Nobody, as of yet, can explain why CO2 emissions keep rising while temps stay stagnant, or even decrease. I didn't get to the part about apes. You completely misrepresented my position on anthropogenic global warming versus my opinion on climate change, so that's what I was replying to in my post. That was the "strawman". Still, not a single person can explain this lack of causation, or even correlation, in the data I presented.
What was the average global temperature in 1934? A simple question, isn't it? How was it compiled versus how it is compiled today?
I have, you've just ignored it. Temperatures are trending up, even if there's variance from year to year. CO2 is also trending up. They're going up at different rates, but I haven't read anyone say that they go up in direct proportion. Only that increased CO2 released into the atmosphere is a factor in the warming trend.
I'm sure that data is available if you want to look for it. What would you do with it if you found it? barfo
If you want to know the answer to that, I'm sure it is documented in the scientific literature. All you need to do is go study it. barfo
Saying this does not make it so. There was not hotter year than 1998. CO2 emissions have continued to rise, while 1998 is still the peak of this warming period. There is no science behind your claim over the past 10 years, other than to say we're still warming, but it's just taking a break. Man-made emissions of CO2 are a fraction of total CO2 output naturally, and CO2 is a fraction of all greenhouse gases put out naturally. The data set over the past ten years shows anthropogenic global warming to be a farce in terms of observable data.
A peak doesn't have anything to do with an increasing trend. A series of numbers like 2, 5, 7, 20, 10, 13, 15, 18 is a set indicating an upward trend. Just because the highest number does not come at the end doesn't mean there's no trend. If a statistician graphed the numbers and drew a trend line, it would have a positive slope. The same is true of global temperatures. 1998 represented a peak temperature, but when you draw the trend line through this graph: You get a line going upward pretty significantly. Something doesn't have to increase every year to be increasing over time...pretty much all natural data has variance and is prone to spikes here and there. The occasional spikes aren't the story, the entire data set is. Looking at the entire data, it's undeniable that we have observed rising temperatures over time, including the past decade. The past decade hasn't increased from the 1998 peak, it's been part of the overall trend over the past 150 years. 1998 is the type of outlier common to any large data set. Temperatures had steadily increased, 1998 happened to be a particularly hot year and you get the hottest temperatures in modern history and then it regresses and continues the climb upward that temperatures were already engaged in. There was a similar spike (outlier) in 1945...and things regressed to their previous track and continued their climb upward, to the point that the 1945 spike is now way, way below where temperatures are now. 1945 and the years after didn't "disprove" global warming...we can see that the warming trend continued on afterward. The spikes simply are good for confusing people who don't look at the entire data set.
I was being sarcastic. Because we had movies in 1934, I would assume we could take temperatures around the world. Keep in mind that the US was not even a super power at this time.
150 years versus 5 billion years. I still want to know how any data taken prior to the modern age can be taken at all seriously on a global scale. Emissions up; temps flat-to-down. One of the reasons we're now seeing "climate change" instead of "global warming". Nothing can convince me that fractionally reducing a fraction of the CO2 we contribute to the fraction that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse gas family is going to do anything substantial in terms of cooling a planet. Nothing short of a causal relationship, that is, and one cannot be found.
We could, and we did. Americans have always had the right to bear thermometers, and by god they can take my thermometer when they can pry it from my cold dead rectum. barfo
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821 Globe may be cooling on Global Warming Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 14:33. By DEROY MURDOCK, Scripps Howard News Service Australia, the land where sinks drain the other way, has alerted Americans that we see Earth's climate upside down: We're not warming. We're cooling. "Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously." Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead." Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist. Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he elaborates, "there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate." Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow. NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. "We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south," Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated. "Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro," cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, as Africa also defies the "warming" narrative. While neither anecdotes nor one year's statistics confirm global cooling, a decade of data contradicts the "melting planet" rhetoric that heats Capitol Hill and America's newsrooms. "The University of Alabama-Huntsville's analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade," Joseph D'Aleo, the Weather Channel's first Director of Meteorology, told me. "This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003." These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern. "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998." In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists -- from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris' Pasteur Institute -- declared their independence from the pro-warming "conventional wisdom." "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." AccuWeather's Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: "People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder." And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth's climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015. If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that "the scientific debate on global warming is over." That debate rages on. Assuming that the very serious scientists cited here are correct, the "inconvenient truth" about global-warming is inconveniently false. If so, mankind should chill out and turn our thinking right side up. (Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.Murdock(at)gmail.com)
There is a thing called Outliers, which imply that if one data point is significantly different than the rest, you can note it as a "fluke." That being said, ALL of the temperatures in the last 10 years has been hotter than any temperature before that. There is scientific claim for this. Way to try to twist facts. Would you agree that cows produce a lot of green house gas emissions? Would you also agree that cows are in an over abundance because of humans? Would you not consider this another example of humans affecting the climate?
Says the guy who keeps quoting data from the last 10 years. What do you consider the modern age, and why? Agreed. barfo
10 years out of what, 50 that had somewhat reliable data. Statistically insignificant in any data set. What is significant, however, is the escalating CO2 levels versus a static temperature.
So are you suggesting "why bother trying to be more clean." ? genuine question, I cannot tell how you feel on that somewhat related topic.
In the long view, it goes up and down. Of course, in the long view, 1 million years is tiny period of time...but if you're living in that million years, it's pretty damn important. So "modern temperatures" (however you define that) are pretty important. This could be the start of a mere blip in the eyes of the Earth, but a blip is long enough to wipe out plenty of species...even, potentially, us. We don't necessarily get to wait a hundred thousand years for things to cycle back down, if we push things too far now. I don't think humans are likely to be wiped out but A. it's not at all impossible and B. life can continue, but get worse.
I'm OK with reducing pollution. The US has done a good job of that since the 1970s. What I don't agree with is imposing ridiculous tax rates that will be passed to the consumer in the name of "saving the planet". Al Gore's argument is primarily political. He didn't win the Nobel Prize for Science; he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now why is that?
