Man Based Global Warming....

You mean "evidence" like climate models that predict catastrophic warming? Sounds strangely similar to those fantastic financial models built by the best brains Wall Street could buy.

Forgive me while I hurl.

 

No. This:

 

Did global CO2 levels steadily decrease from 1000 AD to 1800 AD along with the global temperatures?

 

Why does that matter? Temperature is the result of many factors. That is the point. By all accounts temperature should be decreasing but is not, and it rises along CO2 levels.

 

Just a question?

If we tilt less during our seasonal spin, wouldn't this allow warming too? Less area being cooled. Same for cooling / more of a tilt, more cooling?

 

*slaps forehead* Of course! Those poor dumb climatologists, why didn't they think of this? Quick, go to RealClimate and explain these errors to them.

 

From wikipedia again:

I will never blindly believe something just because some expert tells me it is true. But if the vast majority of climatologists who publish peer-reviewed journals, generally agree that decades worth of scholarly data supports a hypothesis then I will accept that hypothesis as probably true.

So then I say, if AGW is probably true, then what could happen from that? So then we learn: sea levels could rise, massive extinctions could occur, it might become hard to growth enough food, there may be spreading tropical diseases, 100+ million refugees, possibly more war/conflict... well that sounds bad, doesn't it?

Ok so thats when any reasonable person says, while there are no certainties in this world beyond death and taxes, it would be very prudent that we move away from fossil fuels and use solar, wind, nuclear, conservation and biochar instead.

Oh, and then we learn that, removing carbon from the economy has many extra benefits: - it can create more wealth/jobs, while improving air quality, possibly lessening "the need" to go to war (again) for oil or water, and it might even prevent terrorism/weaken dictators.

Overall it sounds like something worth pursuing (DUH!)

But without the scientific method at work behind the scenes, then the "expertise" that started it all really counts for nothing.

Also, amateurs cherry-picking data that supports their preconceived beliefs is not science and is next to worthless.

Fortunately, while I can't interpret the data directly - I don't have the skills, knowledge or training - I have faith that the scientific method can discover the truth over time.

And of course there are dissenters. With trillions of dollars of fossil fuels in the ground, there are going to be powerful vested interests arguing against the AGW hypothesis.

And then there are people that just have to disagree because they get off on it.

 

Uh - let's correct that. In the past temperature record, temperature rise leads CO2 rise, not the other way around.

 

Of course they know about this. Wasn't apparent that you did though. This likely explains why surface temp increases usually exceed satellite measures.

 

Yes, no one can argue that pollution from man in vast quantities from reckless industries and the public is detrimental to the health of humans and the earth in general. But everything you mention only affects the well being of the air, water, and soil of the earth (which BTW has improved significantly in the last decades, esp in North America). It has not affected the long term climate of the earth whatsoever especially with regards to CO2 as to what this thread is all about.

You also mention that loggers, fisherman, and oil companies practice their industries in a cavalier and reckless manner. Typical shrill eco "whatever" drivel about the evils of any company that employs over two people (weren't you the guy hinging the very survival of the planet as we know it on the well being of the polar bear in a previous post??)

All the above industries and more are highly regulated and know such regulation is necessary for their survival. Although such regulations can be burdensome at times all these industries know preservation and renewal is the key to their survival. If not, many of these industries would have gone by the way of the buggy whip. Forests are grown and renewed much like food crops. Fisherman abide by strict limits and seasons. Oil companies are constantly using new technology to extract oil and oil that is extracted from wells is removed at a regulated rate to ensure maximum and long term production.

The United States is the world leader in conservation and pollution control for nearly all industries. I can't speak for other countries but I suggest if you have a problem with them you fly over to the country in question and speak your mind to a high level governmental official. But don't bother buying a return ticket though. I'm sure they will reserve for you extended (somewhat spartan) accommodations. Or maybe we could bomb them into submission to save the planet...

Got a solution to the world's problems? Then give me a realistic, workable solution, not some "we're all going to perish if something, anything is not done"... whatever that something or anything is...

Rick
#4 2006

 

Quite probably. This is the thinking behind the Milankovic Cycles, which can explain much ancient climate variation as caused by periodic changes in Earth's orbital parameters. The scary thing about the current warming is that it is occurring even though the underlying Milankovic forcing would by itself be moving us toward another ice age. Evidently that natural trend is being overwhelmed by our added CO2.

 

In the past you mean like thousands of years ago when warming occurred for other reasons. None of the reasons for temperature to rise (Milankovic Cycles) are currently at play, except increased C02.

Here is the longer explanation with references.

RealClimate

 

PS - most climatologists will warn you about slapping the observed temperature record on a proxy record like this. Not to mention the problems with tree ring proxies, Mann's analysis, and the insular / self-reinforcing group of scientists who cobbled together many of the seemingly "independent" proxy records.

So your "evidence" is not reliable and even if it was, does nothing to scientifically demonstrate that CO2 is causal in any 20th Century temperature increases.

 

And with the new creation of a US AGW czar, I'd be willing to bet there will be a few more dollars (yours to be specific) to go around arguing for AGW, or else the AGW czar is out of a job, pure and simple! And trust me, people, especially governmental officials, never purposely out themselves of their job. BTW, I'd love to see the amount budgeted on the AGW czars budget for salt, snow removal, and building heat for their new building. It should decrease each year... or increase if they are doing their job...

Uh, you or me?? Two sides with that coin. Who is disagreeing with who??

Rick
#4 2006

 

You should really read up a bit more before making a statement like that.

In reality, there are many causes of climate variation that we do not understand and indeed, have not likely even documented. PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) for instance was only documented as phenomena 12 years ago and even now, we don't fully understand what drives it.

So to say that "none of the reasons for (past) temperature rise are currently at play" so it must be CO2 - is probably the most ill-informed comment I have seen yet on this thread.

 

Please document your source.

 

Funny. Since we started our discussion you have not provided a single valid reference for any of your statements.

 

Huh? I referenced the MSU/RSS satellite data, research indicating problems with U.S. land temperature records, and more.

And here is a link documenting CO2 lags temperature as I mentioned on this page.

So again, why don't you let us know where it is referenced that "none of the reasons for (past) temperature rise are currently at play" so it must be CO2?

 

The problem is, as usual with contrarians, your references don't back up what you say.

The reference you offer now shows that global temperature increases has resulted in CO2 level increases. However, the opposite is also true. CO2 level increase would also cause global temperature increase. This is a physical reality just like metals are conductors and salt is salty.

Also consider the phenomenon described in that paper occurred over thousands of years. What we are observing now is on the timescale of decades.

To quickly touch on the urban island effect none of your references call into question the validity of global temperature changes. Some urban island effect has been observed in some probes but this does not affect the result of thousands of probes combined or satellite measurements that are completely unaffected by urban island effects.

Milankovitch cycles are highly predictable because they are based on solar system planet orbits. The prediction based on this modeling is that "the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years".

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/207/4434/943

In a previous post you off-handedly said that a temperature increase of the current decade you had missed was actually due to an el Niño effect. What is your reference for that?

 

Alric - let's get more to the point.

You flagged the 1998 temperature increase and claimed it was caused by CO2. What is your source?

And again, for the third time, please source: "none of the reasons for (past) temperature rise are currently at play" so it must be CO2.