Thread: There's No Compelling Scientific Argument For Drastic Action To 'Decarbonize' The World

Originally Posted by jpn

It seems as though a crucial tactic of yours is to never directly respond to certain challenges. I challenged your statement above one page back. You chose to ignore me.
So I challenge this statement of yours again. You say that the more recent data over the last 15 years cannot be explained by AGW. But the following graph clearly demonstrates to all who have eyes that your chosen 15 year window is too small of a timeframe to see the bigger trend (wait for the big red line. Red...like Communism!!! )

I took a quick look at your graph and from my estimation from my eyes, I did not see a period of cooling longer than the current cooling period (1998 to 2012)

(By the way, the site you got that graph from is a great site for believers like you. Why? Because it gives canned answers to tough points from skeptics and because skeptics are generally more knowledgable about AGW than you believers.)


In addition, the current cooling (from 1998 to (as of up to this date) Feb 8, '12 ) period is 14 years:


Now consider that a paper by warmist Ben Santer that states:

"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists."
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleas...-11-11-03.html

Well, the above graph shows a cooling trend of 14 years. If this cooling trend continues for another 3 years, then would that be considered long enough to be considered a trend in climate based on the above comment? Looks to me like the answer would be yes.

Funny how the trend could be cooling for 14 years when CO2 levels are the highest in the last (_________) years.

Kramer

Originally Posted by jpn

It seems as though a crucial tactic of yours is to never directly respond to certain challenges. I challenged your statement above one page back. You chose to ignore me.
So I challenge this statement of yours again. You say that the more recent data over the last 15 years cannot be explained by AGW. But the following graph clearly demonstrates .

I did not respond to the challenge because others so effectively already refuted it, like Kramer's graph above.

Originally Posted by jpn

It must be so weird to be a conservative, and have to hold on so tightly, so desperately, to nothing but petty little bullshit.

It must be so weird to be a LIBERAL, and have to hold on so tightly, so desperately, to nothing but petty little bullshit, e.g., Republicans are for the rich, mean-spirited, want grandma to eat dog food or die, Bush lied/People died etc, etc, etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ins?intcmp=122

Apparently the hype over the melting of the Himalayas was a bit premature. If the temp is going up why aren't these going down?

Reading the article you can almost see the writer struggling to keep the slant towards Global Warming despite this being more evidence that it is not necessarily true.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I did not respond to the challenge because others so effectively already refuted it, like Kramer's graph above.

That's probably the only intelligent decision you've made with regard to this issue in your life, although your reason for doing so is flawed. I guess sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

Originally Posted by kramer

Funny how the trend could be cooling for 14 years when CO2 levels are the highest in the last (_________) years.
Kramer

So you rest your entire belief structure on the possibility that three years from now the sixth and last blue line (which is also the highest blue line on the temperature scale--hint, hint) might tilt slightly down rather than slightly up. And if the tilt is slightly up, let me guess...you'll find some other reason to object. Meanwhile that solid red line means nothing to you at all (because it doesn't fit your pre-existing ideology).

The simple reality is that:

1-The greenhouse theory is about as solid a theory as exists in science
2-The theory predicts warmer temperatures if greenhouse gasses increase
3-Greenhouse gasses have increased
4-The planet is warmer in fairly close relation to the increase in greenhouse gasses

Here's some results from Kramer's "cooling" trend:

02.08.12
By Alan Buis,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Steve Cole,
NASA Headquarters

In the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data to calculate how much Earth's melting land ice is adding to global sea level rise.

Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

"Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier."

Originally Posted by jpn

So you rest your entire belief structure on the possibility that three years from now the sixth and last blue line (which is also the highest blue line on the temperature scale--hint, hint) might tilt slightly down rather than slightly up.

No.

Just pointing out that if the cooling trend continues for another 3 years, that is long enough to be considered a change in climate according to that link I posted.

And how come the temperature trend has been going done for 14 years when the CO2 trend has been exponentially increasing upwards during this time?

Originally Posted by jpn

And if the tilt is slightly up, let me guess...you'll find some other reason to object.

If there is some other scientific cherry that comes along and explains it, I will not object. I will note it. And to be honest, I'd be surprised if the cooling trend is still seen in three years.

Originally Posted by jpn

Meanwhile that solid red line means nothing to you at all (because it doesn't fit your pre-existing ideology).

Hate to tell you but I have a much better understanding of that red line that you or most other believers. For example, the part of the red line that is believed to be from the human contribution of plant and tree food starts around the 1970s on. With that said, according to a science study put out around 2004, the last 60 years of sunspot activity has been the highest over the last 8,000 years:

"During the last eight millennia, the episode with the highest average sunspot number is the ongoing one that started about 60 years ago," reported Solanki.
Discovery Channel :: News :: Tree Rings Reveal Sunspot Record

Take a look at the very last page from a very recent presentation on solar activity and you'll see this higher sunspot activity very clearly:
http://st4a.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/na...f/1-1_Lean.pdf

And did you notice the sun on the upper right on this page? It says "It's the Sun stupid." (Don't know if that's a joke or not, just pointing it out...)

Originally Posted by jpn

The simple reality is that:

1-The greenhouse theory is about as solid a theory as exists in science
2-The theory predicts warmer temperatures if greenhouse gasses increase
3-Greenhouse gasses have increased
4-The planet is warmer in fairly close relation to the increase in greenhouse gasses

I don't dispute that CO2 is a warming gas, that we have increased the amount of it in the atmosphere and that global temperatures have risen. I dispute that the majority of the recent warming is from CO2.

The warmer planet also coincides with the increase in sunspot activity. And UHI plays a role because many temp sensors are in urban areas and I have seen from NASA an article that says the delta temperature in a city vs the outskirts of it can be as high as 22 degrees F. And then there is the data adjusting. I don't understand the logic of recording actual temperature and then changing it. That's like measuring the actual height of say a group of people, and then changing some of the heights of some of the people in order to get the overall average. Are you kidding?

Kramer

Ice grips Europe's waterways as deadly cold lingers - CNN.com

Which is it? The Frozen River? The Bitter Cold? Or the Snow that is an indicator of global warming?

Either way Europe is no where near to roasting and very near to freezing.

BTW there was a related article that was video I did not want to link about Afghanistan have a very cold time of it as well.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

Ice grips Europe's waterways as deadly cold lingers - CNN.com

Which is it? The Frozen River? The Bitter Cold? Or the Snow that is an indicator of global warming?

Either way Europe is no where near to roasting and very near to freezing.

BTW there was a related article that was video I did not want to link about Afghanistan have a very cold time of it as well.

Generally, unseasonably warm weather is evidence of global warming and cold weather is just weather.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Generally, unseasonably warm weather is evidence of global warming and cold weather is just weather.

But last year when there were snowfalls everywhere and even in one of these threads someone said that more snow meant global warming because more water was in the air.

Per your source regarding sunspots:

As for whether the last few decades of storminess on the sun is the cause of global warming over the same period, it's not likely, said Reimer.
"The increased solar activity may account for part of the climate trend and it does come at a bad time," she said. "However, in terms of actual warming it probably isn't a large contributor."

But I found your slide show more interesting. I would have enjoyed listening to the presenter explain the slides and what her conclusions were. I'd like to see if there is any correlation between the "cooling periods" observed within the larger warming trend and the regular cycles depicted on the slides. As for the last slide, was she merely pointing out that there are a few folks who still aren't convinced, as is always the case? Or that she endorsed this view? And did you really read that last slide? It says:

"It's a position that puts West [who proposed it] at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. [UPDATE: West himself said during a Thursday conference call that global warming is at least partially man-made -- and maybe as much as "70 percent" due to human intervention.]

Originally Posted by Wlessard

But last year when there were snowfalls everywhere and even in one of these threads someone said that more snow meant global warming because more water was in the air.

That was me. It's true. How much moisture remains in really cold air?

Here. Read and learn about the world around you. It's an interesting place.

Originally Posted by darth omar

Generally, unseasonably warm weather is evidence of global warming and cold weather is just weather.

No, weather is weather, and climate is climate. It doesn't help to confuse the two.

Originally Posted by jpn

The simple reality is that:

1-The greenhouse theory is about as solid a theory as exists in science

Compared to say, gravity that is a pretty high standard where the facts do not match your ideology. Explain to me again how come Venus and Mars, both with over 95% CO2 atmosphere have such different planetary temperatures, 100's of degrees different?