Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

The first graph is CRU's temperature reading. It sure looks like a great hockey stick, and if we continue on that trend then the earth will melt and everyone will die. The next is a graph that goes all the way till Jun '09. The last is an overlay of the two graphs (they actually fit almost perfectly.)

So we have a peak temperature in '98 (El Nino), and then a decline / no warming for the next 11 years. The graphs the AGWers like you to see would have you believe that we are on a crash course to hell, when this is obviously not the case. When you combine these graph with the graphs of the last 1000 years, I don't see how anyone can honestly believe that we are causing this.

 

For me, driving fuel efficiently and declaring that my next vehicle purchase will definitely be a hybrid or a plug-in is NOT just about global warming. It's a dual purpose. A HUGE chunk of America's trade deficit (money that disappears from the pockets of every day Americans, including yourself) is due to foreign oil. We need to stop spending so much of our familys' dollars on foreign oil. Global warming or not, we still need plug-in hybrids.

Addressing the main question of this thread (note: I have not yet read the previous posts in this thread. I am eager to do so when time permits), can global warming be reversed?, the simple answer is yes. The longer answer is that it will be a MASSIVE ENORMOUS process. Not only will we have to reduce CO2 emissions by 98% (I think there are some things we will still need petro for no matter what), but we will have to tell everyone in the entire world (in non-desert climates) to plant as many trees as possible (if people would actually cooperate, we could make a huge dent in CO2), and then we would need to find technical/industrial ways to "capture" CO2 or convert it (that would be the hard part). I think it would be ten times easier to just plant "50 billion trees."

 

This graph that you and other keep showing without attribution has been addressed previously. Even eyeballing it there is a clear upward trend.



Your hybrid graph is not allowed. You can not stitch two different scales together. Let me put it in perspective all of the previous graph is present within the very tip of the HADCRUT graph, between the two blue arrows. Denialists do this to cherrypick a small timeframe and show a shallow warming.

 

Your "upward trend" is laughable. There is no upward trend from 1998 till the end of the graph. In fact it appears there is the smallest of upward trends until a spike in '98, and then no trend / downward trend.

It's also laughable to say "denialist" cherry pick small timeframes. The AGWers tend to leave out the MWP and the LIA, because having those in the graph convey the truth about normal cycles of temperature variations.

Also, it's funny how you guys keep posting graphs that end in 2000 with hockey-sticks. .... It is 2009 Why do I have to keep reminding you of this? Look at the graph that you think has a upward trend, there is no more hockey stick. All of those hockey stick graphs showing the end of the world were wrong.

Edit: My hybrid graph was for making a point that we all could see. It's hilarious you call that out, but "hiding the decline" - which is straight fraud - is ok by you

 

2 pages of denialists putting down a poster, no new information at all up to post 190. I think this thread is done and dusted.

 

You're right. We're on a message board filled with "green" people and no one can make a decent argument for anthropogenic global warming. That's pretty nuts.

 

This was a funny argument I saw that was pro-AGW

 

None you'll accept, you mean.

 

It would be easier to point to Dubya's history as a failed oilman: the aptly named "Arbusto" and the associated securities fraud that he perpetrated. On the other hand you could point to his allowing Cheney of Halliburton (oilfield services) fame to run his energy policy. Not to mention that Cheney was of similar fraudulent proclivities: any one with engineering project experience recognizes his accounting practices for projects at Halliburton as fraudulent.

Such is the mettle of the deniers. And what do these clowns have to counter with? A few private e-mails from peeved researchers tired of being misrepresented by assholes and crooks like the above.

The denial camp has no integrity, certainly not ANY of those deniers posting in this thread or the others here.

 

Why am I replying to my own post #48? Because no one caught the obvious implication, even though I all but stated it. Just a test of observation and logic skills.

Because no one has responded to it with understanding, I'll elucidate. From 1910 to 1945 the temperature rose about .4 C. From 1975 until present (about the same time period of 35 years) it again rose .4 C. (Even though these ftemperature figures are massaged by you know who, the point is still valid.) The entire time CO2 levels are rising - right? Not only that but from 1975 on, FULLY ONE HALF on ALL CO2 EVER emitted by man goes into the atmosphere. Yet that relatively HUGE amount in a short period has NO more effect than a much smaller amount during the first period.

Q.E.D. - CO2 does not drive temperature.

Correction:

Change the last line to read - CO2 does not drive temperature in any catastrophic or significant way.

I do not contend it has no role in driving temperature, but is only one of many factors. Others are demostrably (and obviously) more influential in global temperature change. Think sun.

 

The UAH says this about their data (these are the guys who's data generates your chart which you claim shows a decline in temperatures)

Next time, do some actual research on the data you post before you blindly go around mis-interpreting the data.

 

Haha. I have a trivial/academic question for anyone who is up to the challenge.
How many barrels of oil (estimate) have been extracted from the earth by humans? How much mass of trees would we have to plant and then bury deep under the surface of the earth to account for an equal quantity of CO2?

 

Because everyone else is fed up.

 

Then they do not understand how to interpret their data.

See this post.

It's computer generated. I did not interpret anything except the results.

 

Because as it has been explained to you innumerable times but you don't acknowledge climate is a complex system and a 1:1 relationship is not expected between any of its components.

 

Exactly. This is the point I have been trying to drive home with AGW knuckleheads for years and to date - nobody - not a single "warmer" can explain it.

I would only modify it to say - in my opinion - this does not mean there is no effect from CO2, but whatever the effect is, it obviously pales in comparison to the natural factors that drove the 1910-1945 warming and 1945-1980 cooling.

 

You might want to take your own advice. Here is what else Christy said in a recent interview:

Q: During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?
A: We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.
​

 

Your post is linking a completely different dataset. And I think that if you think you understand their data (I'm referring to the UAH data, not HadCRU) better than they do, well... there is really no point in arguing further.

And again - you came to the opposite conclusion they did. You state that their (UAH) data says that the climate is warming, their analysis says the opposite. Who should we believe? The scientists, or you?

What are you talking about? All I claimed is that the UAH themselves acknowledge that the earth is warming according to their data. Now, they don't think that their data supports AGW, but they don't rule it out, either.

Of course, there are a LOT of other data sets out there which show a significantly more warming.

All this really shows is that more climate research should be performed so that we can better understand the effects of AGW. And in the meantime, it would be a good idea to attempt to mitigate any further effects of AGW.

 

Actually, Alric partially explained it a few posts earlier.

To expand, it's well known that there are other pollutants (aerosols, etc) which have offset AGW in the time period you speak (~1940 - ~1980).

And those natural factors are.... ?

 

And then the pollutants magically disappeared from 1980 till 2001 right? And then re-emerged in 2001? Sigh.