May 5th... the next super-moon, could bring in a super quake...

Gravity SUCKS!

 

Utter BS
Consensus in science means absolutely nothing.
That argument is the refuge of the charlatan who has no case.Reminds me of the con artist who says "trust me".Run like hell when you hear it.
BTW I dont think there actually is a consensus outside of a core group of a dozen IPCC propagandists.Yet there are 50 former IPCC scientists who are skeptics, once being selected as the top in their fields by the IPCC.Yet they resigned when they realized the the fraud occurring.Read all 50 scientists comments its pretty interesting.

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate." MUST READ: John O'Sullivan: Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies | Climate Realists
You claim to have a disregard for retrospective studies.They cant prove causation.But they sure can prove lack of causation.
Yet you believe CO2 is the driver of climate ,when CO2 has often shown no correlation with temp throughout geologic history.When it does appear to correlate, it LAGS rising temperatures by 800 years.
Explain why the Earth has been much warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years ,while CO2 levels have been much lower.
Answer that and maybe you can change my position.

 

If it was pilot error he wouldn't have radioed that he was going from 10000' to 6000'. This infers a problem with cabin pressure. The error is doing it in front of a 7000' volcano. Ooops!

 

I guess we saved a few bucks by not putting a onboard collision radar on the aircraft, Unless the aircraft rapidly decompresses and everyone in rendered unconscious, how do you not see a 7000ft volcano in front of you?

 

Consensus in science means that most of the people who actively study that field of science agree on that concept. This definitely carries weight and does not "mean absolutely nothing". Yes, it takes awhile for scientists, like anybody, to become convinced of new data supporting a new hypothesis. Plate tectonics is one area. Galileo is not a valid argument, as his evidence was clear to other scientists, but he was punished by non-scientists, so you can't use the consensus-is-bad argument using Galileo as an example, as is often done.

So first you attack the idea that consensus is bad, now you're presenting evidence that the consensus is actually for the skeptics and AGW is not the consensus. Interesting switch of tactics.
You give some examples of skeptic scientists statements, I'll skip to your main complaint, as I haven't researched those particular individual statements before.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. It absorbs and contains solar heat, this is not arguable. It also remains in the atmosphere for centuries, unlike methane which degrades into CO2 after about a decade. Typically, there is some external driver (usually solar, occasionally plate tectonics) that causes the heat to occur in the first place, the warming earth then slowly releases stored CO2 and methane which adds to more heat in the atmosphere, and eventually the increased CO2 levels are reflected in types of coral and other proxy data.

That is the typical scenario. This time around, mankind has been releasing stored CO2 at a tremendous rate, raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration to a level that hasn't been seen in at least a million years. So this time we're skipping the natural (and assumed to be slow, although it's hard to tell) cause of global warming, and going straight to the CO2 cycle. How the CO2 got here doesn't change the fact that CO2 is still a greenhouse gas.

If you do want to see a time period where CO2 was a driver of climate change, look at the PETM (paleocene-eocene thermal maximum). At that time (56 million years ago), the CO2 levels changed by an amount similar to the expected amount today and the next century or so. They think this came from increased volcanic activity as Pangea split apart. After the CO2 levels increased, then the global warming kicked in, and many species migrated or became extinct as weather patterns changed (Wyoming changed from wet forest to semi-arid). But estimates are that it took at least 10x as long for the warming to occur as is expected today, because of a slower increase in CO2 levels, giving many species time to move or adapt. Still, it was marked by a big upheaval in species diversity, and laid the groundwork for new mammals to arise.

Regarding why the temperature was warmer in the last 10,000 years, it's interesting that you pick that particular time block. It was markedly cooler in the last 1,000 years and the last 100,000 years. The last 10,000 years is safely after the last ice age, and was warmer than the other time frames, but was still not warmer overall than today from the charts I found of the holocene period.

Your probably thinking of the period from 8000 to 4000 years ago that was warmer than the last century, although not warmer than the last decade. Actually, CO2 levels started increasing at that time, and there's a theory that a part of it may be due to the start of human agriculture (google Ruddiman). It's not well known, but even today, land-use patterns (chopping down forests, plowing fields, etc.) account for about 40% of our CO2 emissions, fossil-fuel use accounts for the rest. But the answer to your question is that it appears the holocene climatic optimum was probably from changes in the Earth's tilt and solar energy. Doesn't change what we're doing to the Earth today.

 

Heres a graph from Antarctica Vostok ice core.Greenland ice core looks similar.
That little red hockey stick to the right is the most recent 1000 years .The past 10,000 years temps were much higher while CO2 was much lower than today.
The IPCC report and Al Gores movie presented the hockey stick graph of only the past 1000 years , in order to to deceive viewers by eliminating the context.
They intentionally deceived people into having the impression that temperatures were flatline low then suddenly rose when man produced CO2.

 

It is, by the way, pretty hard to tell this from the graph...

I am not sure where the impression was made that CO2 was the only driver of global temperature. If that were true, we wouldn't need these elaborate models.

 

Mojo@69 the included graph has a link to

Vostok - Isotope and Gas Data and Temperature Reconstruction

Which leads to Petit et al. 1999. You can download that manuscript here

http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf

(or anywhere esle you might find it; doesn't matter)

The authors' paleotemperature reconstruction is within Fig. 2. I find no evidence in it (and none of their words) to indicate that temperatures for the past 10,000 years had been much higher than today.

However, you are all free to draw your own conclusions, as whoever revised Mojo's graph has certainly done.

 

However, let us suppose for the moment that temperatures for the past 10,000 years had been much higher than today. Let us further reason that solar activity must have changed in some similar way during that time because, as everyone knows,

"It's the sun, stupid"

(I did not invent that phrase of course, but as a matter of convenience you can use it to lead to any number of affinity websites. Enjoy the trip)

So obviously what we need is a paleo proxy for solar activity. Ka-ching!

The radioactive 10 isotope of beryllium is an excellent candidate. The radioactive 14 isotope of carbon is another, but I will set it aside for now (it is much better suited to measure biological things)

Both these isotopes are generated in the Earth's upper atmosphere as solar charged particles come zinging in. 10Be gets rained (or snowed) out. So what we need is a 10,000 year record of 10Be. Here ya go

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/paleoseminar/pdf/beeretal88.pdf

In Figure 2 you will see it. Again, you should all come to your own conclusions whether a long-term trend in 10Be supports a solar cause for a (presumed) 10,000 year decline in temperature.

Sorry if anybody is feeling 'boxed in' at this stage, but hey, it's science. Hypotheses get tested. Thumbs up or thumbs down. nothing personal.

 

If anyone gets interested in what the 'cosmogenic' isotopes can reveal about paleo solar activity, I will also mention this link

http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2005JA011500.pdf

Herr Dr. Beer from 1988 is among the coauthors. It is a more complete treatment than the 1988 paper I mentioned above. But also of interest, it is at AGU and freely downloadable. Those guys are usually very strict with their paywall

 

Richard Alley your hero's graph is essentially the same from Greenland.
So your point is that he's also BS.
Heres Steffenson ,the scientist who drilled the Greenland ice core.
Hes saying exactly what I stated.

[ame="http://vimeo.com/14366077"]We live in cold times on Vimeo[/ame]

 

Would you mind showing a screen capture of the temperature graph you are referring to from Petit et al.
I dont see temperature in the graphs.

 

No problem. I referred to Fig. 3 attached. Red arrows are by me.

Alley my hero? be kind now or I'll stop doing your research for you.

 

Nothing about How Petit got turned into ... your graph stated to be from NOAA eh?

No problem. I like the chirping of crickets.

 

Mojo@74 linked to a vimeo video that I cannot see, living where I do & all. But he also helpfully included a screenshoot referring to "That Alley guy".

The publication in question may be freely downloaded here

http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/books/qsr2000-papers/alley.pdf

And if you take a look at Fig. 1 you might not see quite what was attributed to that Alley guy. In fact his graph ended 10,000 years ago.

But hey, I don't control science. I just do it. If affinity websites tell you what you want to hear, and you trust them completely, who am I to rain on your parade?

 

Jørgen Peder Steffensen got some air play above as well. I have no doubt that he is also a big dog in the world of ice coring. you could read some of his work here

http://epic.awi.de/17919/1/Ste2007b.pdf

and if any part of it says that the globe is now cooler than 10k years ago, well, I missed it. Maybe we should just email him and ask? His email is in the linked article

Ah, you do it. Set aside the vimeo and ask the big dog whether any ice core evidence from anywhere in the world strongly suggests that now is colder.

And get back to us. These ice-core folks know more about it than either of us do.

But graphs wrongly attributed? Can't do anything with those. An Appeal to Authority Gone Tragically Wrong.

 

The resolution doesnt show where the present temp is.If its where your red arrow points,then it is not at all in conflict with the graph I presented.
If you want to dispute the graph I presented ,you should present something which is straightforward.
Heres a graph from another source Wikipedia.
Clearly Greenland and Vostok show the Earth was warmer for the past 10,000 years.