Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Clearly there is a warming trend from roughly the late '70s to about 2000. So was there a warming trend from around 1910 to around 1940. It is also clear that temperatures have leveled off and appear to be cooling since 2001. Again, check the data and run the regressions yourself and you will see this is true. Or, look at the image below.


Being "stubborn" has nothing to do with it. The preponderance of data suggest that the earth's temperature is indeed flat to cooling in recent years. Ask yourself - why is the temperature not moving in lockstep with CO2? There is a factor here we cannot account for. If there is a factor we do not understand that is cooling the earth despite dramatic increases in CO2, then how do we know that the factor (or another unknown factor) is not also causing temperatures to rise? Furthermore, increases in CO2 don't very likely explain the temperature rise from 1910 to 1940, do they? Nor can they explain why the earth cooled from 1940 to 1980, do they?

I don't doubt that CO2 can influence climate. What I doubt is that we have a full understanding of key climate influencers, given the data.

Is this "stubborn"? I think it is intelligent, given the data.

 

Not according the to the graph I presented. The best you can say from that is that the last several years the temperature increase over the mean has not grown. That' what the flattening out means of the blue trend line. The y axis on this graph is "anomaly from the mean" not global average temperature.

I still don't see how you can make such a big deal about 7 years anyway even IF there has been recent cooling. The long term trend is what's important. It naturally filters out the noise.

But for those that are fixated on the recent past:


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/169051main_BlueMarble_2006_warm.jpg

 

You'd be wrong
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
YearOldNew19341.231.2519981.241.2319211.121.1520061.231.1319311.081.0819990.940.9319530.910.9019900.880.8719380.850.8619390.840.85

 

You'd Be Wrong
(formating did not cme through)
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year New Order Old Order
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

 

I'm at work and can't look at links but are we arguing U.S. temperatures or global?

 

according to nasa NASA - 2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century

global

 

Can you explain that please?
What is your source? Is that the top ten list of warmest years? Globally or U.S.? We know the 30's (dustbowl) were pretty hot, even though they had record colds during the winters. But one thing I notice in your list is that from the old order to the new order (I assume this is for corrections made based on a careful look at measuring stations), that for the 20's and 30's they all moved down (except '31 stayed level), and the modern numbers all rose slightly (2006 quite a bit).

 

Yes, there are a multitude of things affecting the climate of our earth, CO2 being one of them. Other things can go up and down, making ripples, but because CO2 is increasing, it is lifting all boats, so to speak. There are still ripples in the data, but those ripples are getting higher and higher above the 'historical' mean. Historical meaning recent history, what civilization has come to expect and rely on.

Intelligence is planning for the future, including mitigating risks. Climate change is not a known (how much, where at, rain/drought for a particular region, etc.) But it is a risk, and steps can be taken to reduce that risk, things that strengthen our economy in the short term (raise productivity per energy consumed, create new goods and services, new export products in green tech, etc.) and long term (stable food supply, less severe storms & fewer declarations of emergency areas).

At the same time, as a side benefit, we reduce our #1 source of trade imbalance - petroleum, and we reduce our payments to Al Qaeda. Simply put, wasting oil is not patriotic. I find it ludicrous to argue the case for continuing to waste oil.

 

More information please.

 

I don't recall making that case. Only that the case for CO2 being the primary climate driver is IMO sketchy.

 

What's specifically wrong with a Kyoto type agreement in principle? Sure it fails when countries like Canada only pay lip service, and the biggest emitters don't sign on in the first place. Costly? Didn't the economic studies say that the cost of mitigating climate change would be less than 2% of the worlds economy and in the long run save money?

 

Double post

 

Everywhere I look, (your graph is meaningless to me) I see it reported that 2005 was the warmest year and 2007 was the second warmest year globally, in recorded history - part of trend of decades of warming. Devil's advocate's post was a list of numbers. What am I supposed to do with that? I'm not a scientist. I can't tell where it came from.

Like most people, what I want is for the majority of scientists and/or major science organizations (like NASA) to tell me if things are getting hotter or not. I can't believe there is a massive conspiracy to acquire research funding by suppressing the truth. I'm not that paranoid.

 

Well again I don't look at the data directly except in a very limited way. I have to rely on the consensus among the scientific community. I put faith in the scientific method. That's the best I can do.

If "Science" tells me that we need less CO2 in the atmosphere in order to save our civilization from tremendous upheaval than I'm going to go with that.

You may be smarter than 95% of all the climatologists put together but I have to go with the majority view that filters down through the media.

While I put my faith in the scientific method I know there are cheaters in science. Some scientists fudge data, for fame, profit, just to stay afloat. I'm still hoping that the majority doesn't and over time we get an accurate picture from research.

I can't say for sure but I think that economically the electrification of transportation won't hurt the economy - new technologies always create new (but different) jobs and more economic activity, but IT WILL change who is profiting. This is a major threat to many people with deep pockets and a great deal of political power.

Considering the huge vested interest in the gigantic fossil fuel based status quo - if there is a conspiracy - my bets are on the researchers that contradict the majority position.

BTW, Timbikes what do you do for a living?