BillT

39 degrees and moderate rain here in far eastern walker county bama.....winds at about 2mph right now from the SSE but has been from the N or NW for the last few hours... .22 of an inch rain in the last hour

i grew up in pikeville, radar looks like both those towns will change to heavy snow soon

agreed that is a millions of years graph but the swings then and now have very similar slopes......and the point remains intact there has always been wild swings in the climate even before humans were here, i submit those forces that caused those wild swings still exist today and humans do NOT have the power to overpower such forces.

not unusual when looking at the graph you supplied, wild swings up and down are the USUAL according to that graph what is NOT on the graph is any extended period of stability........i must mention at least you have been civil and that is appreciated.

the graph shows far more dramatic warming and cooling in the past....much larger swings and almost straight up and down compared to the last 70 years, being born in 1951 i have been alive for most all of this time period and have not seen any dramatic warming at all, the largest single snowfall i have seen was in 1993 in pelham alabama.....biggest hurricane i experienced was Camille in 1969, biggest tornado outbreak i saw was in the early 70's that reached from bama way up into ohio

you are dismissed for lying about me as a person and refusing to take part in the discussion of science.

there has been no dramatic warming since 1950........you want dramatic warming look back and explain how humans caused warming enough to melt the ice covering most of the planet for a very long time? you want ocean rising how about when the land bridges between russia and alaska are now under water?.....i need nothing to prove dramatic changes have happened with nothing to do with humans, YOU need to show how humans have overpowered all of those natural forces and now are in control by releasing co2!

enough with your LYING about me as a person, i have grandchildren and great grandchildren, i care more about their future than my own....please discuss the science and make no more personal comments.

68 and my age has zero to do with any discussion of the science of our climate.......your comments so far have been personal in nature and had nothing to do with the discussion of science.

nobody here is denying climate change......

another strawman, ty, i have in no way denied climate change in fact i have noted the climate always changes because any set of stats derived from constantly changing numbers will also constantly change...no reasonable person looking at the science can deny the climate changes and strawman further is claiming those disagreeing that humans are the cause of climate change are denying climate change itself....you are correct the younger folks having been taught this fraud indeed accept it..........i have not made any political comment in this entire discussion only dealing in the real science....while your post in the last portion shows it IS politics to you trying to make political change for something unproven.....the younger folks will now "vote" on the science while i KNOW science is NEVER done by voting or consensus.

i have made no comment about his "paper" or its conclusions i have only commented on the fraud of a hockey stick that ignores warming and cooling over the last time covered showing the warm period and the little ice age as a flat line then suddenly coming out of the little ice age a blade for the hockey stick almost going straight up for lesser warming that showed as a flat line on the same chart.....

nice strawman, ignoring my post......he set up the program to produce a hockey stick regardless to which set of numbers was used.....my comment was about the program itself, NOT the numbers used......

models assign a weight or power to different factors, that is how mann created the hockey stick assigning far more weight to the recent stats making them make moves the previous factors didnt and i agree the models are not reliable at all they dont really account for the most powerful ghg water vapor and when they do they call it a warming factor when it is clear rain cools the areas where it falls.

i saw a poker show a couple of nights ago in a very expensive area where multi million dollar yachts are docked...at one home they were showing along that water that said that is michael mann's house,IF it is the same person he sure is very wealthy for a college professor.,,,a quick check indicates there is more than one M mann and at least one of them is wealthy

that is my simple terms concept, IF co2 was causing the earth to lose less heat to space that would be obvious and the earth would be a cinder in short order......OR as you posted it would be unstable and go out of control.

it is hard for me to accept that any "scientist"would use flawed data and bad methodology as part of their pursuit of the truth.

would that warming be by radiation or direct contact with your warm body in the air that is almost trapped?

mann created the hockey stick something no scientist would ever do, but something a con artist indeed would do......his creation gave a hockey stick no matter what data was input, by design it gave the result he wanted.

ty for the response somewhere around here i posted in laymans terms what you wrote, that an IR wave leaves the earth and a small portion of it excites a co2 molecule which in turn releases a new IR wave with no directional push......the "heat" is what happens when the energy of the IR and other lengths of waves interact with molecules.

i admire your efforts here and you are correct, earlier you noted the 1930s warmth which clearly was erased by the creator of the charts that started this thread........in that way of thinking indeed this whole story is man made, man manipulating the statistics to create a false image........simple common sense is IF co2 was indeed trapping heat and blocking a portion of the IR waves taking heat from the earth to space, each and every day the total heat here would increase and the earth would have been a cinder long ago

this thread is about a michael mann idea and many in error call him a scientist, when reality is he is a con artist.

many here have an agenda and write long posts that appear to be impressive but in reality are NOT science on any level.......their claim that human released co2 has overpowered all the natural forces and now is the driver is a stupid claim no matter how many ways they try to back it....i attempt using simple terms like no insulator ADDS heat to any system which is simple science fact, and they counter with long posts explaining how their chosen insulator co2 indeed DOES ADD heat to the earth system.

The anthroprogenic emission of CO2 caused 100% of the increase from 280 to 410 ppm. In other words 130 of the 410 ppm or 32% of the total concentration was caused by anthroprogenic actions. That is a significant portion of the whole.......there is NO proof on any level that 100% of that increase was done by human release........it is a FACT that co2 has been much higher in the past and humans certainly did NOT cause that, so to claim we are 100% to blame now is NOT science on any level.you are claiming ALL other sources have been 100% unchanged and that makes no sense on any level.