Al Bore Blather

[barfo]

"We need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. . . . Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

-- Stephen Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist who headed one of the leading climate modeling teams in the United States, Discover Magazine October 1989, page 47

I don't know if one quote from 1989 indicts the entire scientific community evermore.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The science behind global warming (greenhouse gases that trap heat) is straightforward chemistry. The data detailing the global rising temperatures over the past century is straightforward also.

This is patently false.

The only argument that generally comes up is that if you look over many thousands of years, you see a cycling. Yes, that's true, but a bit irrelevant. If we cause temperatures to rise to deadly levels, I'm sure the Earth will cycle back down someday. But a few thousand years of temperatures too high to sustain human life hurts, even if temperatures come down again after that.

Patently false, too.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Two Sides to Global Warming

Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?

Ronald Bailey | November 10, 2004


During more than 15 years of reporting on climate change science and policy, I have watched climatology become increasingly politicized. Most headlines and publicized scientific reports confirm that humanity is heating up the planet by burning fossil fuels that load the atmosphere with heat-trapping carbon dioxide.

Take just two reports from the last week. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report from the Arctic Council found that Arctic warming is increasing twice as fast as elsewhere on the planet. This finding corresponds nicely with predictions made by various computer climate models that forecast that the poles should be warming faster than the rest of the planet.

Another new study from the journal Nature that seems to confirm this prediction finds that krill are declining in the frigid oceans around Antarctica. Why? Evidently because the sea ice is declining, and krill live on the algae that live and grow on the underside of the sea ice.

These reports are confirming what the majority of climate scientists have been saying—that man-made global warming is occurring at a rapid rate.

Well, maybe. Once a particular notion becomes conventional wisdom, evidence and stories confirming that conventional wisdom are easily accepted and published—and reported in the media. Those that contradict the prevailing views have a much harder time getting a hearing. Either global warming has hardened into conventional wisdom in the climatological community, or mounting scientific evidence shows that humanity is in fact warming the world at a dangerous pace.

Which is it and how can one tell?

To show how hard answering that question can be, let's take a little closer look at the two reports mentioned above. The Arctic Council report is based on the observations and deliberations of 300 scientists from eight countries and six groups of indigenous people over the past four years. They find that the Arctic region is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. They further find that the sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean is thinning, and could almost disappear in the summer months by 2100.

But University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy, a climate expert on whom I have relied for years, makes some interesting observations about the Arctic Council's report. "If you look at the long term records, the Arctic has been as warm or warmer than it is today," says Christy. He cites temperature data from the Hadley Centre in the UK showing that from 70 degrees north latitude to the pole, the warmest years on record in the Arctic were 1937 and 1938. This area is just slightly above the Arctic Circle.

Furthermore, those same records show that the Arctic warmed twice as fast between 1917 and 1937 as it has in the past 20 years. After 1940, the Arctic saw a big cool-down and climatologists noted sea ice expanding in the northern Atlantic. Christy argues that what he calls the Great Climate Shift occurred in the late 1970s and caused another sudden warming in the Arctic. Since the late 1970s there has not been much additional warming in the region at all. In fact, on page 23, the Arctic Council Assessment offers very similar data for Arctic temperature trends from 60 degrees north latitude—the area that includes most of Alaska and essentially all of Greenland, most of Norway and Sweden, and the bulk of Russia.

Interestingly, the recent increase in temperatures in Alaska and Siberia seem to have coincided almost simultaneously with a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the late 1970s. Could this be part of Christy's Great Climate Shift? Swings in the PDO occur on 30 to 40 year time frames, and the most recent one brought warmer currents flowing north to the coast of Alaska. The Assessment does note that "several important natural modes of variability that especially affect the Arctic have been identified, including the Arctic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation. Each of these can affect the regional patterns of such features as the intensity and tracks of storm systems, the direction of prevailing winds, the amount of snow, and the extent of sea ice."

The Arctic Council report states that satellite measurements find the area over which ice melts in the summer in Greenland increased 16 percent between 1979 and 2002. Should the ice cap in Greenland completely melt away, sea levels would rise seven meters or so, inundating Florida, New York City, London, and Bangladesh. Not an immediate worry, since this process even with extreme warming would take centuries.

But what to make of the report earlier this year in the scientific journal Climate Change by Petr Chylek and his colleagues from the Los Alamos Laboratory, which found that average temperatures in Greenland have been falling at the rather steep rate of 2.2 degrees Celsius since 1987?

In addition, the study found "summer temperatures, which are most relevant to Greenland ice sheet melting rates, do not show any persistent increase during the last fifty years." Strangely, when I searched the Assessment I could not find any reference to the Chylek team's study of Greenland temperature trends.

What about the report on the Antarctic krill? The shrimp-like krill are the foundation of the food chain in the oceans around Antarctica, being dined upon by whales, seals, fish, and penguins. The report finds that krill populations off the Antarctic Peninsula have declined by 80 to 90 percent in recent years. The study in Nature notes that the extent of winter sea ice has been declining near the Antarctic Peninsula, where temperatures have increased by 2.5 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years.

But again, the picture is complicated. Overall winter sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing since 1979. However, Antarctica experienced a very rapid decline in winter sea ice in the early 1970s and the area covered today is not quite as large as it was before the decline in the 1970s.

But the average temperatures for most of Antarctica outside of the Antarctic Peninsula have been declining since the mid-1960s. So is this evidence that the amount of warming predicted by computer climate models is wrong? Not so fast, say even some climatologists who report on the Antarctic cooling. They insist that their data do not overturn predictions of rapid global warming. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist from MIT and a global warming skeptic, points out, "the Antarctic is not warming and there is nothing in the models that distinguish the temperature trends they predict in the Arctic from those in the Antarctic." Climate is messy.

With so many researchers in the climatological community apparently convinced of the reality of dangerously rapid man-made climate change, why do I continue to rely so much on the skeptical Christy? Christy is the climatologist who has put together the highly accurate atmospheric temperature data from satellites since 1978. And confidence in his data is bolstered by the fact that they correlate nicely with temperature data from radiosondes, which are a completely independent measure of temperature. Christy's data show that since 1978 the planet is warming up at a rate of 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade. The Arctic, according to Christy's data, is indeed warming faster than the rest of the planet, at a rate of 0.39 per decade. But the Antarctic is cooling by 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade.

For the nationalistic, Christy's satellite data find that the lower 48 states of the U.S. are warming at a rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. If temperatures continue to increase by 0.08 degrees Celsius per decade, the planet will warm by 0.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That compares to an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius during the 20th century. Not much of a crisis. Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.

So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom—or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy.

 

[barfo]

The chemistry of CFCs and Ozone is a fact. It is not in question. The chemistry can be and has been repeated in labs everywhere with the same results.

Not true of the global warming hoax. Find me a scientist who refutes the chemistry.

The funny thing is that many of the same sort of arguments as are made against global warming now, were made against ozone depletion back in the day. And, according to this link, by some of the same people who now crusade against global warming.

Here's a little sampling, more at the link:

"The hypothesis that CFCs deplete ozone is still just that: a hypothesis. The theory did not predict the Antarctic ozone hole and cannot predict what will happen globally. There is no firm evidence as yet for a long-term depletion of global ozone. Much of data is contaminated; the ozone record is dominated by large, natural fluctuations on many time scales..."

That sounds... so familiar.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know if one quote from 1989 indicts the entire scientific community evermore.

barfo

Shhhhh. It's a secret.

 

[Denny Crane]

Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.

Lindzen, so far, is winning those bets.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20081223/OPINION12/812230321/1002/OPINION

[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Take a look at these chilling statistics[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]Winter officially arrived with Sunday's solstice. But for many Americans, autumn 2008's final days already feel like deepest, coldest January.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]New Englanders still lack electricity after a Dec. 11 ice storm snapped power lines. Up to 8 inches of snow struck New Orleans and southern Louisiana that day and didn't melt for 48 hours in some neighborhoods.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
In Southern California last Wednesday, a half-inch of snow brightened Malibu's hills while a half-foot barricaded highways and marooned commuters in desert towns east of Los Angeles. Three inches of the white stuff shuttered Las Vegas' McCarren Airport that day and dusted the Strip's hotels and casinos.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
What are the odds of that?[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
Actually, the odds are rising that snow, ice and cold will grow increasingly common. As serious scientists repeatedly explain, global cooling is here. It is chilling temperatures and so-called "global warming."[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
According to the National Climatic Data Center, 2008 will be America's coldest year since 1997, thanks to La Niña and precipitation in the central and eastern states. Solar quietude also may underlie global cooling. This year's sunspots and solar radiation approach the minimum in the sun's cycle, corresponding with lower Earth temperatures. This echoes Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas' belief that solar variability, much more than CO2, sways global temperatures.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Meanwhile, the National Weather Service reports that last summer was Anchorage's third coldest on record. "Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming," Craig Medred wrote in the Anchorage Daily News. Consequently, Alaska's glaciers are thickening in the middle.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
Across the equator, Brazil endured an especially cold September. Snow graced its southern provinces that month.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
"Global warming is over, and global warming theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent climate change," Imperial College London astrophysicist and long-range forecaster Piers Corbyn wrote British Members of Parliament on Oct. 28.

"According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly." That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called "global-warming," October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
These observations parallel those of five German researchers led by Professor Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade," they concluded in last May's "Nature," "as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming." This "lull" should doom the 0.54 degree Fahrenheit average global temperature rise predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Vatican of so-called "global warming." Incidentally, the IPCC's computer models factor in neither El Niño nor the Gulf Stream. Excluding such major climate variables would be like ESPN ignoring baseball and basketball.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]So, is this all just propaganda concocted by Chevron-funded, right-wing, flat-Earthers? Ask Martin Hertzberg, a physical chemist and retired Navy meteorologist.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
"As a scientist and lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear-mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science," Hertzberg wrote in Sept. 26's USA Today.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]
As global cooling becomes more widely recognized, Americans from Maine to Malibu should feel comfortable dreaming of a white Christmas.[/FONT]

 

[barfo]

Shhhhh. It's a secret.

It's not a secret, it's a conspiracy. Who knows, climate scientists probably brought down WTC Bldg. 7, as well. The ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF GOLD that was in the basement is probably funding their research right now.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

This is patently false.

Patently false, too.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Two Sides to Global Warming

The article is not that convincing. The "contradicting" evidence mostly is of the type "Well, in this area, it's not as warm as it has been in the past." Different areas can fluctuate, of course. The trend of the average global temperature has been rising steadily over the past century and it's not plateauing.

 

[Denny Crane]

The article is not that convincing. The "contradicting" evidence mostly is of the type "Well, in this area, it's not as warm as it has been in the past." Different areas can fluctuate, of course. The trend of the average global temperature has been rising steadily over the past century and it's not plateauing.

Again, patently false.

The contradictory evidence shot holes in the assertions made by the chicken little type reports. That aside, the average global temperature has not been rising steadily over the past century - it's gotten warmer and colder in 30 year cycles - and 10 straight years of year after year cooling is something beyond a plateau.

 

[Denny Crane]

The funny thing is that many of the same sort of arguments as are made against global warming now, were made against ozone depletion back in the day. And, according to this link, by some of the same people who now crusade against global warming.

Here's a little sampling, more at the link:



That sounds... so familiar.

barfo

It doesn't refute the chemical formula. Try again?

 

[barfo]

It doesn't refute the chemical formula. Try again?

I wasn't trying to refute a chemical formula. Try again?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I wasn't trying to refute a chemical formula. Try again?

barfo

So you set up a strawman. I asked you to find a scientist who refuted the chemistry.

 

[Denny Crane]

The chemistry of CFCs and Ozone is a fact. It is not in question. The chemistry can be and has been repeated in labs everywhere with the same results.

Not true of the global warming hoax. Find me a scientist who refutes the chemistry.

FYI, Barfo.

 

[Minstrel]

The contradictory evidence shot holes in the assertions made by the chicken little type reports.

Patently false.

That aside, the average global temperature has not been rising steadily over the past century - it's gotten warmer and colder in 30 year cycles - and 10 straight years of year after year cooling is something beyond a plateau.

Trending up, steadily.

 

[Denny Crane]

Patently false.

Patently true.

Trending up, steadily.

Not a straight line. Not steadily. And missing the last decade which is down every year over the previous one.

 

[barfo]

So you set up a strawman. I asked you to find a scientist who refuted the chemistry.

Sorry, but when you leave as many of my questions unanswered as you have in this thread, you don't get to decide which of your questions I answer.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Patently true.



Not a straight line. Not steadily. And missing the last decade which is down every year over the previous one.

That graph covers 1000 years. Adding the past 8 to it is not going to make it look significantly different.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That graph covers 1000 years. Adding the past 8 to it is not going to make it look significantly different.

barfo

Yeah it is. 10 years is 10% of a decade, and the rightmost point would be below the peak. Now wouldn't it...

 

[Denny Crane]

What's wrong with this picture?

A lot of scientific blither (to go with Gore's blather):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3342553/Climate-change-threat-to-alpine-ski-resorts.html

Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts


By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 6:28PM BST 21 May 2008

Alpine skiing and snowboarding may be under greater threat from climate change than scientists have previously thought, new research suggests.

A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps's entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow.

It found a dramatic "step-like" drop in snowfall at the end of the 1980s which has never recovered, New Scientist magazine reported. The average number of snow days over the last 20 winters is lower than at any time since records began more than 100 years ago.

In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records.
"I don't believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades," he said.

The warning comes four years after a study for the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that more than half of resorts in France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Austria could be forced out of business over the next five decades as the snow line rises.

It was based on temperatures increasing by between 1.4C (2.5F) and 5.8C (10.4F) during this century.

The latest research, which paints an even bleaker picture, is the first to take in 10 years of new data from 34 stations between 200 and 1800 metres above snow level.

Dr Marty, whose work will appear in Geophysical Research Letters, said it was difficult to know whether the findings indicate a tipping point in climate change had been reached.

"But from the data it looks like a change in the large-scale weather pattern," he said. Alpine resorts, faced with stiff competition from North America where slopes have more reliable snow coverage, have been using snow cannon to supplement meagre falls.

But opponents see them as a blight on the landscape which use large amounts of water and energy.
Figures for the 2006/07 season show that more than 50 people died in off-piste avalanches in French Alps alone - at least 20 more than average.

Climate change has been identified as one of the factors; warmer conditions cause snow to melt, making it more unstable and prone to sliding down the mountain.

In addition, poor snow cover leads to harder, icier conditions which is more dangerous for sports enthusiasts and can result in crevasse falls on glaciers.

• The effects of global warming on the atmosphere could be far worse than scientists initially feared, it has been suggested. It been assumed that carbon locked in the Earth's crust was completely cut off from the surface. But Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution warned that rising temperatures could destabilise underground ice structures, releasing trillions of tons of methane - a greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere. "We may be on the verge of a transformational moment," he told New Scientist magazine.

Hmmm... May 2008. And observable fact:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/s...ave-best-snow-conditions-in-a-generation.html

The Alps have best snow conditions 'in a generation'

Heavy storms this week mean that skiers will enjoy records amounts of snow in Alpine resorts this Christmas.

By Peter Hardy
Last Updated: 4:02PM GMT 19 Dec 2008

Some 400,000 British skiers heading for the Alps over the coming fortnight will find the best Christmas and New Year snow conditions in a generation. In resorts such as Val d'Isère which caught the harshest of this week's blizzards, the snow is banked 1.5m deep in the streets. Parts of the town were temporarily closed to pedestrians because of the high risk of avalanches.

Val and neighbouring Tignes have already enjoyed more snow in December than in any year since 1981 and seem set to beat all records by New Year's Day.

Following the storm pisteurs have struggled to open lifts and skiing has been strictly limited in recent days on safety grounds.

However, as the skies clear and the sun comes out this weekend skiers and snowboarders everywhere are in for a rare holiday treat. Those resorts in parts of Austria and Switzerland that missed out on the latest storms still have piste conditions that vary from "good" to "excellent".

Even Andorra which has suffered from rising prices and two disastrously poor winters has plenty of cover along with other destinations across both the Spanish and French Pyrenees.

Grand Valira, the principality's biggest area, has no new snow, but a respectable 70cm in the valley and 140cm on top.

Italy is currently offering some of the best skiing in the whole of Europe. Courmayeur and Champoluc in the Aosta valley benefited particularly well from falls earlier this week and Cervinia has a mighty 300cm of cover up on the border with Switzerland.

Further east, the Trentino resort of Madonna di Campiglio reports 30cm more snow and a snowpack that now varies between one and two metres deep, depending on altitude.

In the main Dolomites the snow cover is fantastic too – although they missed out on the really heavy snow that fell further west. At San Cassiano, in Alta Badia, the snow is up to 155cm deep in the valley and 230cm on top.

In Switzerland, Zermatt has around half a metre in town and 260cm up on the glacier. Vernier missed out on the biggest fall but still has 40cm in town and 130cm on Mont-Fort.

The west of Austria also has great snow, with St Anton and the Arlberg region receiving the best of it. In Lech, The snowpack on the Flexen Pass above Zürs is 120cm while Lech has 65cm in the village.

Popular Obergurgl has more than 250 cms up the mountain and 75cm down below. However, further east, Kitzbühel reports 64 per cent its lifts open and a snow depth of only 55cm on the upper slopes and 20cm in the resort. However more snow is forecast.

Resorts across Eastern Europe are opening up this weekend for the Christmas holiday, although snow cover is lighter here. Bansko in Bulgaria has between 25cm and 45cm.

Across the Atlantic conditions vary. Whistler has had a poor start to the season so far with only a handful of runs open. Last weekend the resort celebrated the opening of the new Peak-2-Peak gondola, but it has largley been over-shadowed by the collapse of the tower on the separate Blackcomb Excalibur gondola on Tuesday, which injured 10 passengers.

The gondola is not expected to reopen this season and much more snow is needed to bring Whistler up to speed.
Big White and other Canadian resorts have fared better. Revelstoke and Kicking Horse both have lots of new snow, but temperatures are as low as –30C making skiing a chilly experience.

In the United States conditions in the Rockies continue to improve with Colorado now in good shape for this time of year – and more snow on the way. Some of the best skiing is to be found in California where Mammoth saw 88cm fall in the last storm.

If you are skiing in snow-heavy Europe over the holiday, the avalanche risk will remain high and you should take extra care. Never consider leaving marked pistes without a qualified local guide.

The scientists were right!
/sarcasm

Think someone has egg all over their faces?

 

[barfo]

Yeah it is. 10 years is 10% of a decade, and the rightmost point would be below the peak. Now wouldn't it...

10% of a century, maybe? Anyway as far as I can tell from the graph the data goes up to 2000, so there are only 8 years missing, not 10. 8 years is only 0.8% of 1000 years. I don't know where the rightmost point would be, because the data isn't on the chart. But unless it was well below the value in 2000, I don't think the chart would look much different.

barfo

 

[barfo]

What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong is that you keep trying to disprove scientific theories with anecdotal evidence. Doesn't work.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What's wrong is that you keep trying to disprove scientific theories with anecdotal evidence. Doesn't work.

barfo

What's anecdotal about it? That the scientists' predictions were completely wrong?

 

[Denny Crane]

10% of a century, maybe? Anyway as far as I can tell from the graph the data goes up to 2000, so there are only 8 years missing, not 10. 8 years is only 0.8% of 1000 years. I don't know where the rightmost point would be, because the data isn't on the chart. But unless it was well below the value in 2000, I don't think the chart would look much different.

barfo

As near as I can tell, the little hash marks on the bottom represent 50 years each, so the 10 missing years would be about 1/4 of one of those. Easy to see.

 

[barfo]

As near as I can tell, the little hash marks on the bottom represent 50 years each, so the 10 missing years would be about 1/4 of one of those. Easy to see.

50/10=4? Yes, the hash marks represent 50 years. So the missing EIGHT years would be about 1/6th of one of those. But that's not really relevant, since we don't have the data.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Not a straight line. Not steadily.

Doesn't need to be a straight line to be steadily upward.

And missing the last decade which is down every year over the previous one.

Not particularly relevant. It hasn't dropped anywhere near enough to be more than statistical noise. This is just part of it not being a straight line. But, again, it doesn't have to be a straight line to illustrate upward movement.

 

[barfo]

What's anecdotal about it? That the scientists' predictions were completely wrong?

Did the scientists predict the snowfall for the winter of 2008? No? Then they weren't wrong. The article, rightly, talks about average snowfall. Everyone knows that there is year-to-year fluctuation, and one snowy year doesn't disprove anything.

If next winter there is less than average snow at those resorts, will you be convinced that global warming is real, based on that one data point? No, I thought not. So why should I take your one data point seriously?

barfo

 

[ly_yng]

Did the scientists predict the snowfall for the winter of 2008? No? Then they weren't wrong. The article, rightly, talks about average snowfall. Everyone knows that there is year-to-year fluctuation, and one snowy year doesn't disprove anything.

If next winter there is less than average snow at those resorts, will you be convinced that global warming is real, based on that one data point? No, I thought not. So why should I take your one data point seriously?

I'd just add that there's no reason to think there's a direct correlation between snowfall and temperature. Snow doesn't necessarily fall on the coldest days of the year - it falls when there's the highest temperature gradient between the upper and lower atmosphere (or rather, once you're near freezing, the gradient is more important than the temperature).

Climate science is incredibly complicated, which is why the global warming deniers are in such a tenuous position - global temperatures increasing with increased CO2 content is just an incredibly obvious conclusion, due to the greenhouse effect. Proving it's going to cause more or less snow or more or less powerful hurricanes is a LOT harder.

 

[ly_yng]

Patently true.



Not a straight line. Not steadily. And missing the last decade which is down every year over the previous one.

I'd note that temperatures also appear to have fallen over the 1940s, before continuing the skyrocketing trend of the next half-century.

Climate science is HIGHLY nonlinear, but something like more greenhouse gas --> more greenhouse effect isn't that difficult to predict. Individual years may fall one way or the other due to some sort of localized phase change, but we're trapping more heat with CO2. That's got to go somewhere - it's either going to move a low energy phase into a high energy phase (melting glaciers come to mind) or it's going to heat the earth.

 

[ly_yng]

Look at the concentration of CO2. 350 parts per million = .000350. That aside, CO2 is a good thing, necessary for life to exist (we exhale it, plants "inhale" it).

I don't argue that man isn't reshaping the planet. We're damming rivers and flooding plains that aren't naturally flooded - this changes where the water vapor in the air is. We've clear cut vast areas of the amazon rain forest, which means far fewer trees and plants to convert CO2 back to O2. The CFCs in aerosol sprays really did kill a big chunk of the ozone layer.

There are natural effects that we can do nothing about that lead to warming. The glaciers have receded from the point where they used to cover the great lakes. The albedo of the planet has changed considerably as the ice receded. What used to be white and reflected light and heat back into space is now dark and absorbs light and heat. That is a feedback mechanism - the less white the more heat absorbed, the more heat absorbed the more ice melts...

I take that to mean that you agree there's at least a REASON why people would believe CO2 emissions could lead to higher temperatures.

By the way, you can say things like CO2 is a "good thing" or that .00035 is a super-duper small number, but that super-duper small number is causing somewhere between 9%-26% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The Earth's black-body temperature is around 0 degrees, and it's average temperature is around 57 degrees, so it's safe to say that CO2 content (which has increased by about 30% since 1750) is responsible for at least 5-6 of those degrees.

 

[MARIS61]

Yeah it is. 10 years is 10% of a decade, and the rightmost point would be below the peak. Now wouldn't it...

New Math?

 

[rocketeer]

New Math?

remember your "role model" thread when you said you could get a triple digit number? what kind of math was that?