Man Based Global Warming....

This is consistent with Urban Heat Island effect, as is meticulously documented here.

As for "Pilkie" (sic), he would agree that one month or a partial year is not indicative of a trend. But he would also contend, as would many climatologists, that surface temperature readings are notoriously unreliable and that ocean heat content is a better measure of climate change.

In any case, regardless of how you slice it, the land, ocean, and atmospheric temperatures are not rising. The 0.17 C / decade rise is an average. Get it? It does not imply our current decade is rising.

Further, the more reliable satellite temps only show 0.06 - 0.12 C rise / decade.

And how you can look at the graphs and think they are rising this decade is beyond me. All the moving averages are flat to declining this decade. If you can't at least see or admit that, I am through arguing with you.

 

Coming from a true believer who sports "CUT CO2" on his license plate, that is just rich. You are likely so invested emotionally in the notion of AGW I doubt any data could dissuade you. It is religion.

 

Well, to the contrary I'm not married to the idea at all. If the IPCC where to come out tomorrow and say, "oops our bad, there actually isn't any GW", I'd be quite pleased and relieved. Nobody except the suicidal wants AGW to be true.

But this is a scientific matter and data is therefore the ultimate arbiter. Unfortunately, I'm not a climatologist, and unlike some, I don't pretend to know how to interpret the data.

All I know is the vast majority of climate scientists believe in the AGW hypothesis and its likelihood to cause harm, so I must go with that.

So sure I promote the idea of "Cutting CO2" with my plates, because, by any reasonable perception, that's what's necessary - starting yesterday.

 

Here's a very recent example of me changing my mind based on new evidence:

http://priuschat.com/forums/freds-h...rices-manipulated-speculation.html#post774763

 

BusinessWeek? Ha! Yeah, they are really going to be an unbiased source for evaluating U.S. industry's innovation. :cheer2::cheer2::cheer2: Funny thing is about half of those on their list are anything but innovative anymore. Pretty typical though for conservative thinking (not necessarily political tone) as it seems to be focused on reputation from a decade before rather than recent performance. (This is a real problem with corporate management and is evident in the financial press.)

And there is but one entry on the list from the three sectors I had in mind (considering it's mammoth size it is in a pathetic position.) Why? Because they started hacking away at R&D enough years ago that they don't even register anymore. So, yes, my anecdote is supported by "hard facts." There are at least six foreign competitors listed above them in the sectors I was considering, despite this being a U.S. centric list.

The best indication is what has happened to our markets and companies over the past decade. Look up real GDP (and calculate it with a REAL inflation rate--not the fictional one used for the past decade that is not comparable to any previous eras), job growth, total market return, etc. This is where the rubber meets the road, and it isn't pretty.

 

I don't pretend to be a climatologist either. But when you look at land, satellite, and ocean temperature data and they are all flat to declining for the current decade, it is pretty easy to conclude that they are all flat to declining for the current decade.

Does this mean CO2 cannot affect temperature? Certainly not. But it does suggest CO2 is not the primary climate driver, otherwise temperatures would be rising in concert with CO2 as suggested by theory.

Not that difficult.

 

OK Shawn, whatever you say.

 

But we are on track for up to 1000 ppm CO2. How can that not lead to catastrophic warming? When was the last time Earth had that much in the atmosphere? It's been under 300 ppm most of the time!

There are already signs of warming all over the place. And warming is a slow, delayed process. The trend is clearly up.

But if AGW dissenters start to number more than the proponents then you have something. And they have to be real and well regarded climate scientists not some geology degreed oil workers.

 

It has not being documented. It has being noted in a few specific instances but it does not apply to the vast majority of temperature measurements including satellite. Satellite is where most of the HadCrut3 data comes from.

Going back to this decade: don't you see this increase in temperature since 2000? It is the difference between these two arrows:

 

Happer is a condensed-matter physicist interested in applications of spin-polarized nuclei. He's a smart guy but not a climatologist or an atmospheric physicist. One might as well rely on an ophthalmologist for opinions about oncology. You wouldn't make that mistake, would you, doc?

 

Or a politician such as... Al Gore or Carol Browner (our new AGW czar with high level socialist ties - but President elect Obama assures us it's not political...)???

To illustrate the absurdity of AGW, let's assume just for a moment there was a movement to stop perceived Anthropogenic Global Cooling, as is with perceived Anthropogenic Global Warming presently. It's not impossible since the earth has gone through many ice ages before. Let's assume nations, governments, celebrities, politicians and such believed in Anthropogenic Global Cooling much as the current AGW movement.

So, a move would be on to stop or at least slow Global Cooling much as is being done with AGW. After all, you can't feed the world with frozen wheat fields or move freighters through three feet of water (lower sea levels due to too much ice). Hmm, wonder how would that be accomplished? Provide incentives for new coal plants, discourage efficient automobiles, ban nuclear power, provide for new methods to release methane from Siberia, tax those who do NOT emit their share of CO2??

Rick
#4 2006

 

It is not the same. The global cooling scare was never a scientific consensus or recognized broadly as a problem by climatologists. There were a couple of papers that the media sensationalized. In fact, there are detected cooling effects by emitted particulates in the atmosphere. However, this effect is dwarfed by the warming effect of C02.

My advice to you would be the same as Tim's. Don't try at-home science-based policy. Enjoy the discussion and have your doubts but act on the consensus of the experts.

 

If there was AGC (this is dumb) then it would be because of something we were doing on a massive scale and it would hard to start changing that.

Eventually, we'd realize that their were numerous overall benefits to the economy in making the change, and we'd just get on with it.

 

Gore and other non-experts are spokespeople. No one should confuse them with experts, and no one should take their opinions as definitive. Their value is in pointing out that we should pay attention to the vast majority of expert opinion on the matter. Yes, yes, science is not a democracy and the experts have been wrong before, but when informed opinion solidifies after decades of work and shift it is significant. Would you take your auto mechanics's advice on stomach cancer because he also listens to Rush and voted for Bush? Would you choose to skip the Mayo Clinic and instead consult a guy in Tijuana because wheat grass juice and Laetrile are cheaper than chemotherapy?

A political hypothetical is not a scientific argument. Confusing the two is a common error of non-scientific ideologues.

 

You missed the point of the hypothetical I expressed. It was purely based on assumption. I was not referencing a global cooling scare or any other event, either past or present, nor was I suggesting any chemical, compound or such could induce the earth to cool at an accelerated rate. I merely pointed out the fact that no matter hard we humans try, either purposely or inadvertently, it is silly to assume our paltry daily activities can influence the overall long term climate of the planet earth.

Ah, yes, the experts... In every profession there are "experts". Those who know more and more about less and less. I suppose you leave your finances into the hands of "experts". All managed by those with advanced degrees and years of experience. Yes, true "experts". And as 2009 rings in the new year, these "experts" have a little explaining to do to their clients (nearly anyone who has a retirement account not in CD's) whose net worth has dropped substantially.

Your blind, sheep like mentality to believe with no question the so called experts is disconcerting to say the least.

May I point out there is quite a large consensus of "experts" who point out AGW simply does not exist. As so, I choose to question your consensus, not baa, baa...

Rick
#4 2006

 

Not the same. The experts are experts because they convince with evidence. Financial advisors are not scientists and I can tell the difference.

The contrarian problem is that they select "evidence" and "expertise" to reinforce their preconceptions.

 

Which points out how weak the AGW camp has become. All the AGW experts can't be all geeky, nerdy, pocket protector types incapable of becoming a spokesperson for AGW. Al Gore, a has been politician who rode to power only on his Daddy's coattails. But I will give him credit, AGW has been quite a bonanza for him, his family, and most importantly, the Democratic party.

With regards to Carol Browner, the appointment of her to the ridiculous new post of "AGW czar" has me puzzled. I doubt she could even tell the difference between a cold front and a warm front on a standard weather map. It's as if someone was appointed to head up the FCC that could not even draw out a basic block diagram of a simple electromagnetic receiver (err, that's a radio for all you home-based-science types). Hmm, Michael Powell comes to mind... but I digress...

Now comes Carol Browner, a socialist through and through. The best pick the crack Obama team could come up with for the AGW post. No need to worry, she'll employ "experts" to lead us through this crisis. Experts who are conservative or do not espouse the AGW theory need not apply (oh, OK, let's have one or two wacky tokens...). Thousands of "experts", and secretaries to support those "experts". That will require billions of dollars. That will recommend new and expanded taxes (Google searches, let's tax each one) and curbs on industry (those evil plasma flat screen TV's) to combat the evils of that dreaded CO2 gas. As the earth cools naturally (as is presently), her department will be recognized as a unparalleled success and we will all live happily (and little colder too) ever after.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Viking31
"You missed the point of the hypothetical I expressed. It was purely based on assumption. I was not referencing a global cooling scare or any other event, either past or present, nor was I suggesting any chemical, compound or such could induce the earth to cool at an accelerated rate. I merely pointed out the fact that no matter hard we humans try, either purposely or inadvertently, it is silly to assume our paltry daily activities can influence the overall long term climate of the planet earth."

Is your head so far buried that you really believe this? You honestly don't think that human impact on climate is impossible? Wow!!!

The shear volume of what we don't know about the earth dwarfs what we do know. What we do know is that we have for a couple of centuries been tossing in BILLIONS or TRILLIONS of tons of crap into the air, into the water. The earth does have some capacity to clean itself, but at some point, a point that we probably can't predict, the ability of the planet to clean itself is passed.

What we don't know (and don't respect generally) is the direct interrelationship between species. Who cares if the (insert your favorite plant or animal here) goes extinct? It doesn't matter to me! Unless of course, but killing off one specie in the chain you alter all the others. The world wide catch of fish from the worlds oceans has peaked, and many stocks may never recover. The simple fact is we don't know enough and we don't care enough to practice good conservation. Fisherman will fish 'till the last fish, loggers will cut to the last stump, oil drillers will drill to the last drop,,,"because that is what we do,,, what we do to feed our families" (a not insignificant reality!)

The fact is that human population has altered natural history for thousands of years. Alter water courses for irrigation for example changed the natural order of things, but allowed human populations to flourish. The shear number of humans on the planet, all competing for ever scarce resources only compounds lack of conservation issues. When it is a matter of feeding your family today the expense of tomorrow, I'll bet the bulk of us would chose today! (just for example, Pakistan has grown from ~16 million in ~1980 to ~75 million today,,,a growth ~1/4 the total population of the US, and that is JUST Pakistan)!

If you don't believe that we can alter the climate due to our "paltry daily activities" I urge you to look at China during an inversion, I urge you to look at air samples that have traveled across the Pacific and have been sample in the PNW showing concentrations of pollutants sourced from Asia. I urge you to look at the Gulf of Mexico where the collective runnoff of ~50% of the US is dumped into the gulf via the Mississippi River, and look at the dead zone that is GROWING every year. I urge you to look at the open ocean dead zones that are filled with microscopic bits of plastic, floating around in continent size "rafts" of flotsom, with little life whatsoever.

If you read, and look a little bit below the surface, and out side your own experience you might rethink your opinion! I hope so.

Icarus

 

The problems with the surface record are highly documented and include:
- urban heat island
- poorly sited stations
- poorly maintained stations
- urban encroachment on rural stations
- station moves
- and a huge loss in station count from the cold interior of the former Soviet Union, circa 1991

As for the increase shown by your arrows, that is the 1998 El Nino, not CO2 warming.