Climate Change - The Simple Argument

[Maple]

If you are talking about cap and trade, we would be the only country in the world doing that. Do you really think that Mexico, China, India and the entire rest of the world is going to follow suit. I don't think so for one second. We all breath the same air, there is no boundry to air. China, India and Mexico are much bigger poluters than we are.

This would put an unfair tax on American business that would be passed on to the consumer, us, it would raise our utility costs by thousands per year, per family. We would be the only ones doing it. This would cause more business's to move to less regulated countries, yet eliminating more jobs for Americans. The cap and trade is yet another of Congress's crazy ideas.

 

[edthecynic]

Your charts show the same trend. Did you cherry pick those?

The NCDC graph shows a 100 year warming trend, you want to use only a tiny part that shows a temporary cooling cycle within the trend. THAT tiny sample is cherry picking. You would need lows below previous decades lows to show that a cooling trend has started rather than a natural cycle within the warming trend. 2008 was the 8th warmest year since direct instrument measurement began. 2008 was warmer globally than any other low in any other decade.
Get it?

 

[FactFinder]

Your charts show the same trend. Did you cherry pick those?

The NCDC graph shows a 100 year warming trend, you want to use only a tiny part that shows a temporary cooling cycle within the trend. THAT tiny sample is cherry picking. You would need lows below previous decades lows to show that a cooling trend has started rather than a natural cycle within the warming trend. 2008 was the 8th warmest year since direct instrument measurement began. 2008 was warmer globally than any other low in any other decade.
Get it?

But it only starts at 1880. It ignores the previous warming trend in the 1700's and the Little Ice Age of the previous Maunder Minimum. so are they cherry picking?

 

[FactFinder]

If you are talking about cap and trade, we would be the only country in the world doing that. Do you really think that Mexico, China, India and the entire rest of the world is going to follow suit. I don't think so for one second. We all breath the same air, there is no boundry to air. China, India and Mexico are much bigger poluters than we are.

This would put an unfair tax on American business that would be passed on to the consumer, us, it would raise our utility costs by thousands per year, per family. We would be the only ones doing it. This would cause more business's to move to less regulated countries, yet eliminating more jobs for Americans. The cap and trade is yet another of Congress's crazy ideas.

The liberal Congress. I hear this has no chance of passing in the Senate. I suspect that it will not have that much support in the House either. The funny thing is that states that would be the most adversely effected are swing states. That would throw the liberals out post haste.

 

[edthecynic]

Your charts show the same trend. Did you cherry pick those?

The NCDC graph shows a 100 year warming trend, you want to use only a tiny part that shows a temporary cooling cycle within the trend. THAT tiny sample is cherry picking. You would need lows below previous decades lows to show that a cooling trend has started rather than a natural cycle within the warming trend. 2008 was the 8th warmest year since direct instrument measurement began. 2008 was warmer globally than any other low in any other decade.
Get it?

But it only starts at 1880. It ignores the previous warming trend in the 1700's and the Little Ice Age of the previous Maunder Minimum. so are they cherry picking?

No, the chart is for the entire history of direct instrument measurement. Data from the 1700s and earlier is from PROXY data.
Interesting you bring up the Little Ice Age, according to the natural cycle over the last 425,000 years the Little Ice Age should have continued to cool into the next full blown Ice Age but around the time of the Industrial Revolution it stops cooling and eventually warms for the next 100 years to the present. The interglacial warm periods usually are 10,000 years long or less, but this present one is now 12,000 years long. Something has altered the natural cycle.

 

[FactFinder]

Why the cooling in 1940 to 1980? If CO2 was the cause it would have only been rising then?

 

[FactFinder]

“Global Cooling is really Global Warming”

“The planet has grown steadily warmer in recent decades”: In fact, the reverse is true. The fastest rate of growth in global temperature, at a rate equivalent to almost 2 degrees Celsius per century, was between 1910 and 1930. No “recent decade” has matched that warming rate, though 1975-1998 came close. Between 1940 and 1975, and again between 2001 and the present, global temperatures have exhibited a downtrend. In fact, the current warming began 300 years ago, at the end of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when there were very few sunspots on the face of the Sun. Between 1700 and 1735, according to the world’s oldest instrumental temperature dataset, the temperature in central England rose by 2.2 degrees C, equivalent to 6.3 C/century, or about nine times the warming rate seen in the 20th century. The warming of the planet parallels the increase in the Sun’s activity between the end of the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago and the end of the 70-year solar Grand Maximum in 1998. During the Grand Maximum, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any similar previous period in the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005). For at least 275 of the 300 years’ warming, humankind cannot have had anything much to do with the warming. Given the inexorable increase in solar activity throughout the past 300 years (see Hathaway, 2004: Figure 2), it is no surprise that the weather is warmer now than it was 30 or 50 or 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.

 

[edthecynic]

“Global Cooling is really Global Warming”

“The planet has grown steadily warmer in recent decades”: In fact, the reverse is true. The fastest rate of growth in global temperature, at a rate equivalent to almost 2 degrees Celsius per century, was between 1910 and 1930. No “recent decade” has matched that warming rate, though 1975-1998 came close. Between 1940 and 1975, and again between 2001 and the present, global temperatures have exhibited a downtrend. In fact, the current warming began 300 years ago, at the end of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when there were very few sunspots on the face of the Sun. Between 1700 and 1735, according to the world’s oldest instrumental temperature dataset, the temperature in central England rose by 2.2 degrees C, equivalent to 6.3 C/century, or about nine times the warming rate seen in the 20th century. The warming of the planet parallels the increase in the Sun’s activity between the end of the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago and the end of the 70-year solar Grand Maximum in 1998. During the Grand Maximum, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any similar previous period in the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005). For at least 275 of the 300 years’ warming, humankind cannot have had anything much to do with the warming. Given the inexorable increase in solar activity throughout the past 300 years (see Hathaway, 2004: Figure 2), it is no surprise that the weather is warmer now than it was 30 or 50 or 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.

Let me get this straight, we have not grown steadily warmer recently because the WARMING rate is slightly less than in the past.
BRILLIANT ROFLMAO

And Central England is not the globe, you are cherry picking again.

 

[FactFinder]

“Global Cooling is really Global Warming”

“The planet has grown steadily warmer in recent decades”: In fact, the reverse is true. The fastest rate of growth in global temperature, at a rate equivalent to almost 2 degrees Celsius per century, was between 1910 and 1930. No “recent decade” has matched that warming rate, though 1975-1998 came close. Between 1940 and 1975, and again between 2001 and the present, global temperatures have exhibited a downtrend. In fact, the current warming began 300 years ago, at the end of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when there were very few sunspots on the face of the Sun. Between 1700 and 1735, according to the world’s oldest instrumental temperature dataset, the temperature in central England rose by 2.2 degrees C, equivalent to 6.3 C/century, or about nine times the warming rate seen in the 20th century. The warming of the planet parallels the increase in the Sun’s activity between the end of the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago and the end of the 70-year solar Grand Maximum in 1998. During the Grand Maximum, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any similar previous period in the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005). For at least 275 of the 300 years’ warming, humankind cannot have had anything much to do with the warming. Given the inexorable increase in solar activity throughout the past 300 years (see Hathaway, 2004: Figure 2), it is no surprise that the weather is warmer now than it was 30 or 50 or 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.

Let me get this straight, we have not grown steadily warmer recently because the WARMING rate is slightly less than in the past.
BRILLIANT ROFLMAO

And Central England is not the globe, you are cherry picking again.

Your graph shows exceedingly greater warming at its peak 140,000 years ago. Were the cavemen burning too many camp fires?

 

[edthecynic]

“Global Cooling is really Global Warming”

“The planet has grown steadily warmer in recent decades”: In fact, the reverse is true. The fastest rate of growth in global temperature, at a rate equivalent to almost 2 degrees Celsius per century, was between 1910 and 1930. No “recent decade” has matched that warming rate, though 1975-1998 came close. Between 1940 and 1975, and again between 2001 and the present, global temperatures have exhibited a downtrend. In fact, the current warming began 300 years ago, at the end of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when there were very few sunspots on the face of the Sun. Between 1700 and 1735, according to the world’s oldest instrumental temperature dataset, the temperature in central England rose by 2.2 degrees C, equivalent to 6.3 C/century, or about nine times the warming rate seen in the 20th century. The warming of the planet parallels the increase in the Sun’s activity between the end of the Maunder Minimum 300 years ago and the end of the 70-year solar Grand Maximum in 1998. During the Grand Maximum, the Sun was more active, and for longer, than during almost any similar previous period in the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005). For at least 275 of the 300 years’ warming, humankind cannot have had anything much to do with the warming. Given the inexorable increase in solar activity throughout the past 300 years (see Hathaway, 2004: Figure 2), it is no surprise that the weather is warmer now than it was 30 or 50 or 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.

Let me get this straight, we have not grown steadily warmer recently because the WARMING rate is slightly less than in the past.
BRILLIANT ROFLMAO

And Central England is not the globe, you are cherry picking again.

Your graph shows exceedingly greater warming at its peak 140,000 years ago. Were the cavemen burning too many camp fires?

Data from 140,000 years ago comes from ice core proxy data. You can't equate it with direct measurements and the ice cores are from very limited regions so they don't necessarily equate to GLOBAL conditions.

 

[FactFinder]

Oh, how convenient. I suppose ice core data is only useful to the extent it supports your position. How come your graph does not reflect this?

1934 is the hottest year on record

1934 is the hottest year on record
The skeptic argument...In August 2007, Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org, noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh. The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place (source: Daily Tech, Climate Audit).

As for the 1700s. The record is global.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/249...hiplogs-question-climate-change-theories.html
Lord Nelson and Captain Cook's shiplogs question climate change theories
The ships' logs of great maritime figures such as Lord Nelson and Captain Cook have cast new light on climate change by suggesting that global warming may not be an entirely man-made phenomenon.

 

[edthecynic]

“Global Cooling is really Global Warming”

From your link
"For graphs click here (PDF file).

The scare: On 2 January 2009, the Wall Street Journal wrote one of a series of articles apparently co-ordinated throughout the generally alarmist news media throughout the holiday season, trying to overcome the problem posed for “global warming” alarmists by the fact that global mean surface temperatures have been on a downtrend for eight straight years (Figure 1):

Figure 1

Eight straight years’ global temperature downtrend: The authoritative SPPI composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets and updated through November 2008, shows a pronounced downtrend for eight full years."

If you download the PDF file from your link, you see the graph was dishonestly manipulated by averaging in Troposphere data from the satellites with the surface temps. We don't live 2000 miles high in the atmosphere, we live on the surface. Surface temps have not been declining for 8 straight years. The fact that deniers have to resort to cooked numbers reveals to the observant Cynic that deniers know they are wrong.

 

[code1211]

My post isn't disingenous. I am being very sincere. Even if global warming isn't man-made, it has been accelerating. There are ways for us to counteract it. Whether or not those ways are effective has yet to be seen.

And what if you're wrong? Accelerated global warming is a helluva thing to chance not acting to counter and being wrong about it. Woudln't you agree?[/QUOTE]

..........

I didn't mean to accuse you. I'm sorry.

Most of the folks who like to say that we do something are saying that we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air as it is a Green House Gas and it is warming the planet. They are then fond of citing the gazillion tons of CO2 issued into the air by the activities of man. 1/3 higher CO2 and so on.

The facts that are omitted from this are the ones that put this into perspective. For instance:

Of all of the air, about 5% is Green House Gases.

Of all of the Green huse Gases, about 3% or 4% os CO2.

Of all of the CO2, about 3% or 4% is contributed by Man.

Let's do the math, but first, let's stipulate that among the factors influencing climate, there are the Sun, the shape of the orbit, the inclination of the axis, ocean currents, continental drift, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanism, our magnetic field, the ozone layer and hole, airborn particulates, air pollution, clouds, rain and so on.

We know that after warming begins, more CO2 is issued into the air from natural sources and that this is happening right now. What contribution comes from man? Let's use the high end of the estimations. .05x.04x.04=.008% 0.008% is the added impact of Anthropogenic CO2 to the climate system. Additionally, every incremental increase in temperature as a result of CO2 requires twice the amount of CO2.

What is the impact of to AGW of our CO2 emissions? Of the 0.7 degree increase over the last 100 years, we are probably guilty of 0.0056% of a degree.

Changing the way the world works to recover this much climate change seems like an over reaction. The fiasco of the ethanol debacle should inspire some caution.

 

[FactFinder]

My post isn't disingenous. I am being very sincere. Even if global warming isn't man-made, it has been accelerating. There are ways for us to counteract it. Whether or not those ways are effective has yet to be seen.

And what if you're wrong? Accelerated global warming is a helluva thing to chance not acting to counter and being wrong about it. Woudln't you agree?

..........

I didn't mean to accuse you. I'm sorry.

Most of the folks who like to say that we do something are saying that we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air as it is a Green House Gas and it is warming the planet. They are then fond of citing the gazillion tons of CO2 issued into the air by the activities of man. 1/3 higher CO2 and so on.

The facts that are omitted from this are the ones that put this into perspective. For instance:

Of all of the air, about 5% is Green House Gases.

Of all of the Green huse Gases, about 3% or 4% os CO2.

Of all of the CO2, about 3% or 4% is contributed by Man.

Let's do the math, but first, let's stipulate that among the factors influencing climate, there are the Sun, the shape of the orbit, the inclination of the axis, ocean currents, continental drift, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanism, our magnetic field, the ozone layer and hole, airborn particulates, air pollution, clouds, rain and so on.

We know that after warming begins, more CO2 is issued into the air from natural sources and that this is happening right now. What contribution comes from man? Let's use the high end of the estimations. .05x.04x.04=.008% 0.008% is the added impact of Anthropogenic CO2 to the climate system. Additionally, every incremental increase in temperature as a result of CO2 requires twice the amount of CO2.

What is the impact of to AGW of our CO2 emissions? Of the 0.7 degree increase over the last 100 years, we are probably guilty of 0.0056% of a degree.

Changing the way the world works to recover this much climate change seems like an over reaction. The fiasco of the ethanol debacle should inspire some caution.[/QUOTE]

You left out solar winds and sunspots. The latter have been missing for an extended period of time.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, how convenient. I suppose ice core data is only useful to the extent it supports your position. How come your graph does not reflect this?

1934 is the hottest year on record

1934 is the hottest year on record
The skeptic argument...In August 2007, Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org, noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh. The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place (source: Daily Tech, Climate Audit).

You are sooooooo gullible!
The USA is not the globe!!!! 1934 is the record for the USA, not the GLOBE.
1934 GLOBALLY is not even close to the GLOBAL 1998 temp.

 

[FactFinder]

20-Year Global Temperature Record Shows Warming And Cooling Trends

20-Year Global Temperature Record Shows Warming And Cooling Trends

Globally, the temperature trend from January 1979 through December 1998 was warming at the rate of about 0.06° Celsius per decade. That equals a warming trend of just over one-half degree Celsius (about one degree Fahrenheit) per century.

Scientifically, any trend that small over a period of time as short as 20 years could be considered statistical "noise," according to Christy.

While large portions of the Northern Hemisphere showed a warming trend over the 20-year study period, most of the Southern oceans showed a long-term cooling. That split saw the Northern Hemisphere warm by about 0.2° C in 20 years, while the Southern Hemisphere got neither warmer nor cooler.

Almost all of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe saw temperatures warm slowly from 1979 through 1998. (See attached map.) The region showing the "fastest" warming trend was along the coast of Canada’s Northwest Territories, where temperatures warmed as much as 1.6° C (almost 2.9° Fahrenheit).

The next fastest warming region included most of Siberia, Mongolia, Northern China, Korea and Japan, with temperatures rising as much as 1.4° C (more than 2.5° Fahrenheit) in 20 years.

At the same time, 20-year cooling trends were found over Labrador, Antarctica, most of the Southern oceans, and a region stretching eastward from Central Africa across the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.

While most of the noteworthy warming in the past 20 years was over the more industrial and more heavily populated Northern Hemisphere, Christy said it is unlikely that this regional warming can be attributed to manmade air pollution or an enhanced "greenhouse effect."

 

[FactFinder]

Global Cooling is Here

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.



Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications

 

[edthecynic]

20-Year Global Temperature Record Shows Warming And Cooling Trends

From your link:
"ScienceDaily (Jan. 18, 1999) — HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Jan. 13, 1999) — Earth’s atmosphere has gotten about one-tenth of a degree Celsius warmer in the past 20 years, with most of the warming concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, according to data gathered by NOAA satellites and released today by The University of Alabama in Huntsville."

Again you are dishonestly using Troposphere data, and outdated at that!

 

[edthecynic]

Global Cooling is Here

From your link:
"Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008"

You get more ridiculous with each post!

"Record setting cold" my ass!
How the hell can the 5th WARMEST and 8th WARMEST years be RECORD SETTING COLD!?!

NCDC: Climate of 2008 - Annual Report
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as 8th Warmest on Record

The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

NCDC: Climate of 2007 - Annual Report
Global Temperatures

For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Cooling is Here

CONCLUSIONS

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.



Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Bellingham, WA. He has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. For further details see his list of publications

OK, Easterbrook has made his prediction. Now, as a non scientist, I will make mine based on the information that I have read on scientific sites and articles. Within five years, we will have a least one year that exceeds 1998 and 2005. Possibly as many as three years that do that. At least four of those five years will be in the top ten for heat.

Time passes, as the sand runs through the glass, each year more quickly than the last. And we shall soon see who is correct.