Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought global warming and other aspects of climate change were about long-term trends in the annual averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg
That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or for "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?
Actually, a trend of any type only has meaning if the data is accurate. Since the climatologists have artificially inflated the data to meet their needs, the results you see have no meaning. I find it very interesting that reports of warming in the media occur all the time, yet the cooling trend in the US was for the most part not reported. This is a political crisis, not a climate one.
As usual, you are totally full of shit.
What you are stating is that the ESA, NASA, NOAA, and all the nations that have weather monitoring stations are in on a conspiracy to lie about the weather
Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...
1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).
Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...
1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).
But even setting aside the fact that we have been keeping records for a very short time in the grand scheme of things, and even suggesting that urbanization of many of the areas where weather monitoring equipment is located has not made a significant difference, there still remains the opinion of many credible scientists that weather anomalies occur, reoccur, are not unusual etc. and that human activity has had negligible effect on what would happen anyway.
Humans can and do affect their immediate environment in positive ways and negative ways, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that humans have had much, if any, effect on overall global climate.
Rather than give in to political plots to take more and more control of the world's population and move us closer to a one-world government that may or may not value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not keep studying global climate trends toward an end of learning the truth, not what will enrich certain opportunistic small groups? And what will not empower people who may or may not have our best interests at heart?
And why not focus our attention on how to better help populations prepare for and adapt to inevitable climate change and utilize it to their best advantage?
Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?
1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).
But even setting aside the fact that we have been keeping records for a very short time in the grand scheme of things, and even suggesting that urbanization of many of the areas where weather monitoring equipment is located has not made a significant difference, there still remains the opinion of many credible scientists that weather anomalies occur, reoccur, are not unusual etc. and that human activity has had negligible effect on what would happen anyway.
Humans can and do affect their immediate environment in positive ways and negative ways, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that humans have had much, if any, effect on overall global climate.
Rather than give in to political plots to take more and more control of the world's population and move us closer to a one-world government that may or may not value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not keep studying global climate trends toward an end of learning the truth, not what will enrich certain opportunistic small groups? And what will not empower people who may or may not have our best interests at heart?
And why not focus our attention on how to better help populations prepare for and adapt to inevitable climate change and utilize it to their best advantage?
First, we are going to have to deal with some pretty rapid and extreme changes in weather. We do need to plan to adapt to that.
Second, we do know that the GHGs that we have created are the basis of the present rapidly rising temperatures. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics outlining the knowledge we have developed concerning GHGs from Fourier in the 1820s to the present;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Third, what makes you think that we are not intensively studying the climate at present? If you go to this site, you can get the lectures from the American Geophysical Union that tell you of many of the finding from that communty of scientists.
2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures
But even setting aside the fact that we have been keeping records for a very short time in the grand scheme of things, and even suggesting that urbanization of many of the areas where weather monitoring equipment is located has not made a significant difference, there still remains the opinion of many credible scientists that weather anomalies occur, reoccur, are not unusual etc. and that human activity has had negligible effect on what would happen anyway.
Humans can and do affect their immediate environment in positive ways and negative ways, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that humans have had much, if any, effect on overall global climate.
Rather than give in to political plots to take more and more control of the world's population and move us closer to a one-world government that may or may not value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not keep studying global climate trends toward an end of learning the truth, not what will enrich certain opportunistic small groups? And what will not empower people who may or may not have our best interests at heart?
And why not focus our attention on how to better help populations prepare for and adapt to inevitable climate change and utilize it to their best advantage?
First, we are going to have to deal with some pretty rapid and extreme changes in weather. We do need to plan to adapt to that.
Second, we do know that the GHGs that we have created are the basis of the present rapidly rising temperatures. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics outlining the knowledge we have developed concerning GHGs from Fourier in the 1820s to the present;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Third, what makes you think that we are not intensively studying the climate at present? If you go to this site, you can get the lectures from the American Geophysical Union that tell you of many of the finding from that communty of scientists.
2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures
And yet you can not explain how as CO2 continued to rise from 1998 to present temperatures did not. Nor can you explain why historically CO2 does not precede temperature increases.
Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?
1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).
But even setting aside the fact that we have been keeping records for a very short time in the grand scheme of things, and even suggesting that urbanization of many of the areas where weather monitoring equipment is located has not made a significant difference, there still remains the opinion of many credible scientists that weather anomalies occur, reoccur, are not unusual etc. and that human activity has had negligible effect on what would happen anyway.
Humans can and do affect their immediate environment in positive ways and negative ways, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that humans have had much, if any, effect on overall global climate.
Rather than give in to political plots to take more and more control of the world's population and move us closer to a one-world government that may or may not value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not keep studying global climate trends toward an end of learning the truth, not what will enrich certain opportunistic small groups? And what will not empower people who may or may not have our best interests at heart?
And why not focus our attention on how to better help populations prepare for and adapt to inevitable climate change and utilize it to their best advantage?
First, we are going to have to deal with some pretty rapid and extreme changes in weather. We do need to plan to adapt to that.
Second, we do know that the GHGs that we have created are the basis of the present rapidly rising temperatures. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics outlining the knowledge we have developed concerning GHGs from Fourier in the 1820s to the present;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Third, what makes you think that we are not intensively studying the climate at present? If you go to this site, you can get the lectures from the American Geophysical Union that tell you of many of the finding from that communty of scientists.
2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures
Are you kidding? A review of what?
Are you saying that the data from all the nations have been faked? Most of it is already on sources open to the public.
Do you honestly think it is not getting warmer?
Independent study? We have studies by climatologists worldwide. We have studies and observations by geophycists and geologists worldwide. We have satellite observations from the ESA, NASA, Russia, China and Japan. You are claiming all of these people are in a conspiracy?
And what of the evidence that is straight observational? Such as almost all of the alpine glaciers in recession. The icecaps both in Greenland and Antarctica melting at the rate of giga-tons a year? The ocean rise level right at the upper boundry of the IPCC predictions. The reduction of the North Polar Ice right off of the chart in it's decline.
And yet you can not explain how as CO2 continued to rise from 1998 to present temperatures did not. Nor can you explain why historically CO2 does not precede temperature increases.
Sinatra seems to agree with you on this. But again, 1998 was an exceptionally warm year (according to CRU) that combined the anthropogenic influence with the strongest el niño of the century. So how is it legit to pick that as a starting point when we're supposed to be talking about climatic averages? It's like me picking the coldest la niña-biased year on record to assert incredibly rapid warming.
A problem I see here is that people confuse the overall energy balance of Earth (insolation vs. outgoing radiation) with internal variability (the amount of heat the oceans absorb and distribute can vary, especially on annual to decadal timescales). Clearly temperatures can fluctuate despite the overall trend (just as the stock market can rise and fall in the short-term, yet has had a long-term uptrend). But the anomaly is still there (consistent with CO2 forcing, not any significant natural forcing), and we don't need a multi-century record to see that.
As for "why historically CO2 does not precede temperature increases", that depends on what you mean by historically, doesn't it? What you say is true of CO2 concentration recoveries at the end of glacial periods, when Milankovitch forcing is the trigger and CO2 is an amplifier. But how does that mean CO2 can't be a forcing? If something has a radiative effect and can accumulate in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, then it can't help but be a climatic influence, as suggested at skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
Sinatra seems to agree with you on this. But again, 1998 was an exceptionally warm year (according to CRU) that combined the anthropogenic influence with the strongest el niño of the century. So how is it legit to pick that as a starting point when we're supposed to be talking about climatic averages? It's like me picking the coldest la niña-biased year on record to assert incredibly rapid warming.
____
Ah, but that is EXACTLY what is done so often with these flat-earth global warmer graphics.
The late 1800s saw the earth just starting to come out of a "Mini Ice Age"
The late 1970s again saw the earth coming out of a colder period.
And yet, BOTH those time periods are utilized by the flat earth warmers as starting points to show "warming".
Warming and cooling has taken place in general cycles of 30-40 years for over the last century.
Much of the non-satellite world temp data are estimates - see the BS Steig study on the Antarctica areas that was proven to be incorrectly guestimated to show a cooling trend. Such guestimating is rampant, and was proven to be acceptable via the climategate emails.
The earth is warming. The earth is cooling.
Humankind has very little to do with either.
We can impact the environment.
We cannot significantly impact climate.
Is it? Did you see the graph I posted before? That's a trend based on a multi-decadal baseline average. I'd love to see any official graphic that uses a single cold year (or even several) as a baseline.Sinatra seems to agree with you on this. But again, 1998 was an exceptionally warm year (according to CRU) that combined the anthropogenic influence with the strongest el niño of the century. So how is it legit to pick that as a starting point when we're supposed to be talking about climatic averages? It's like me picking the coldest la niña-biased year on record to assert incredibly rapid warming.
____
Ah, but that is EXACTLY what is done so often with these flat-earth global warmer graphics.
I've yet to see any study successfully assert that the LIA was a globally-synchronous event with a large impact on the global averages. There were some strong regional effects, yes, and along with those some anecdotal half-truths about the Thames in England etc. It is interesting, though, how some people diss the surface temperature and proxy records, but then try to use them for highlighting cool periods.The late 1800s saw the earth just starting to come out of a "Mini Ice Age"
Well, you can keep telling yourself that, but there's plenty of out-of-context nonsense out there regarding temperature records and the "climategate" emails. And despite it all, nobody has successfully presented evidence in the scientific literature of a natural cycle, or that the observed trends (also supported by physical changes in the environment) don't exist. And the 1970's were moderately cool on a global scale, with the help of high sulfate loads, but where is that used scientifically as a basis for claiming a warming trend? Even satellite records seem to begin after that cool period.The late 1970s again saw the earth coming out of a colder period.
And yet, BOTH those time periods are utilized by the flat earth warmers as starting points to show "warming".
Warming and cooling has taken place in general cycles of 30-40 years for over the last century.
Much of the non-satellite world temp data are estimates - see the BS Steig study on the Antarctica areas that was proven to be incorrectly guestimated to show a cooling trend. Such guestimating is rampant, and was proven to be acceptable via the climategate emails.
The earth is warming. The earth is cooling.
Humankind has very little to do with either.
We can impact the environment.
We cannot significantly impact climate.
Is it? Did you see the graph I posted before? That's a trend based on a multi-decadal baseline average. I'd love to see any official graphic that uses a single cold year (or even several) as a baseline.Sinatra seems to agree with you on this. But again, 1998 was an exceptionally warm year (according to CRU) that combined the anthropogenic influence with the strongest el niño of the century. So how is it legit to pick that as a starting point when we're supposed to be talking about climatic averages? It's like me picking the coldest la niña-biased year on record to assert incredibly rapid warming.
____
Ah, but that is EXACTLY what is done so often with these flat-earth global warmer graphics.
I've yet to see any study successfully assert that the LIA was a globally-synchronous event with a large impact on the global averages. There were some strong regional effects, yes, and along with those came some anecdotal half-truths about the Thames in England etc. It is interesting, though, how some people diss the surface temperature and proxy records, but then try to use them for highlighting cool periods.The late 1800s saw the earth just starting to come out of a "Mini Ice Age"
Well, you can keep telling yourself that, but there's plenty of out-of-context nonsense out there regarding temperature records and the "climategate" emails. And despite it all, nobody has successfully presented evidence in the scientific literature of a natural cycle, or that the observed trends (also supported by physical changes in the environment) don't exist. And the 1970's were moderately cool on a global scale, with the help of high sulfate loads, but where is that used scientifically as a basis for claiming a warming trend? Even satellite records seem to begin after that cool period.[/QUOTE]The late 1970s again saw the earth coming out of a colder period.
And yet, BOTH those time periods are utilized by the flat earth warmers as starting points to show "warming".
Warming and cooling has taken place in general cycles of 30-40 years for over the last century.
Much of the non-satellite world temp data are estimates - see the BS Steig study on the Antarctica areas that was proven to be incorrectly guestimated to show a cooling trend. Such guestimating is rampant, and was proven to be acceptable via the climategate emails.
The earth is warming. The earth is cooling.
Humankind has very little to do with either.
We can impact the environment.
We cannot significantly impact climate.
See: Ice Age
As for the satellite data, is BEGINS, when we were coming out of a cooling period - thus we SHOULD BE warming as part of a natural warming and cooling cycle.
Please show me the scientific consensus study regarding what earth's optimal temperature is.
Thank you!
See: Ice Age
As for the satellite data, is BEGINS, when we were coming out of a cooling period - thus we SHOULD BE warming as part of a natural warming and cooling cycle.
Please show me the scientific consensus study regarding what earth's optimal temperature is.
Thank you!
I agree Foxfyre. Unfortunately, the global warmers will not even consider a review. Getting them to an open study by independent sources would be a real reach. My conclusion is, this whole subject cannot be about climate.
You know what I'm talking about: A natural cycle that can account for the trend of recent decades. Glacial cycles begin and end with subtle changes in Northern hemisphere insolation over thousands of years.See: Ice Age
Actually, I think it begins in a year that had a slightly positive global-scale anomaly. Even if it included all of the 1970's (as the surface records do), that would have modest effect on a multi-decadal baseline.As for the satellite data, is BEGINS, when we were coming out of a cooling period - thus we SHOULD BE warming as part of a natural warming and cooling cycle.
That might depend on your perspective. Earth's prehistoric hot periods were certainly fine for big lizards and some tiny mammals. But the issue is more about rate of change than optimal temperature. Today's ecology and populous civilizations have arisen during a relatively stable and mild interglacial period. A couple degrees in a century (global average) may not be a widespread disaster, and may even have some regional benefit. We seem to be plotting a course for much more than that. Atmospheric temperatures will keep rising on average for decades after fossil CO2 emissions are cut, just from thermal inertia. That's even assuming we don't reach the point of inducing strong long-term feedback.Please show me the scientific consensus study regarding what earth's optimal temperature is.
Thank you!
No, the Earth is warming then leveling off not cooling, and then warming again.The late 1970s again saw the earth coming out of a colder period.
And yet, BOTH those time periods are utilized by the flat earth warmers as starting points to show "warming".
Warming and cooling has taken place in general cycles of 30-40 years for over the last century.
Much of the non-satellite world temp data are estimates - see the BS Steig study on the Antarctica areas that was proven to be incorrectly guestimated to show a cooling trend. Such guestimating is rampant, and was proven to be acceptable via the climategate emails.
The earth is warming. The earth is cooling.
See- you make huge assumptions based upon near-complete projection.
Those are the shifting sands upon which the flat-earth man-made global warming industry is based upon.
So now that we have cleared up you highly speculative perspective on the subject (which failed to answer the question as to what earth's optimal temperature is)
now proceed to tell us how a Carbon Credit program will actually reduce CO2 emissions?
Thank you!!!
____See- you make huge assumptions based upon near-complete projection.
Those are the shifting sands upon which the flat-earth man-made global warming industry is based upon.
So now that we have cleared up you highly speculative perspective on the subject (which failed to answer the question as to what earth's optimal temperature is)
now proceed to tell us how a Carbon Credit program will actually reduce CO2 emissions?
Thank you!!!
Sorry I didn't provide the simple answer you were looking for, but it's a straw man argument. Most of the discourse at this point isn't about an "optimal temperature" (although it still seems that the optimal range is the one that civilization has prospered in). The primary consideration now is the effect of accelerated change on things like perennial watersheds, established patterns of agriculture, severe weather, rates of ice sheet decay, and the ecosystems that benefit hundreds of millions of people.
As for cap & trade/cap & dividend, I doubt any system would be perfect. But the idea is to set a declining cap on emissions (as was done with sulfur dioxide) and phase fossil carbon prices upward (reflecting by-product mitigation costs), while incentivizing efficiency and alternative energy. That would mean no longer using the atmosphere as a free carbon sewer, and applying revenues to implementing improved technologies (several of which will save money). It's not like it would be cold-turkey.
