Man Based Global Warming....

[dbermanmd]

Originally Posted by donee

So, if anything, the theory's predictions are running true.

I am interested if you could point our for me "the theories" predicted temperatures for 2007 and 2008 and for the next five years.

Seems to me the globe has been cooling for the past bunch of years.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.,,,

also,,, again,,, what would you need to see in terms of global temperatures or events or whatever that would throw a monkey wrench in "the theory"?

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by dbermanmd

<snip>
also,,, again,,, what would you need to see in terms of global temperatures or events or whatever that would throw a monkey wrench in "the theory"?

For me, a big theory killer would be a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average temperature. The average temperatures have always fluctuated, perhaps even cycled, but have trended up through the industrial years of man in lockstep with CO2 levels. If CO2 levels drop and the average temperature continues to rise, or the other way around, then that would cause me to reconsider. Unfortunately it takes a long time forward to verify any climate changes. It's easier looking back because of historical evidence. I'm not sure I will live long enough to see any conclusive evidence.

Tom

[icarus]

Two quick points. First, there is a significant lag time between emission and effect. The environment is paying the price now for emissions decades ago. The cause and effect are that hard to quantify over shorter time frames. Humans are so caught up in their own time scales.

Second, doesn't it make sense to limit emissions into the environment even if the effects are not 100% demonstrable? You people who want to not limit emissions until it is "proven" that they cause harm are borrowing a debt from you children and their children that they may not be able to pay. It seems that the only honest thing to do is be the best stewards of the planet we can and err on the side of caution.

Icarus

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by qbee42

For me, a big theory killer would be a lack of correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average temperature. The average temperatures have always fluctuated, perhaps even cycled, but have trended up through the industrial years of man in lockstep with CO2 levels. ...

Tom

I'm not so sure "lockstep" is very accurate. Here (attached) is the temp data since the period of satellite measurement. What is interesting is that the bulk of the warming during this period has occurred in a "step" after 1998. This step is highly unlikely to be a result of CO2. Now if you look at the slope of the lines pre/post 1998, there is a slope of about 0.6 C per century. You might attribute ALL of this rise to CO2. And you could be right - or not.

I think it is likely that some of the background warming of 0.6 C / century is a result of increases in CO2 - but probably not all of it. More importantly, you can surmise that the dominate factor in temperature increases of the past 30 years has been some unknown factor that has caused global temperatures to jump by about 0.3 C in the post 1998 period. After this, temperatures have again been relatively stable, just as the were in the pre-1998 period.

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

I'm not so sure "lockstep" is very accurate. Here (attached) is the temp data since the period of satellite measurement. What is interesting is that the bulk of the warming during this period has occurred in a "step" after 1998. This step is highly unlikely to be a result of CO2. Now if you look at the slope of the lines pre/post 1998, there is a slope of about 0.6 C per century. You might attribute ALL of this rise to CO2. And you could be right - or not.

I think it is likely that some of the background warming of 0.6 C / century is a result of increases in CO2 - but probably not all of it. More importantly, you can surmise that the dominate factor in temperature increases of the past 30 years has been some unknown factor that has caused global temperatures to jump by about 0.3 C in the post 1998 period. After this, temperatures have again been relatively stable, just as the were in the pre-1998 period.

The period since satellite measurement is too short a period to be very useful. You need to go back at least 150 years.

This chart is of a more useful period:



Tom

[Alric]

Climate change in graphs:

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations:


Global temperature averages:




Glacier retreat calibrated temperatures


Solar cycle variations:


And the most recent aggregate graph with 16 different sources:





Any questions?

[donee]

Originally Posted by dbermanmd

I am interested if you could point our for me "the theories" predicted temperatures for 2007 and 2008 and for the next five years.

Seems to me the globe has been cooling for the past bunch of years.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.,,,

also,,, again,,, what would you need to see in terms of global temperatures or events or whatever that would throw a monkey wrench in "the theory"?

Hi dbermandmd,

You provided cherry picked data. And I gave you a cherry picked explanation. Since you are proposing the extraordinary, you have to provide the evidence to the contrary.

Looks like the evidence provided by Alric all goes against your hypothesis (that a few weeks of extra cold weather in North America disproves global warming), however.

[JSH]

I look at this graph and say: "Global warming is a real problem."







I look at this graph and say: "Global warming might be a problem."






I look at this graph and say: "Why do humans always think we are so special?"





As to computer models:

My weatherman can't accurately tell me on Monday if it is going to rain on Saturday.

He also can't tell me where a Hurricane is going to hit 5 days from now.

A climate model can't tell me if the next El Nino is going to strong or weak, 4 years from now.

However, I'm suppose to have faith in a model that predicts global temperature 100 years from now?

[malorn]

Originally Posted by jhinton

I look at this graph and say: "Global warming is a real problem."







I look at this graph and say: "Global warming might be a problem."






I look at this graph and say: "Why do humans always think we are so special?"





As to computer models:

My weatherman can't accurately tell me on Monday if it is going to rain on Saturday.

He also can't tell me where a Hurricane is going to hit 5 days from now.

A climate model can't tell me if the next El Nino is going to strong or weak, 4 years from now.

However, I'm suppose to have faith in a model that predicts global temperature 100 years from now?

OFF to AGW HELL with you!

[Alric]

You are describing an effect of scale. Note how the scale gets larger and larger as go farther back in time. The issue is that temperature is increasing in a timescale that has not been documented for the past 2K years. It is also contrary to what climate scientists would expect in the absence of increased levels of C02.

It is not a matter if the climate has ever changed. The question is what happens if it is changing now, and if our civilization can weather it.