Global Air Temps

Wouldn't it be a lovely world if all the arguments could be settled with scientific papers. Unfortunately, that's not the world in which we live. There are plenty of papers to support either side.

We are expected to accept the"consensus" or be dismissed as a "denier." But science is not decided by voting for what you think is true; it's done by weighing evidence. I'm not seeing any good evidence, like sea-level rise or changes in species of food crops. Until I see convincing evidence (not assertions based on other assertions) I have a right to reserve judgment.

 

If you choose to close your eyes to the evidence that is your right.
However that moves you from the skeptics into the deniers.

 

It's starting already. The focus has shifted from the subject at hand to name-calling again.

So much for a "respectable forum."

 

Sorry if you took offense, it was not intended.
Claiming there is no evidence to see when there is though.... Well I can only see coming to that conclusion one of two ways.
One, closing your eyes or refusing to look at it.
Two, seeing it and claiming it doesn't exist even though you see it.

The idea of our atmosphere affecting our climate has been around for over 150 years.
The affect CO2 and other GHGs are easily measured although their influence overlaps with each other so the exact sensitivity of the climate isn't known, we still have a very good estimate.
We have measured CO2 increases in the atmosphere and can determine it is from burning fossil fuels.
We also know the orbital mechanics that send us into cooler and warmer phases are currently working to cool the planet. Yet each of the last three decades have been the warmest in the measured history.
We consistently get more record highs than lows worldwide each year. Nights are warming more than days, and high latitudes are warming more than the equator. All consistent with GW.

There is a ton of additional evidence even without ever looking at computer models.
I just don't see how someone can say there is no evidence.

 

Wow. I had to read the summaries a couple of times to see if what I was reading was not the April Fool's editions. Tochatihu must have had to grit his teeth on seeing those. Both those "findings" overlooked the minor issue of explaining where all the combustion of every car and power plant's exhaust goes to. According to these articles, there are no significant combustion contributions to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, it's all do to ocean outgassing. Maybe they made all their observation on Lake Nyos.

 

Talking about 'air temperature' . . . gosh it is cold outside (26F/-3C) . . . again. Friday morning's weather report pointed out parts of Alaska are warmer than parts of Montana. But this feeds my favorite global metric, Arctic sea ice.

Unusual cold in the lower 48 often means weaker, winter sea ice freezing and sooner opening of the NorthEast and NorthWest passage. This in turn leads to Northern hemisphere, land-based, ice melting further increasing sea levels. But if someone sticks their nose outside in NYC and says,"It is too cold for global warming" it simply means they are not in Alaska and don't realize the world is larger than their neighborhood.

Bob Wilson

 

There's no hope for rational discourse here. I've tried it a few times, and it gets personal really fast. Apparently if you disagree with certain opinions, you are mentally defective in some way.

Enough
Bye

 

Mentally defective??
No one made that claim Greg.

I LOVE rational discussion based on facts.

If you promise to keep to facts and use references for data I think I can speak for everyone on the pro side the same.

So, I'll start.

Do you agree that certain gases in the atmosphere (including, but not limited to, H2O, CO2, CH4) absorb long wavelengths (light) and re radiate that as heat, thus warming the planet and allowing life to exist on this planet?

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(I'm starting here just to find out where the points of disagreement start).

 

Well let's see:

SEA-LEVEL RISE

Source: CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

CHANGES IN SPECIES

Source: University of Michigan Research





CROPS

Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/wwetac/projects/PDFs/BioScience_CC_and_Bark_Beetles.pdf

The problem shows up with pests and weeds, the enemies of our crops. Even Canada has reported the problem:

Source: Mountain pine beetle | Natural Resources Canada



If Greg wants to understand the facts and data, observations and modeling, this is a good place to start. If not, it still remains a good place to start. I know I've learned and that is an important part of an interesting and happy life.

Bob Wilson

 

Doug points out that even trollish posters serve a useful function. They keep empiricists from falling into lazy habits of personifying Muther Nature who hates it.

Bob Wilson

 

You provide pretty lame evidence IMO.If you want to prove global warming is caused by CO2.
You fail.
The Earth has warmed from 1850 to 1998 .Not from CO2 though.
There was no rise in CO2 in 1850.The rise in temp was natural.
Deer mice moved north .Big deal, its warmer than 1850 .Not from CO2 though.
Sea level rise has not accelerated.
This is telling because if warming has gone into the oceans ,then levels would accelerate in response.
Big fail.

 

There's also some uncertainty in the surface instrument records, mostly involving siting of the observation systems.

For example, many if not most of the official recording sites have been moved to airports since weather is very critical to flying. This trend didn't start until the 1930s (there were no airports in 1880). These sites in some instances have been moved many miles from their original siting. An official site can still be moved anywhere within a 5 mile radius and still be considered the same site.

This source of uncertainty is addressed some in the 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment Report...


"…A potential uncertainty is the sensitivity of temperature trends to adjustments that account for historical changes in station location, temperature instrumentation, observing practice, and siting conditions…" [Page 62]

 

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000 | Real Science

 

CO2 causing global warming has been thoroughly debunked. Data clearly shows that CO2 levels increased after global warming periods throughout the past. It makes perfect sense, that as temperatures increase, metabolic processes that release CO2 also increase.

Rise in temperatures and CO2 follow each other closely in climate change – University of Copenhagen

Debating tip: The first clue that the discussion is more political than scientific, is when the more convincingly you make an argument, the more vehemently it will be opposed.

 

I have no graphs / papers etc to back this up ...but I can put my hand on my heart and state that it's generally wet & cold(ish) here in Ireland and we really don't see a great difference between any of the so-called seasons.

I'd love to live somewhere warmer and sunnier, maybe like the Costa del Sol in the South of Spain!

I love a bit of sneachta (or snow if not in Irish!), but never get enough of it

 

In the past this is true by indirect measurements.
This time, the CO2 levels are rising much faster than temperatures.

So with a spike in CO2 levels yet fairly small temperature gain (so far) something different seems to be happening.

If what you put forth is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, why is CO2 increasing without a previous temperature gain?

 

mojo you know that is a bait and switch graph right?

The earth does not heat and cool equally, and ghg theory does not change that, it enforces that. Some places cool as others warm.

The topic is global ghg warming and how that affects surface air temperatures. Cooling during a decade in the US does not mean globally temperatures have cooled.