in this case, the charts are void and useless.
[/quote]Everything in that chart is valid. If this was all we had to go on, I’d think it was reasonable and even likely. But we have deeper history and the current conclusion does not fit with the full body of historical data.

The climate of 300 million years ago was not the same as it is today, given that the largest mammals were probably the size of mice. Further, the relation between CO[sub]2[/sub] and temperature is not linear. After so much, the temperature flattens out. But anyway, I doubt anyone wants to go back to a climate of 500 millions years ago.

I just don’t get how anyone can look at this:

And at the same time say those two lines are not correlated.

I think they are absolutely correlated. I think CO2 usually follows temperature, not the other way around.

And as I said, in the event this is purely CO2 related, we need to be able to counter it. CO2 is on the rise, even without human input. And it’s not realistic to assume that we’ll cut CO2 output to zero. But even if we did, it would still be rising.

Cutting emissions will not fix the problem. It won’t even cut the problem in half. And if all we do is reduce and not totally eliminate(a safe bet) it won’t even cut it by a quarter. That’s why I say cutting emissions is no solution. We could expend less effort and get better results other ways.

Except that there is a mechanism that explains the relationship between CO[sub]2[/sub] and temperature, which is the greenhouse effect. In order for temperature to cause CO[sub]2[/sub] levels, everything we understand about greenhouse gasses would have to be wrong, and you would have to find an explanation for why temperature alters CO[sub]2[/sub] levels.

Read Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics by two German Physicists. Nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen are all more thermal than the trace gas of CO2.

That paper is complete gibberish. There’s no reason for the Second Law of Thermodynamics to make the greenhouse effect impossible, though people often pull it out of a top hat to try and disprove stuff. The second law of thermodynamics says a cold body cannot radiate to a hot body, which is not what is happening. Further, if they’re trying to refer to entropy, entropy only increases in closed systems, and that wouldn’t help their case anyway. They’re saying that the Earth is in equilibrium when it demonstrably is not, and further that the Earth is not warming when it demonstrably is.

  1. The greenhouse effect predicts temp increase of about 1 degree for each doubling of CO2. I don’t know anyone responsible who argues that this is not true. What is argued is the multiplier effect postulated by the IPCC…the other sources of warming which are not accounted for in the CO2 data (i.e. land use)…other effects on climate from natural causes which cause negative effects. And of course the simple fact that the warming has not happened despite the rise in CO2 so the models are wrong.
  2. The explanation for why temperature rise occurs BEFORE CO2 goes up is the same one warmers use…As temperatures rise…CO2 is RELEASED from the oceans and the permafrost to accelerate warming.

You failed at reading comprehension!

I was talking about temperature TRENDS of EACH warming cycle as clearly shown on the chart I posted.

I have already showed you that CO2 lags temperature change by 6 months and you never showed it to be false at all but ignore it with your chart that does not disprove my position at all and BECAUSE mine is is calibrated by the month and yours by the year.

LOL

Because your source, Mauna Loa, in fact shows CO[sub]2[/sub] leading temperature change in the long run:

If anyone is wondering what the data from Mauna Loa actually looks like, it’s online. I compiled this using CO2 data and temperature data from 1959 to 2005:

The chart of temperature and CO2:

And the correlation for each lag:

So what’s the correlation when we lag it 3, 6, 9, or 12 months? Didly squat, just like when there’s no lag or negative lag. You simply need a larger time scale to look at.

EDIT: r[sup]2[/sup] < 0.14. Bad.

“But Trekky, why’s the correlation so bad,” I hear you ask.

This is why:

Because annual temperature changes are controlled mostly by the Earth’s position relative to the sun, any correlation between CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and temperature studied on a monthly level is going to be small, if even existent. Annually is a different story:

Hey! Look! And with a correlation of 0.66, it’s much better than that monthly graph up there. EDIT: r[sup]2[/sup] = 0.44.

Monthly CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels are controlled by the same forces that control temperature and maybe they do lag, but in the long run, CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and temperature do have a correlation, CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is most definitely causing the rise in temperature, at least in part. It is a greenhouse gas. Rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB] not causing rise in temperature would be cause for some concern in what we understand about the world.

And more information concerning lagging in ice cores:

Source

Put simply, the lagging argument means absolutely nothing. If you want to argue that CO[sub]2[/sub] doesn’t cause rising temperature, you need to show that the greenhouse effect is wrong, and if you want to go further and say it’s actually backwards and temperature controls CO[sub]2[/sub], you need to provide a means for that to happen.

More data because why not:

Why do people get bent out of shape over this? Oh, I know, it’s because those who seek to manipulate us are busy persuading people that it’s effect is much greater than it is, and it’s all our fault. Even if all this is so, God is still in control, and He has said, “Thus far and no further,” and He does not change. Even if it were our “fault,” He will allow us to go only so far.