Yes, perhaps. How much though? The primary measure used, CO2 emissions, suggests an inverse relationship regarding temperature over the last ten years. That's a blatant falsehood. 1998 is the warmest on record. The 1930s saw multiple years that were warmer than today. Easy to say, impossible to prove. Which is why they didn't prove it. I give them some respect for actually mentioning the Sun. Again though, no supporting evidence other than to say FACT. The past 11 years of data suggests otherwise. Whoops. Models are fun. No way to prove their accuracy, but hell, we have grants to gain, so let's run with it. Hadn't heard that one. Guess I'll go along with Hadley. 11 years from the most recent peak with only 100 years of data, some of which is suspect, means that the planet is not warming in correlation with CO2 emissions.
Actually, your graph suggests another downslope toward the mean temperature. 199 spikes, and now it's heading toward zero. That said, the earth is certainly not warming at the same rate that we are emitting CO2 into the atmoshere. We've emitted more each year since they started tracking, yet temperatures have not continued to rise. Much more CO2 emitted in 2008 than 1998, yet there was a much lower global temperature. Why is that?
You're confusing increase with rate of increase. The graph you've posted also has that problem. The temperatures are trending upward. The rate that they're going up is variable. A car that speeds up by 10 MPH and then by -3 MPH and then by 20 MPH and then by 1 MPH is going faster and faster. The rates that it speeds up keep changing (and sometimes it even slows down a little), but the overall trend is up.
Lol. PapaG, in the post where you responded to facts and myths, you might want to go back and click the link I provided. It's gives facts for each of them. Even including the "blatant falsehoods". Lol. BS with a major in what?
Does anybody have a graph that plots actual temps by either F or C, and not in relation to an uncertain mean that is static, making it even more unreliable?
I read them. There is no scientific evidence to explain why CO2 is rising while temps are either falling or leveling out depending on the year. They didn't even try to address this point, and they use a lot of weird "facts". Precipitation models used as validation for temperature models? That seemed especially ridiculous to me. Explain the CO2 increase versue temperature decrease compared to the year 1998. Or don't.
Honestly, what is the point of this thread? The title is about global warming, but the argument seems to have narrowed solely to the impact of manmade CO2 emissions on global warming.
THE TEMPERATURE IS NOT DECREASING. IT'S NOT. YOUR HALF-ASSED PLOT IS MISLEADING. Sorry for yelling, but I (and others) have said it multiple times. Those positive temp numbers? They mean the temp IS HIGHER. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
YES IT IS, AT LEAST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INCREASE IN CO2. The graph I posted is not misleading. Tell you what. Start at 1998, grab the global average temp per year, and make the same temperature graph I posted. Then plot CO2 emissions. Tell me what you see. Oh wait, I already posted it, and the graph doesn't show a causal effect, by CO2 emission, on warming global temperatures. You can't debate the point, so you continue to deflect.
The entire reason for cap and trade legislation is to curb our CO2 emissions, supposedly to stop the rampant global warming. The data doesn't fit the legislation. I won't argue that the climate changes. That's obvious. Montana was once a jungle, for Christ sake. I just think the anthropogenic global warming "theory" presented by the reknowned scientist Albert Gore is full of scientific holes, and that legislating ourselves into higher prices across the board is one of the dumbest things I've seen in my lifetime.
I'm not sure you are grasping the significance of using the mean temperature in the graph. Because there isn't any significance to it. A graph that plotted the actual temperatures instead of the variance from the mean would look... exactly the same, except that the numbers on the y-axis would be different. barfo
Truth be told, I AM somewhat with you on the preoccupation pretty much solely on CO2. I disagree with you that CO2 has no impact, but I think other sources a human activity also impact global warming. I hope D.C. is keeping an eye on the big picture. My problem around this issue is with politicos trying to warp science to fit their agendas. Whether you're Bush and henchmen editing scientific papers to lessen/deny global warming or Al Gore inciting fear, it's all a bunch of hooey. Let the climatologists do their thing and LET'S LISTEN TO 'EM. In 1993, I took a graduate level atmospheric chemistry class taught by two NOAA scientists that was done seminar style (meaning we had 8-10 other experts cycle through during the quarter). I profess to be no expert on this, but I have to say I was strongly convinced that global warming is a real issue. That was 1993. The evidence since then has only increased. I don't mind opposing viewpoints and, in science, I think it's critical. Opposing views help you to sharpen your own theories/ideas. However, spouting junk science as an effort to direct policy makes me crazy. Bush was king of this and I'm still damned sensitive about it.
Not true at all. 1934 is the hottest year on record, yet it is shown on that list to be much closer to the mean than much cooler years in the 1970s. 1998, the second hottest year, is shown to be much further above the mean than the "hottest year", which is at about zero. It is a misleading graph. I want a graph that plots the actual temperature, not one designed to give a misleading reading that isn't based on the actual temperature. Hottest years on record, then find them on the graph that mobes posted. Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007 Year Old New 1934 1.23 1.25 1998 1.24 1.23 1921 1.12 1.15 2006 1.23 1.13 1931 1.08 1.08 1999 0.94 0.93 1953 0.91 0.90 1990 0.88 0.87 1938 0.85 0.86 1939 0.84 0.85
Why Gore's graph is wrong. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
Pick one or all: 1. At best, temp is constant while CO2 increases. At best. 2. Climate does not equal 10 year period. 3. The underlying assumption made by you and the plot is that there are no other factors impacting global temp. Does anyone think this is reasonable? 4. The model (while apparently not limited solely to CO2) is pretty impressive: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact1.html
What do you suppose "U.S." in "U.S. Temperature deviation" means? Do you think it means the same thing as "Global" in the graph? barfo
And you were presuming that I was serious that you thought apes were responsible? That's a pretty odd way of interpreting my post. I'm using hyperbolic examples to elicit a response from you as to what you think is responsible, if there is anything to be responsible for. But I think the rest of the posters have done an admirable job, ad nauseum, of repeating that point.
