Actually,the world isn't warming

Chalnoth · Sep 12, 2008

Cite your sources, Greatcloud. That is some pretty blatant plagiarism right there.

That said, atomweaver hit the nail right on the head: these data you're posting don't go far enough into the recent past to be of any real meaning. Yes, solar activity has been one of the primary drivers of climate change for some time (but not the only one).

And just for comparison, the global temperature anomaly today is right around 0.5-0.6°C. That's twice the temperature anomaly at the end of your graph there, and yet the sun has been roughly constant since the end of that graph. So how, pray tell, can the Sun be causing the current warming?

Greatcloud · Sep 12, 2008

atomweaver said:
I love how Greatcloud can look at Chalnoth's Sea Ice graph, and extrapolate a cooling trend, based on the difference from the years 07 and 08, and then turn around and offer sunspot data graphs which are all cut off at 1985 (CO2 cut off at 1990). GC, you've got about 23 years worth of sunspot activity to fill in, there. And, if the difference between 07 and 08 is enough for you to declare a trend, it seems that you would need that data in order to draw any conclusions about sunspot climate contributions...

Chalnoth asked me to read the chart and I did, just what was there on the chart. It is a cooling trend, 2008 being the latest data. The temp. is cooling from last year headed back to the average of 2000. What is wrong with that ? That is what it says.

Chalnoth · Sep 12, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Chalnoth asked me to read the chart and I did, just what was there on the chart. It is a cooling trend, 2008 being the latest data. The temp. is cooling from last year headed back to the average of 2000. What is wrong with that ? That is what it says.

One year is not a "trend".

Psudopod · Sep 12, 2008

One year is not a "trend".

You'd think you wouldn't have to say things like that, wouldn't you?

Greatcloud · Sep 12, 2008

Psudopod said:
You'd think you wouldn't have to say things like that, wouldn't you?

Psudopod you are not helping this thread by being contrary. Please look at the data,thank you.

Greatcloud · Sep 12, 2008

Psudopod said:
You'd think you wouldn't have to say things like that, wouldn't you?

Psudopod please add something constructive after looking at the data, you are not helping.

ChordatesLegacy · Sep 12, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Psudopod please add something constructive after looking at the data, you are not helping.

At present we are in an interglacial within the much larger and longer lasting Ice Age, which has been going on for ~2 million years. Interglacials are very unstable times as far as climate goes. Either the ice is advancing and the world cooling, or the ice is retreating and the world warming. Any geologist will tell you the earth at present is on the cold side, well below the long term geological time scale average.

Global warming is a fact if the trends of the past 150 year are anything to go by, but I would agree that this also incorporates a natural warming trend during the late 19th century. I would also state that global warming is not a bad thing as far as the planet goes; evolution would select flora and fauna that suits the new warmer environments. Of course there would be losers and thats what concerns me and other scientists, because what made humans successful over the past 200000 years is our ability to adapt, we have now with our civilisations and vast populations lost that ability. So any significant change in climate will affect us (humans) quite badly, leading to famine, pestilence and of course war. Again as far as the planet goes, no bad thing.

Greatcloud · Sep 12, 2008

ChordatesLegacy said:
At present we are in an interglacial within the much larger and longer lasting Ice Age, which has been going on for ~2 million years. Interglacials are very unstable times as far as climate goes. Either the ice is advancing and the world cooling, or the ice is retreating and the world warming. Any geologist will tell you the earth at present is on the cold side, well below the long term geological time scale average.

Global warming is a fact if the trends of the past 150 year are anything to go by, but I would agree that this also incorporates a natural warming trend during the late 19th century. I would also state that global warming is not a bad thing as far as the planet goes; evolution would select flora and fauna that suits the new warmer environments. Of course there would be losers and that’s what concerns me and other scientists, because what made humans successful over the past 200000 years is our ability to adapt, we have now with our civilisations and vast populations lost that ability. So any significant change in climate will affect us (humans) quite badly, leading to famine, pestilence and of course war. Again as far as the planet goes, no bad thing.

Thats interesting I agree with most of what you say,except, did you know that the city voted most technological was St. Paul MN ? This city so far north is full of snow and freezing weather much of the year,yet they adapt. They use sky bridges and sensoring monitoring devices to tell when a human is present so the heat can come on ect........ The point is they have adapted and flourish. This I think will be the case for the human race,in most areas.

Chalnoth · Sep 12, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Thats interesting I agree with most of what you say,except, did you know that the city voted most technological was St. Paul MN ? This city so far north is full of snow and freezing weather much of the year,yet they adapt. They use sky bridges and sensoring monitoring devices to tell when a human is present so the heat can come on ect........ The point is they have adapted and flourish. This I think will be the case for the human race,in most areas.

I'm sure in a couple hundred years, the citizens of Florida will adapt quite well to living underwater.

ChordatesLegacy · Sep 12, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Thats interesting I agree with most of what you say,except, did you know that the city voted most technological was St. Paul MN ? This city so far north is full of snow and freezing weather much of the year,yet they adapt. They use sky bridges and sensoring monitoring devices to tell when a human is present so the heat can come on ect........ The point is they have adapted and flourish. This I think will be the case for the human race,in most areas.

Being an optimist, I would like to think so, but the example you give is a small settlement and relies on the larger community to survive. If global warming or for that matter global cooling were to happen in a short time frame, the possibilities for human adaptation would be limited, due to the high population densities. If we stick to global warming and for the case of this discussion, assume the worst case scenario, i.e. the melting of the Greenland Ice cap, which could also happen without anthropogenic forcing, we would have sea level rises of many metres. This would displace billions of people, destroy coastal cities, destroy vast swaths of agricultural land and change weather patterns around the world. We have built our civilisations on cheap energy; we are also dependant on this cheap energy for fuel and fertiliser to grow our crops, there probably is not enough left to build our civilisations again.

Of course some people would probably survive, but most would die of starvation, pestilence and war. Also those left alive would face the prospect of feudal regimes, rape and pillage and of course poor educations, leading to the rise of simplistic doctrine systems of control, i.e. new religions.

On the up side, the planet overall would flourish, with life adapting to the new environments and to fill the large gaps left by the demise of the human race.

Greatcloud · Sep 25, 2008

Greatcloud said:
There are many possible reasons for the data on that chart. It is most likely due to it taking a long time for the ocean to cool again from 2000 levels. You notice however that it is cooling from last year 2007, so what you have is a chart showing cooling.

We will have to wait til Oct-Nov to see how cold it will become on the N pole, won't we ? The current trend is also very cold the end of winter not the start. So this is a good chart but I want to see the whole winter before I make up my mind about the N pole melting in the future.

Chalnoth · Sep 26, 2008

Greatcloud said:
We will have to wait til Oct-Nov to see how cold it will become on the N pole, won't we ? The current trend is also very cold the end of winter not the start. So this is a good chart but I want to see the whole winter before I make up my mind about the N pole melting in the future.

Why? That's not going to tell you much. The sea ice extent during winter changes very little from year to year. It's highly unlikely you'll be able to pick out the differences from the noise.

Deamiter · Sep 26, 2008

Greatcloud said:
We will have to wait til Oct-Nov to see how cold it will become on the N pole, won't we ? The current trend is also very cold the end of winter not the start. So this is a good chart but I want to see the whole winter before I make up my mind about the N pole melting in the future.

Are you STILL obsessed with these one-year predictions? It's always, "well, if it gets cooler THIS year, then global warming has stopped forever."

How about we look at the last DECADE? Or in this case, look at the VOLUME of ice at the pole (even though la nina has slightly increased coverage, the ice is still much thinner than last year).

Is there some reason you continually ignore the majority of the data? Are you just that desperate to validate your beliefs?

As for adaptation, it doesn't matter how much technology Saint Paul has, the fact is that higher latitudes have much less sunlight and thus are much poorer at growing the majority of crops. I'm sure all us humans will appreciate energy-saving walkways when worldwide food shortages are caused by decreasing growing periods worldwide...

Greatcloud · Sep 26, 2008

Deamiter said:
Are you STILL obsessed with these one-year predictions? It's always, "well, if it gets cooler THIS year, then global warming has stopped forever."

How about we look at the last DECADE? Or in this case, look at the VOLUME of ice at the pole (even though la nina has slightly increased coverage, the ice is still much thinner than last year).

Is there some reason you continually ignore the majority of the data? Are you just that desperate to validate your beliefs?

As for adaptation, it doesn't matter how much technology Saint Paul has, the fact is that higher latitudes have much less sunlight and thus are much poorer at growing the majority of crops. I'm sure all us humans will appreciate energy-saving walkways when worldwide food shortages are caused by decreasing growing periods worldwide...

Are you STILL obsessed with these one-year predictions? It's always, "well, if it gets cooler THIS year, then global warming has stopped forever."

You will just have to wait to see what I believe. Like for instance I doubt the proxy data of both sides but esp. the AGW side.

Chalnoth · Sep 26, 2008

Greatcloud said:
You will just have to wait to see what I believe. Like for instance I doubt the proxy data of both sides but esp. the AGW side.

Proxy data of both sides? Since when has the denier side ever collected any proxy data?

Deamiter · Sep 26, 2008

You know, you could always TELL us what you believe instead of copy/pasting other peoples' work. Then we could... you know... DISCUSS climate models rather than repeatedly showing you why your favorite websites' claims are bogus.

Just a thought.

And I'm still waiting for a model for HOW cosmic rays affect climate. There's been some speculation that they can seed clouds, but you still have presented NO evidence that they DO seed clouds and that the seeding is significant enough to account for the effect you're claiming.

In other words, you're just repeating empty speculation. Sure, it's worth investigating, but as I recall, further investigation has come up with no demonstrated mechanism by which cosmic rays can significantly affect climate.

And I love how you claim that climate models are inaccurate because they don't include el nino/la nina. If you did a few quick calculations yourself you'd find that the affect on global energy levels is insigniciant -- sure surface temperatures spike either way, but since 95% percent of Earth's heat is below the atmosphere, a year-long spike doesn't change long-term trends much at all!

Can you actually defend why you claim climate models predicting century-long trends are inaccurate because they don't include short-term weather?

Greatcloud · Sep 26, 2008

Deamiter said:
You know, you could always TELL us what you believe instead of copy/pasting other peoples' work. Then we could... you know... DISCUSS climate models rather than repeatedly showing you why your favorite websites' claims are bogus.

Just a thought.

And I'm still waiting for a model for HOW cosmic rays affect climate. There's been some speculation that they can seed clouds, but you still have presented NO evidence that they DO seed clouds and that the seeding is significant enough to account for the effect you're claiming.

In other words, you're just repeating empty speculation. Sure, it's worth investigating, but as I recall, further investigation has come up with no demonstrated mechanism by which cosmic rays can significantly affect climate.

And I love how you claim that climate models are inaccurate because they don't include el nino/la nina. If you did a few quick calculations yourself you'd find that the affect on global energy levels is insigniciant -- sure surface temperatures spike either way, but since 95% percent of Earth's heat is below the atmosphere, a year-long spike doesn't change long-term trends much at all!

Can you actually defend why you claim climate models predicting century-long trends are inaccurate because they don't include short-term weather?

I'm saying the bell curve of GW is on a downward fall after 10 years of leveling out. The bell curve is more like a rectangle while CO2 continues to rise temperature does not. Temperature has in fact dropped like a rock. We will still see GW for a while but the highs are very likely over.

This was our warm period or modern warming period bell curve says its over ; it was nice and warm huh, it over. I don't have to prove anything to you I posted hard scientific data/proof. Thats it its still true that is my proof and stand and I have every right to stand on it.

Do you want me to explain CRT and say more about it I would be glad to do so.

Chalnoth · Sep 27, 2008

Greatcloud said:
I'm saying the bell curve of GW is on a downward fall after 10 years of leveling out. The bell curve is more like a rectangle while CO2 continues to rise temperature does not. Temperature has in fact dropped like a rock. We will still see GW for a while but the highs are very likely over.

This was our warm period or modern warming period bell curve says its over ; it was nice and warm huh, it over. I don't have to prove anything to you I posted hard scientific data/proof. Thats it its still true that is my proof and stand and I have every right to stand on it.

Do you want me to explain CRT and say more about it I would be glad to do so.

Wow. Just wow. I'm seriously tempted to bookmark this so that I can start a new thread in a couple of years to throw your words right back at you. But honestly I'll probably forget.

Greatcloud · Sep 28, 2008

Chalnoth said:
Proxy data of both sides? Since when has the denier side ever collected any proxy data?

Craig Idso has a whole website about collecting proxy data.

http://www.co2science.org/

Deamiter · Sep 28, 2008

Greatcloud said:
Craig Idso has a whole website about collecting proxy data.

http://www.co2science.org/

Are you claiming that a website ABOUT collecting proxy data is the same as actually COLLECTING proxy data?

You said there was "proxy data from both sides." But only one side is actually doing any science and actually collecting data.

Actually,the world isn't warming

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Godspeed, Spacebat

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

I just follow Christ.

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

I just follow Christ.

Senior Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Member

I just follow Christ.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency