This confuses me, because, generally, the Cult of Climastrology claims human-induced warming started in the 1850s, but, hey, they always need Narratives
The human fingerprint on global warming was likely evident in Earth’s atmosphere far earlier than previously thought—even before the invention of modern cars, a new study says.
Using a combination of scientific theory, modern observations and multiple, sophisticated computer models, researchers found a clear signal of human-caused climate change was likely discernible with high confidence as early as 1885, just before the advent of gas-powered cars but after the dawn of the industrial revolution.
The minute you mention computer models, you know it is mule fritters
The findings, detailed in a paper published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, raise the likelihood that humanity has been remaking the planet’s climate in a detectable way for longer than previously believed—and highlight the importance of tracking changes in the upper atmosphere.
Scientists had begun to record surface temperature observations by the mid-19th century. The start date for a detectable human signal in surface temperatures has generally been thought to be in the early-to-mid-20th century, though other parts of the climate system showed signs of change at different times.
Really? I’ve almost never seen the cult say it started in the early to mid 20th Century. Are they just attempting to re-write this for some nefarious purpose?
The signal of climate change was detectable in the 19th-century atmosphere after just a 10 parts per million increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the 40 years between 1860 and 1899. For comparison, planet-warming carbon dioxide levels skyrocketed by about 50 parts per million between 2000 and 2025, Santer said.
Do they have actual measurements of this? The paper doesn’t make that clear. And, how do they know, how do they prove, that it was caused by Mankind, instead of just changes from a Holocene cool period to a warm period?
Andrea Steiner, a climate scientist at the Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change at the University of Graz in Austria, told CNN the study shows human-caused climate change can be detected earlier in the atmosphere than at the surface.
And they were able to gather the actual CO2 readings from the atmosphere from the earlier time frame how? Sounds like BS to me.
“Scientist’ teach typed:
Actually, today actual scientists advise that the seeds of warming were planted when humans started burning fossil fuels en masse, that is, in the early days of the industrial revolution around 1750. At that time CO2 emissions began to increase from a stable 280 ppm. Since that time atmospheric CO2 levels have increased gradually until today where it’s over 420 ppm.
The actual scientists who wrote the paper claim that it’s likely the temperature data (using 2025 methodology) would have permitted 1885 scientists to conclude it was warming. Yawn.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/epub/10.1073/pnas.2500829122
Here’s the CO2 level since 1800 from ice cores and Mauna Loa. https://insideclimatenews.org/infographics/chart-co2-levels-are-rising/
Ice core CO2 is generally about 260 ppm. Note the concentration in fat Jeff’s article seems to follow this general rule, then quickly shifts to another method of analysis. There is no association between CO2 and climate. Even if there was a correlation, big deal.
When the planet was supposedly the healthiest the CO2 was at 2000 ppm (Dinasaurs). You know back when the plants could eat you.
What makes you believe the Earth was ‘healthiest’ at 2000 ppm?
So, the obvious ‘solution’ is to back off of all innovations since 1750, right?
But really, haven’t humans been burning hydrocarbons ever since we learned to make fire? And we’ve been cutting down trees to build houses and fuel fires, so that’s problematic, too. Realistically, can we reasonably do anything other than return to dwelling in caves?
Mr Dana suggests to stop global warming:
Has he heard anyone suggest that? Are there steps that COULD be taken to slow warming? Of course, but are they realistic? Probably not. Why? As a people we simply refuse to convert to non-CO2-polluting sources of energy. As of today, it’s a moot point.
He further suggests that burning wood is like burning fossil fuels. Well no. Although wood burning generates its own pollutants (carbon dioxide, particulates, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and other irritants), the CO2 from wood burning was incorporated into wood within the past 10s of years not 100s of millions of years. Within years the wood would decay and return CO2 to the atmosphere anyway.
In Virginia, Warming starts around 9am and doesn’t stop until 4 to 6 PM. No sign that it ever started any earlier.
In St Louis global warming caused the temperature to increase 10 degree F in just 8 hours!!!
That’s a 900 degree F increase in the next 30 days!!
Just wait until some (Communist / Progressive / virtue signaler) makes a connection between free speech and diagnoses of depression and anxiety. Obviously, there will only be one solution. Mankind is doomed if these people run wild.
Note that Ugly david (aka Doc of Death) claims the method of analysis is the reason CO2 has increased some 50% since the mid 1800s!! Is Ugly david denying that today atmospheric CO2 is 430 ppm??
The ice core method shows a baseline of about 280 ppm in 1700, slowly increasing to just over 320 ppm by 1958 when daily collections on Mauna Loa HI were started. From 1958 until today, CO2 increased from 320 ppm to 430.6 ppm today.
So what, Rimjob?
Fat Jeff,
Need to read UpToDate material. You are wrong.
Ugly david,
You need to read up to date material. You are wrong.
You are as dishonest as you are Ugly.
Vince Coglianese Show – President Trump Is ‘Threading The Needle’ | Episode 66 – 06/17/25
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/06/vince-coglianese-show-president-trump.html
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is responsible for the majority of the increase in world agricultural productivity over the past 150 years. Plants are starved for CO2 and have the capacity to use about six times more than is available now. Bring it on and feed the world.
Atmospheric CO2 has been between 180 to 290 ppm for at least 1 million years. That is, until the last century.
Regarding increased agricultural productivity it’s possible that modern farming techniques have contributed. You know, tractors, fertilizers, weed killers, combines, irrigation and genetic modification. And although atmospheric CO2 IS still increasing, the rate of agricultural productivity has slowed the past couple of decades.
And don’t overlook the Green Revolution. Norman Borlaug PhD, an agronomist who won the 1970 Nobel Prize responsible for developing genetically modified strains of crops that were disease resistant, semi-dwarf (increasd production) and high-yield. Wheat yields in countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and India increased up to 10 fold between 1950 and now. The same cross-breeding techniques were applied to rice with similar results.
It’s not clear that what Mr teach claims is a “miniscule” increase in CO2 has affected agriculture.
Series of lies from Fat Jeff.
Porter’s ugly dad, Ugly david, calls everything a lie if it conflicts with his mystical beliefs.
Ugly dave, , Porter’s dad, please select one statement that’s a lie and I’ll explain it to you, using simple English.
Do these people think we are idiots? In the United States we have records for weather since the late 1700’s. We had The Dust Bowl and heat records in an era, when we had extremely low industrial output. Weather cycles vary constantly.
You know what tells everyone this is a hoax?
We could be closer to “zero carbon” in 20 years, if we started building more nuclear power plants — the safest and most efficient way of supplying electrical power. However, these morons do not like nuke, because it makes them feel bad. No other reason.
Not idiots, but just not open-minded ‘thinkers’, either. You know, conservatives.
You are correct that we should be building more and better nuclear power plants. They’re expensive and likely require significant government investment. They are good targets for terrorists but that has not happened.
When there’s an accident at a nuke plant it’s a big deal. Fukushima, 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl accidents stand out. They’re not common, but are devastating.
Before global warming became a threat, nuclear hardly seemed worth the investment and trouble.
“…researchers found a clear signal of human-caused climate change was likely discernible with high confidence as early as 1885…”
To further carry the metaphor, in the vernacular familiar to Col. Sherman Potter,:
That sounds like a definite confirmation of an affirmative maybe.