Attempt to look at CO2 in a realistic manner:

[vader]

Pooch Punting is reserved for the awesome.

Especially on third down

 

[gsvol]

Wait are you saying we are colder now than during the last ice age?

I'll talk slow and use little words.

Since the end of the last major ice age 2010 in not even close to being the warmest and the vast majority of years since the end of the last major ice age have been warmer than 2010.

The little ice age was merely a cool period and not really an ice age. It ended about 150 years ago and the Earth has been in a warming trend since then.

We could stand to be quite a bit warmer and that is a good thing, not something to pee your pants about.

 

[IPorange]

I'll talk slow and use little words.

Since the end of the last major ice age 2010 in not even close to being the warmest and the vast majority of years since the end of the last major ice age have been warmer than 2010.

The little ice age was merely a cool period and not really an ice age. It ended about 150 years ago and the Earth has been in a warming trend since then.

We could stand to be quite a bit warmer and that is a good thing, not something to pee your pants about.

Your first assertion is false. Your second assertion is just basic math. Ya, we've gotten warmer since the coldest period in the last 2,000 years. Duh. It's kind of like how you said that we were in a "cooling trend" the last 10 years back in 2008, because 1998 was so hot that one could construe it as cooling since the following years didn't surpass it.

But 2010 has tied it. So...

Notice how I linked to actual reports to back up what I said.

 

[gsvol]

Especially on third down

"A punt can be a good play."
Randy Sanders

Gibberish should have punted, now he's getting sacked.

James Hansen is a nutcase of the first order, a propagandist who has no problem at all falsifying data to achieve his crazy political goals.

Moonbattery: James Hansen Calls for ChiCom-Led Boycott of America

That is, the WTO (largely funded by the USA) is going to destroy the largest economy on the planet so that the ecofriendly ChiComs can save the polar bears from the cold weather caused by global warming. So far gone is Hansen into his envirofascist fantasy world, he hasn't noticed that most everything in this country is manufactured in China, largely because they impose virtually no environmental restrictions.

Hansen has lost himself in lurid daydreams before:

In 1988, he reportedly told Bob Reiss, author of yet another apocalyptic screed, "The Coming Storm," that in the next 20 years, "The West Side Highway [in Manhattan] will be under water" and, "There will be more police cars" in New York because "well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
Well, there are more cops and less crime, and the West Side is high and dry. One out of three isn't bad for baseball, but it is horrendous for science.

But then, Hansen's politically and financially motivated ravings never did have much to do with science.

Moonbattery: Global Warming Hoaxer James Hansen Denounced as Fraud by Former Boss

Of all the cheap frauds pushing the global warming hoax, NASA's profiteering James Hansen is the most shameless, second only to Al Gore himself. Hansen has repeatedly been caught passing phony data. Despite granting 1,400 on-the-job (and on our dime) interviews, Hansen claims to have been muzzled by the Bush Administration. At the same time, he demands prison sentences for those who question the hoax.

Fortunately, the scientific community is beginning to pierce the veil of misinformation spun by Hansen, Gore, and their liberal establishment coconspirators. From a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. …

"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress," Theon wrote.

As for the computer models that constitute the sole evidence for global warming's validity:

Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy," he added.

Your first assertion is false. Your second assertion is just basic math. Ya, we've gotten warmer since the coldest period in the last 2,000 years. Duh. It's kind of like how you said that we were in a "cooling trend" the last 10 years back in 2008, because 1998 was so hot that one could construe it as cooling since the following years didn't surpass it.

But 2010 has tied it. So...

Notice how I linked to actual reports to back up what I said.

My first assertian is right on the money, to claim it is false is just ignorance or purposful deception.

Just for argument let's say your claims about 1998 and 2010 are true, if 2010 and 1998 are the same with 11 years between being cooler, does that seem like runaway global warming to you??

 

[utgibbs]

Hansen admitted he took a risk in 1988. Scientists generally are very skeptical, very precise. Scientist are rarely "99% confident" about anything, but there comes a time when someone has to get the message across.

Let's just say, Hansen's reputation is not suffering in the least. There are a few "moonbats" out there, but I'm not pointing fingers.

 

[IPorange]

That's not a news outlet, gs. it's a blog. An opinion piece.

You have nothing to refute the 2010/2005/1998 data with, because the facts are what they are.

Your argument above of "1998 and 2010 are equal, thus no warming" is exactly the ignorant and broken logic I pointed out in the post of mine you just quoted. Out of the last 150 years, the 3 hottest ones all happen to have been in the last 12 years, two in the last 5. During a solar minimum. Hmm.

 

[gsvol]

Hansen admitted he took a risk in 1988. Scientists generally are very skeptical, very precise. Scientist are rarely "99% confident" about anything, but there comes a time when someone has to get the message across.

Let's just say, Hansen's reputation is not suffering in the least. There are a few "moonbats" out there, but I'm not pointing fingers.

Anyone who lends credence to Hansen has to be deranged.

That's not a news outlet, gs. it's a blog. An opinion piece.

You have nothing to refute the 2010/2005/1998 data with, because the facts are what they are.

Your argument above of "1998 and 2010 are equal, thus no warming" is exactly the ignorant and broken logic I pointed out in the post of mine you just quoted. Out of the last 150 years, the 3 hottest ones all happen to have been in the last 12 years, two in the last 5. During a solar minimum. Hmm.

I see no logic in your argument at all, what I see is a fanatical religious like belief in a set of conjectures with facts thrown in that support your theoretical doomsday visions.

 

[Daddy Gee]

what is the accepted source of data for avg temp?

 

[VOLatile]

I see no logic in your argument at all, what I see is a fanatical religious like belief in a set of conjectures with facts thrown in that support your theoretical doomsday visions.

The guy offers up scientific evidence, asks for a rebuttal with credible sources, and this is what you have to show for it?

 

[utgibbs]

what is the accepted source of data for avg temp?

Three groups - each using different methodologies - have the largest groups tracking the most data.

GISS / NASA led by James Hansen

University of East Anglia led by Phil Jones

NOAA

Stevenson boxes (louvered boxes with the equipment in them set about a meter over the ground - invented by the father of Robert Louis Stevenson) house the land equipment. Since the 1990s, the groups have deployed buoys / ships to get the real time data from the sea surface temperatures. Piecing together the old data from the sea was a monumental task.

Overall, we have about 150 years of good standard measurements from across the globe. Hansen's paper: "Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperatures" J of Geophysical Res, vol 92, no D11 pp13,345 - 13,372 Nov 20, 1987 has an EXCELLENT sequence of maps through time showing how the data coverage has evolved. It's available online for free. p13,346 is the map sequence. This is paper is canonical in the literature.

 

[gsvol]

The guy offers up scientific evidence, asks for a rebuttal with credible sources, and this is what you have to show for it?

What IP leaves out is more important that the data
he produces. For one thing he is talking about
hundredths of a degree when talking about 2010.

His whole theory falls apart when you look at temps
over longer periods.

I've given him plenty of credibal rebuttal and
he just ignores it or sidesteps the issues.

 

[fl0at]

I've given him plenty of credibal rebuttal and
he just ignores it or sidesteps the issues.

Your top graph shows the increase in temperature that you disagree with, then post the bottom graph.

Quick question, what do you think that bottom graph (that long term you are implying) actually shows?

I'll give you a hint, look at the label on the Y axis and tell me what you see, please.

 

[hndog609]

Three groups - each using different methodologies - have the largest groups tracking the most data.

GISS / NASA led by James Hansen

University of East Anglia led by Phil Jones

NOAA

Stevenson boxes (louvered boxes with the equipment in them set about a meter over the ground - invented by the father of Robert Louis Stevenson) house the land equipment. Since the 1990s, the groups have deployed buoys / ships to get the real time data from the sea surface temperatures. Piecing together the old data from the sea was a monumental task.

Overall, we have about 150 years of good standard measurements from across the globe. Hansen's paper: "Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperatures" J of Geophysical Res, vol 92, no D11 pp13,345 - 13,372 Nov 20, 1987 has an EXCELLENT sequence of maps through time showing how the data coverage has evolved. It's available online for free. p13,346 is the map sequence. This is paper is canonical in the literature.

Is there some reason you almost never cite HadCrut/UAH/RSS when discussing this? I'm not taking a shot here (well, OK, I will at Hansen, without remorse, you believe what you like but I don't give a fig what GISS says about anything with Hansen in charge...there's other sources) but there are certainly other measurements taken than those you mention. Just wondering if there was an actual reason for the omittance.

 

[gsvol]

Your top graph shows the increase in temperature that you disagree with, then post the bottom graph.

Quick question, what do you think that bottom graph (that long term you are implying) actually shows?

I'll give you a hint, look at the label on the Y axis and tell me what you see, please.

Where did you get that, I have repeately pointed out that temps have gradually been in an increasing trend since the end of the little ice age.

What I dispute is alarmist CO2 driven AGW rhetoric because we have increased only a fraction of a degree in the last century, when you talk about 2010 being the hottest ever you are only talking about hundredths of a degree, CO2 only appears in our atmosphere in trace amounts and has very very little impact as a greenhouse gas and man contributes only a very small amount of the CO2 that is present.

When I look at the bottom graph I see that we have absolutely no reason to be alarmed about a warming Earth, it has been warmer than now for most of civilized (and not so civilized) man's history.

Now a question for you:

Look at the top graph, particularly approx 1940 - 1980, a period that saw a boom in industrialization and emissions, why was that a cooling period if CO2 was driving us into global warming??

 

[fl0at]

When I look at the bottom graph I see that we have absolutely no reason to be alarmed about a warming Earth, it has been warmer than now for most of civilized (and not so civilized) man's history.

Where on the bottom graph do you see temperature? I see Oxygen 18 versus time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I've given him plenty of credibal rebuttal and
he just ignores it or sidesteps the issues.

First off, credible*

Second and most importantly... if the URL contains something along the lines of "wordpress," (like your images do) then it's probably not a scholarly source of info, but who cares about that anyway?

 

[VOLatile]

First off, credible*

Second and most importantly... if the URL contains something along the lines of "wordpress," (like your images do) then it's probably not a scholarly source of info, but who cares about that anyway?

First thing I thought was "MSPaint Graphs."

 

[utgibbs]

Is there some reason you almost never cite HadCrut/UAH/RSS when discussing this? I'm not taking a shot here (well, OK, I will at Hansen, without remorse, you believe what you like but I don't give a fig what GISS says about anything with Hansen in charge...there's other sources) but there are certainly other measurements taken than those you mention. Just wondering if there was an actual reason for the omittance.

I'm more familiar with the other three. I still think of Hadley Centre as a modelling agency only.

The Hadley Centre owes much to Hansen. I doubt you would find a person there who would agree with your assessment of Hansen.

 

[gsvol]

 

[gsvol]

Where on the bottom graph do you see temperature? I see Oxygen 18 versus time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Duh, that is a valid indicator of historical temperatures, perhaps you would like to produce alternative indicators??

That's not a news outlet, gs. it's a blog. An opinion piece.

So if it is printed in a news outlet it is valid scientific information???

"The man who reads nothing is better informed than the man who reads only newspapers."
Thomas Jefferson

A little history for you:

Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009 But Now You Know

1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895

1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times

1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912

1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune

1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post

1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?

1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

Etc, etc, ad nauseum up until today.

Since 1880: 30 years cooling, 30 years warming, 30 years cooling, 30 years warming. Guess what comes next, or what may have started 7 to 10 years ago?

News outlets are in the business of selling copy and making money, scientic integrity means nothing to them and nothing sells like controversy, so they are in the business of creating controversy for profit.

Then too there are researchers who have an interest in keeping the controversy a hot topic because that means they will receive more funding to do more research.

Not to leave out the true believing tree huggers such as yourself who take it upon youself to save the Earth but that has to do with a lot of indoctrination you have received all your life from those with a ulterior motives.

 

[fl0at]

Duh, that is a valid indicator of historical temperatures, perhaps you would like to produce alternative indicators??

Valid correlation, absolutely. Used to show that today's change correlates with previous? Not in your graph.

Your graph conveniently ends around 1850 or so; where is the dO18 from that point to now?

If you want to compare apples to apples using dO18, show the data missing from then until now, so that we can look at the slope (to see if the change is occurring faster now than previous "cycles") and the magnitude (ratio as it stands today).

So, why don't you go ahead and add that to the graph so we can all analyze it honestly. I could be wrong, but I bet you'd find the slope of the end you left off greater, and the magnitude of the change higher.

But we can't know, because yours conveniently leaves that off the tail end.

 

[gsvol]

NASA just flat out lies: (READ LINK)

NASA Targets Children with ‘Climate Kids’ Website ClimateQuotes.com

The climate is changing as it always has. Most climate scientists are unable to conceive of any natural cause for this change, and they claim that human emissions of CO2 are the cause. The evidence of increasing temperature is abundant, the evidence that human emissions are causing this increase is weak. Climate scientists rely on modeling to support their claims. These models are incomplete and inaccurate, but they claim that if you take the average of these incomplete and inaccurate models you will get the correct climate sensitivity. Even then, when you apply this sensitivity to the past it does not work. Unless of course, you factor in aerosols, which is essentially guesswork. Bottom line is this: the reasons behind the changing climate are not well understood (by anyone).

You don't get that impression from NASA's 'Climate Kids' website. I told myself I wouldn't use the word propaganda in this post, but the website is so one-sided and it is so obviously designed to appeal to emotion I don't know what else to call it. Go ahead and visit before I describe it and see if you agree. I'll wait.
--------------------------------------

Way to go NASA, you're creating little eco-snobs.

First off, credible*

Second and most importantly... if the URL contains something along the lines of "wordpress," (like your images do) then it's probably not a scholarly source of info, but who cares about that anyway?

EXAMPLE A

First thing I thought was "MSPaint Graphs."

EXAMPLE B

 

[gsvol]

Valid correlation, absolutely. Used to show that today's change correlates with previous? Not in your graph.

Your graph conveniently ends around 1850 or so; where is the dO18 from that point to now?

If you want to compare apples to apples using dO18, show the data missing from then until now, so that we can look at the slope (to see if the change is occurring faster now than previous "cycles") and the magnitude (ratio as it stands today).

So, why don't you go ahead and add that to the graph so we can all analyze it honestly. I could be wrong, but I bet you'd find the slope of the end you left off greater, and the magnitude of the change higher.

But we can't know, because yours conveniently leaves that off the tail end.

Duh again, after 1850 we have real measurements.

And the change now isn't faster than some historical changes.

Why don't you just try to refute the historical record by some means?

The fact is that the historical record shows that what is happening now isn't unusual at all.

 

[fl0at]

Duh again, after 1850 we have real measurements.

And the change now isn't faster than some historical changes.

Why don't you just try to refute the historical record by some means?

The fact is that the historical record shows that what is happening now isn't unusual at all.

In order to refute or confirm the historical data, I want to see the same data side by side. Show me the dO18 current next to the dO18 historical, and then we can see for ourselves if the change is faster or not.

I don't mind the "historical" data, if you put the current next to it; so do that, and then let's look at it.

All, and that all has emphasis, that the "historical data" shows is historical dO18. IN ORDER for it to be compared to "usual" or "unusual," you'd have to have something to compare it to, and what you need to compare it to is TODAY.

So, go fetch it so we can compare it, in order to see if it is usual or not.

 

[IPorange]

I've given him plenty of credibal rebuttal and
he just ignores it or sidesteps the issues.

The hell, you say. Your last two graphs in no way refute global climate change. Only in your apparently ignorant mind do they even address the topic.