Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I imagine that in about 10 years, when the above graphs show the temp has continued to decline back to the base line of those graphs, that there will still be some insisting that the planet is still warming and that humans are causing it.

Warming and cooling trends have always occured, and I think we are foolish to believe that we have much to do with it either way.

Of course, that is my opinion. And there was that one time many years ago that I was proven wrong about something, so there is precedent for my being wrong. Just not likely.

I am a skeptic re anthropogenic global warming, but have not thrown support to either side as yet. I do not consider the Al Gores and James Hansons and Heidi Cullens and others of their ilk to be trustworthy witnesses--I have highly resented their conviction that skeptics should be silenced-- and I do think that the experts on the skeptic side have thus far made the more convincing case.

I am highly suspicious of those who attempt to force anthropogenic global warming as a fact down my throat, and in the process would presume to limit my freedoms, choices, options, and opportunties. I think we should not just hand over our freedoms or hand over our resources for what very well may be bogus science.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Of course there is warming and cooling but the overall trend is warming. Only a fool would claim that every day has to be warmer than the previous to show that warming has occurred over an extended period.

Only a fool would claim that I wrote about DAILY cooling and warming trends.

Please restudy the following. Hopefully you will be capable of discerning the following multi-year cooling trends AND warming trends:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

INCREASING TREND 1860-1880
DECREASING TREND 1880-1910
INCREASING TREND 1910-1940
DECREASING TREND 1940-1958
INCREASING TREND 1958-2001
DECREASING TREND 2001-2008

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

And yet there you go, using short periods to argue long term trends.

TSI has 11 year cycles, so using any period less than 11 years means you are ignoring the long term trend and concentrating on short term cycles.

What is the 150 year trend ican?

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

We have tended cooler since 2000 because we are in a weather cycle combined with a TSI cycle that are down. They will not continue down. TSI is starting up. We will have an EL Nino in a couple of years. You can't ignore the cycles when looking at it. The overall trend is there. The cycles that occur over short periods of time still occur but those cycles are warmer when comparing lows to lows and highs to highs.

1 Reply

@parados,

I'll happily (well, maybe not happily) admit I was wrong if the recent trend reverses over the next 5-10 years and the temps push upward again. The problem with those who believe that man is a major cause of global warming is that they continue to ignore data that contradicts their belief.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

The problem is also declaring that the recent relatively short term upward spike in global temperatures is unprecedented since we have had the instruments for measuring such for so short a period plus, as you said, the assumption that that the only explanation for it is human activity.

1 Reply

The President's "Cap and Trade" proposal to combat global warming may be beginning to take some interesting turns:

Quote:

O'Reilly Claims 'Corruption': GE Using CNBC, MSNBC to Promote Cap-and-Trade for Financial Gain
By Jeff Poor
April 23, 2009

It has been something that there have been rumblings about, but no one has really put the x's and o's together entirely - that General Electric (NYSE:GE) is using its media arm, NBC Universal to promote President Barack Obama's so-called progressive agenda for its own financial gain.

However, as just previewed by Amy Ridenour, Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly attempted to do so at the top of his April 23 "The O'Reilly Factor" broadcast during his "Talking Points Memo" segment. O'Reilly outlined how Obama has gotten support from the NBC networks both pre-election and post-election.

"Will General Electric get paid for supporting President Obama - that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo," O'Reilly said. "As everybody knows, GE, which owns NBC has been very aggressive in helping Barack Obama - first supporting the president in the election and now attacking his critics."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/04/23/oreilly-claims-corruption-ge-using-cnbc-msnbc-promote-cap-trade-financial

NOTE: Video of O'Reilly's commentary last night at the link. Please listen. It is VERY interesting.

I'm also posting this on the Conservatism thread.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Which data do you think is ignored?

There are a lot of claims out there but not much actual scientific data to back up the claim that science is ignoring data. Pointing out that CO2 didn't lead warming in the past is not data that contradicts man made global warming. Instead it would seem to reinforce it.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

It's so easy to make your statement when you just ignore data, isn't it Fox?
There isn't an assumption that the only explanation is human activity. Rather there is a deduction that human activity is the BEST explanation. They didn't just assume something and then stop looking. They looked at everything and made a deduction based on the evidence.

Your claim doesn't address several scientific facts Fox.
Make a rational explanation how CO2 has increased but can't be caused by human activity.
Make a rational explanation how CO2 increases temperature when increased in the laboratory but wouldn't do the same in the atmosphere.

Until you can make a logical explanation for those 2 things that is a better explanation the the current one science is using, you are not making much of an argument.

1 Reply

@parados,

First you provide a rational explanation for how significantly increased CO2 is primarily due to human activity......and.....

Evidence that increasing 3% CO2 to say 3.5 or 4% CO2 in an artificial atmosphere in the laboratory significantly increases temperature. It would be a fairer assessment if you also increase water vapor and all the other variables in the laboratory experiment too.

Remember, not a single one of those scientific models predicting global warming has been able to produce the weather we have now by beginning with data that we actually have. How much less reliable are models that are guessing about prior conditions and that don't include all the possible variables? I doubt a laboratory experiment focusing on CO2 alone would have much validity when measured against all the global variables in the climate either.

Again I don't claim to be a scientist, but such considerations strike me as at least reasonable in analyzing the situation.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

First you provide a rational explanation for how significantly increased CO2 is primarily due to human activity......and.....

This has been done.
1. The natural sinks take up more than is produced naturally so all the natural CO2 would be taken up if there was no man made Co2.
2. The Co2 isotopes clearly show that the increase is due to carbon from fossil fuels.

Quote:

Evidence that increasing 3% CO2 to say 3.5 or 4% CO2 in atmosphere in the laboratory significantly increases temperature. It would be a fairer assessment if you also increase water vapor and other variables in the laboratory experiment too.

1. CO2 doesn't stop being CO2 just because water vapor increases.
2. CO2 has an absorption spectrum different from water vapor.
3. Science has been testing various gas mixtures for well over a century. The science hasn't shown there to be an variation based on water vapor or other variables. It's OK to ask but don't claim that it must be so simply because you asked.

Quote:

Again I don't claim to be a scientist, but such considerations strike me as at least reasonable in analyzing the situation.

You aren't a scientist but somehow you know that scientists didn't consider your simplistic questions? I would say in most cases science answered those questions long ago. You just aren't a scientist.

1 Reply

@parados,

The point is that many people who are scientists that I have read have considered my 'simplistic' questions and appear to be answering them differently than you are explaining your answers.

Is Co2 produced from burning a fossil fuel somehow different than CO2 released from the ocean or soil or emitted by human breathing or produced by vegetation? You can pluck some CO2 out of a bottle of air and tell whether it was produced by a dinosaur sneezing 200+ years ago or belched out by a coal fired plant yesterday?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Make that dinosaur living 200+ MILLION years ago. Got interrupted by the phone and it was too late to edit when I looked again.

0 Replies

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases,
and CAD increases are likely to be minor, if not
negligible, causes of increases of A-AAGT and AAGT.

CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K = 287.06°K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBALTEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
AAGT = CAGT + A-AAGT
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
Note: SI for 2008 was projected from SI in 2005, and this graph:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

TSI has 11 year cycles, so using any period less than 11 years means you are ignoring the long term trend and concentrating on short term cycles. What is the 150 year trend ican?

INCREASING TREND 1860-1880; a 21 year trend--10 years more than 11 years.
DECREASING TREND 1880-1910; a 21 year trend--10 years more than 11 years.
INCREASING TREND 1910-1940; a 31 year trend--20 years more than 11 years.
DECREASING TREND 1940-1958; a 19 year trend--8 years more than 11 years.
INCREASING TREND 1958-2001; a 44 year trend--33 years more than 11 years.
DECREASING TREND 2001-2008; an 8 year trend--3 years less than 11 years.*

*We'll just have to wait 3 more years to determine the 11 year trend 2001-2011!

The 150 year trend from 1851 to 2000 is an increase of about 0.7 degrees Celsius. Perhaps we should also consider the 150 year trend 1701 to 1850. AND then perhaps we should consider the 300 year trend 1701 to 2000.

But right now I'm only intersted in the 20 year trend 2001 to 2020.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

But right now I'm only intersted in the 20 year trend 2001 to 2020.

OK.. Care to bet on the trend for those 20 years?

I suggest a bet of $10,000 and using a simple scatter chart with a straight trend line calculated by a spread sheet program commercially available and in widespread use in 2021. My bet is that the program will show a trend upward in that time frame.

Your turn.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I suggest a bet of $10,000 and using a simple scatter chart with a straight trend line calculated by a spread sheet program commercially available and in widespread use in 2021. My bet is that the program will show a trend upward in that time frame.

What odds are you offering? For example, if you think the chances are 0.99 that A-AAGT and AAGT will increase during that time frame, then I'll bet you $100 against your $10,000.

The problem for me at this time, is that I don't have enough data to justify betting whether SI will increase or decrease over that time period. I'm confident that if SI increases over that time period, then A-AAGT and AAGT will increase over that time period. On the other hand, if SI continues to decrease over that time period, I'm confident A-AAGT and AAGT will continue to decrease over that time period.

I have zero interest in factoring in any A-AAGT or AAGT data prior to 2001.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You will only take odds? What does that say about YOUR position ican? You feel so strongly about it you think your position is less than 10% likely to happen? What a BS artist you are.

2 Replies

@parados,

Whose data would be used? That would be a huge factor in what the odds would be.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

How about we use BOTH data sets? GISS and HADCRUT3.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know