Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

GISS graph from GISS data which I am sure includes the usual adjustments and and omissions. yes, looks like the trendline points to the world ending at any moment fom the increase in heat. Or how about from the satellites:





Yes from that graph I would say it is prudent to spend 10's of trillions of dollars to save us from the warming earth, especially since 1998.

 

Mathematically, it is about cherrypicking the start and end points. It's no different than what RealClimate did, and I find it disturbing they would post the graph.

Indeed, if we accept RealClimate's graph, we must accept the other graphs that show 8 or 9 years of declining trend in temperature. It is not a "cooling decade", but it is on track to be.

 

I agree! Thank you.

 

Nope. There is a right and wrong way to do it. The denialists are doing it wrong in many ways. Not only are they cherrypicking the data but also in radiusprius1 cherrypickings the baseline is not adjusted. If you include all data the differences will mask trends.

Woodfortrees.org has some words about this:

Wood for Trees: Notes

 

I took the liberty of re-plotting the graph from RealClimate. (Well, my graph includes more data, because I don't think theirs has any of 2009s data in it.)

I hope this demonstrates the dangers of cherry picking data to prove a point. RealClimate wanted to show there was no 10 year cooling trend, which they did, so they plotted 10 and 25 year trends on GISTEMP data. I did the same thing. Notice the slopes achieved are (by visual inspection) the same as in your graph. The third trend line is cherrypicked to show an 8 year cooling trend.

If we accept RealClimate's graph that demonstrates a 10 and 25 year warming trend, then we must accept the graph that shows an 8 year cooling trend.

 

When is short too short? Even 10 years is too short to show anything when the argument is about multi-decadal warming. For multi-decadal it would have to be at least 30 years but ideally as much data as you can. This is exactly what the people of woodfortrees are warning us about.

 

Well, considering that the scientific literature says that anthropogenic warming only outpaced what can be expected by the sun alone 30-35 years ago, I do not believe that 8 years is too short.

What we must figure out is why have we experienced a "pause" in warming for aroundt 8 years. This pause does not mean that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring, it just means that something else is causing the pause in warming. Perhaps it is the (relatively recent) decline in solar activity? Who knows.

 

Whatever it is, it is not unexpected from the data and it is not an argument to say "there is no warming because there is cooling".

 

Well at least he is being honest about one thing, admitting he is a troll.

 

Err? That's a little bit rude.

 

It's pretty simple folks, and for folks that are not scientifically bent.

~97% of Climate scientists agree that global warming is real, is in some measure human caused, and it's consequences are also real. Who do you choose to believe? ~97% of trained scientists who have been conducting studies that in some cases go back decades, and no matter how you cut it have little to gain by the results compared to industry/multinationals?

Add to the fact that even one differs on the subject, why wouldn't anyone support efforts to reduce CO2 when the consequences are potentially dire AND it has been demonstrated by history that the capital cost of EVERY environmental regulation has be less than the benefit derived. Industry has nearly always claimed that any given regulation would put them out of business, but the reality is that the costs are always way less then industry first claims. Take Catalytic converters for example. The auto industry said it would bankrupt thme for "little gain". But by any measure the air is clearer, and the cost has been minimal. The benefits gained by public health while not as easily quantifiable, are certainly real.

So, as I have suggested many times before, please give me good reasons why we should not be doing what we can to curb greenhouse gases. That is unless you don't want to pay for it.

On a second note to Nevada Prius.

In one of your earlier posts you said that you were "a great supporter of global warming" I took that to mean that you understood that it was real and it was significant. If this is indeed the case, I would suggest that to give any credence to the deniers (who shall remain nameless) only fuels the misinformation campaign. You are certainly within your rights to argue you position, but please understand some context on this forum. There are a few people who make it a seemingly full time job clouding the waters. If you read through the bulk of their posts, it becomes clear that their agenda is based on a political ideology, and this ideology has tainted their discussion.

 

Hey, Nevada, if you continue this you will find that only the AGWers are allowed to determine the length of graphs.

A decade is too short. Anything that shows the Medieval Warm Period is too long. If you insist on going back before oh, say the year 900, then the only graphs you are allowed to use are those created (literally) by members of the Hockey Team.

You'll find they never admit that they said what they said after you skewer one of their points. If you score a goal, they'll move the goalpost. If you succeed again, they'll try to change the game - Oh, I'm not concerned about CO2, what really matters is aerosols. Oh, I think what really matters is this article in Time, Washington Post, etc...blah blah blah... amd so it goes.

Welcome to this little Orwellian corner of the site. I find it endlessly amusing. If I ever have a doubt about how completely out of touch people can make themselves, I come here - never have to wait long for real proof. In this case there IS proof of intellectual pathology - one doesn't need to falsify any data. The painful truth is here for any credible observer to determine for himself.

 

What does 97% have to do with it? If one scientist has a hypothesis which can be proven over and over again using real facts and data does it matter what every other scientist thinks?

 

I agree with you, mostly. Except I think that it is important for both sides to be as straightforward and honest as possible. I don't think it's good for denialists to spread misinformation, and I don't think it's good for AGWers to spread misinformation either.

That is why I agree that you should be called you out on your statement:

It is completely false. It is misinformation to say that global warming is based on the things you claimed. It doesn't matter how many climate scientists agree that global warming is a serious issue that we need to deal with (I agree with them.) Their thoughts on global warming in no way make your false statement true.

Let's be honest: Global warming is *not* based on reproducible scientific experiments. The vast majority of their experiments do *not* lead to conclusive proof.

That does not mean that anthropogenic warming is not occurring. We do observe warming, and our best computer models say that it is occurring more rapidly than should be expected by the sun alone. But it is not conclusive proof. They are computer models programmed by humans and are thus fallible. And, in light of the recent data manipulation discoveries, we can not forget the idea of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIGO"]GIGO.[/ame]


But, even with the data manipulations, it does not mean that global warming is disproven, or that it is not occurring. Obviously we are experiencing warming, and we understand the chemical properties of CO2 that cause it to function as a greenhouse gas. Is it a possibility that our computer models are overestimating the warming attributed to GHGs vs solar activity? Yes. Does that means we should not take steps to curb CO2 emissions? No.

Just keeping it real.

 

"... it has been demonstrated by history that the capital cost of EVERY environmental regulation has be (sic) less than the benefit derived..."

Here we go again off the topic of science and AGW. But since you have done it ~

You make statements like the above all the time without bothering to think them through, apparently.

Environmental programs are like most everything else. There are good ones and terrible ones. Let's examine only one example.

Please demonstrate how you include the environmental regulation that banned DDT with those that benefitted mankind far beyond the 'capital cost'. Surely it is included in your assertion of 'EVERY' regulation. Or is the definition of 'EVERY' soon to be changed?

A scientific inquiry into the deleterious effects of DDT found NONE. Did this matter? No. Rachael Carson wrote a book that laid the blame of thinning pelican eggs at the DDT footstep. An official at EPA, ignoring the scientific evidence - no doubt he had read the book - banned DDT on his own authority! One busybody! In 1972!
DDT Ban Takes Effect | EPA History | US EPA

While we in the USA had eradicated malaria through the use of DDT, the disease continues to ravage other areas of the world. Due to the misplaced zeal of 'environmentalists', DDT was not allowed to be used in third world countries unable to produce it on their own.

The great benefit of this regulation that far outweighed its cost? Only a few TENS OF MILLIONS of human lives. But that's O. K. because there are too many humans already, right?

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp

...Now, () years later, it is vividly apparent that DDT was not hazardous to human health and that the banning of its domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States — and less availability of DDT for the developing world. The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives needlessly lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since there was hope of eradicating the disease altogether when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized....

So, another wild, unsubstantiated claim goes down in flames. The unintended consequences of DOING SOMETHING to mitigate a non-existent problem has plenty of precedence, yet some wish to blindly follow the same path again and again and again.

 

Quickly, while we're on the subject:

...First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.,,

Michael Crichton

MichaelCrichton.com | Environmentalism as Religion

 

Now, back to the science:

Here is an overview of the present state of climate science as it pertains to AGW. It is written by a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, so he most probably knows more than you do.

Fact-based climate debate / LJWorld.com

Read it all, but here is a taste:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

Just another delusional 'denier', I guess, overwhelmed by his political bias, no doubt. Wonder who is paying him to say these horrible lies?

 

And this is where some people will attack the messenger, Michael Crichton, instead of the message.

I agree with with Chrichton's message in that passage, and unfortunately we don't have some a team researching climate. We shouldn't be screwing around with data, we should be collecting all the data we have an examining it as a whole. If this science is being funded by the people then why can't we look into it?

Global warming is a unique problem that we face, and there isn't room to ignore it, and there isn't room to overreact to it.

 

You mean besides the whole field of climatology? The data is publicly available and can be examined by anyone. Where do you think those woodfortrees graphs come from?

The problem is that is not just a matter of raw data. Without expertise and interpretation you get, well...you get the denialism in this thread.

 

Exactly.