I don't have a record of Al's flight itinerary from the last year, but I'm guessing commercial flight is not a practical option to someone who must fly a lot. Plus, he may end up sitting next to one of you guys who want to debate the merits of his documentary during the entire flight... depriving the man of some much needed rest. :P
You probably know more about the subject of Al Gore than I. But, he does not seem to be a hypocrite to me. It seems he cares about the environment, and right or wrong (on global warming) he is trying to do something about it. I understand he has made "green" the home he lives in and drives a hybrid, puts his recyclables out on the curb every Monday, drives his private jet only when needed... what more could you ask?
but I'm guessing commercial flight is not a practical option to someone who must fly a lot.
I'm not just picking on Gore here, but for many "important" people. What I'm picking on them for is "the need" to travel for business these days. With the technology available there really isn't much need to leave an office. If you have a good product and message to sell, then you don't need to send charismatic Joe-suit out on a plane to wine-and-dine and push some mediocre to crappy message or product.
It's about time we advance and become more practical and logical. I certainly won't be swayed to vote for a candidate simply because he comes to my town and shakes my hand, and dresses and smiles nice; or to buy a car because "I like" the sales-person.
These ARE the models that are used to make the case for global warming.
Forget that for a second.
I can't do that when those models are the pillar of global warming theory.
The FACT (not guess, not estimate, not computer calculated) is that we are in an upward trend on temps.
The FACT is that the long term trend is toward cooling. We're in an interglacial period where warming is transient. Additionally, temperatures are up and down practically from year to year.
That cannot be denied.
There you go again with with the "D" word! Think of it as a refutation of sloppy science, cherry picked data and miserably deficient modelling.
The question is: Is man playing a part? Are cars playing a part? What should be done if so?
The IPCC uses climate change models to address those questions. The models fail to match reality. The models are therefore seriously flawed and, at best, there is no answer to the question of whether mankind is playing a part. Given that, it would be beyond foolhardy to even pose the question of what should be done. We do know that global warming and global cooling happen quite independently of mankind's influence.
You just cannot have it both ways. The only support, and I use that term loosely, for anthropogenic climate change is the computer models and you cannot dismiss questions about the veracity of the climate change models when their track record is inconvenient.
Let's talk about THAT for a while, because THAT is the main issue here.
What you are saying is that I should bet on a particular horse in the fourth race at Belmont but should not question the fact that the recommendation is based on reading tea leaves.
The question remains; why should we believe the models when their performance is wanting?
The models are therefore seriously flawed and, at best, there is no answer to the question of whether mankind is playing a part
Last time I counted the earth was a couple billion years old. Any type of computer model programmed correctly would spit out, "insufficient data" when asked about global warming influenced by mankind.
There is a possibility man is responsible for global warming, equally good chance he is not. That's is why a balanced and cautious approach must be taken. The environment must be protected, but so should the economy and growth.
Personally, I'd like to see a few more refineries and the resumption in the building of nuclear powerplants. Decrease the pollution from energy produced from coal.
You are not understanding what I'm saying. Probably MY fault.
You're evading the question. The transient effects of warming and cooling have been put into proper context. Climate change "proponents" use global climate models to make the case that mankind is responsible for climate change. You are a climate change "proponent." Please explain why we should believe the models when they bear little relationship to reality.
No models.
No simulations.
Actual temps from 2007 back to 1880.
Do you have any idea how large the error bars on data ranging back 100+ years? With regard to global temperature, the overwhelming portion of that data covers a statistically insignificant portion of the earth's surface and virtually none of it measures tropospheric temperatures. The paucity, fragility and statistical insignficance of the data prior to the late 20th century is precisely the reason why the IPPC relies on MODELLING to make their case for anthropogenic climate change. Yet neither they nor you are willing to explain why we should have any confidence in those models.
That chart shows an upward trend starting at about 1983ish.
You conveniently skipped over the parts where there were declines and fail to tell us why none of the models explain the steep drop in temperature last year. In fact, none of the models even get the warming right. It's easy to cherry pick the data and find a span of time where you see temperatures rising. You can also prune the data to find periods of cooling. All of those fluctuations are within the bounds of "normal" variance and so you have no case based on "cooked data."
What's gonna stop the trend up? Can we help?
There is a warming trend on Mars, the Jovian moons and Titan. Can we help? Oh, that's right. We don't live there. But since we don't live there, we might suspect that something else is going on with regard to "global climate change" that does not involve mankind. That's what the data really suggests. If you recast your question into the form of "We have discovered the real cause of climate change and it's not mankind, is there something we can do to mitigate the effects of that change?" then I would consider jumping onto the bandwagon. It's too bad the wagon some people are on is headed in the wrong direction.
Change and even sudden change can be very natural. If the temperature is increasing the last 100 years (and I wouldn't put much faith in how accurate thermometers were compared to today, so who knows if the temps. really are different), how do we know this isn't mainly totally natural (not that humans don't have some small part in any change).
For instance someone comes up with the theory that development along the San Andreas fault is making seismic activity worse. What can man do about it? Nothing really because the majority of the events are being caused by the fact that the Earth is EVER CHANGING. It is not static - continents move, seas form and die, the Earth heats up 10 degrees, and then it cools 10 degrees. The Earth's atmosphere sometimes has so much oxygen in it that lightning creates fireballs.
It would be unnatural if we did have the power to stop these events from happening! And I can assure you mankind is very weak and does not have the power to change these forces. We can not control the weather, climate, stop a volcano, change the tides, stop the continents from moving, or any other scenario you can conjure. About the only thing mankind can accomplish is to dam some rivers on a little larger scale than the beavers. Oh and we can kill large animals fairly easily, and cause some short-term pollution of the very surface of parts of the Earth.
So unless you know where Superman is or have a phone to God, I think you're going to have give-up the fallacy of an unchanging environment.
Dont forget that the sun is getting bigger and hotter, the earths orbit is changing, the universe is changing, the earths poles are swaping ends, etc etc etc.
All that has more to do with the earths weather then humans do.
BUT if humans are adding to climate change then there is only one way to slow it down.....STOP MAKING HUMANS !
Humans use up the air, water, power, food, etc more and more everyday. Sure we are conserving a certain percent but when the population goes up more then the percentage of conserving......the consumables available drops below the level needed to survive.
STOP MAKING HUMANS.....thats the only true possible fix we have !
I'm not EVADING it, I'm IGNORING it because it's not pertinent to the point I'm trying to make. You keep talking about computer models and I'm not even talking about that AT ALL. Comprende? Does not matter. I don't care about the models. I'm not TALKING about a guess. I'm talking about FACTS.
The FACT that we are warming is the issue. It's not a doubt.
The question is: Is man, particularly burning fossil fuels, contributing to the warming? And if so, can we do anything about it?
And I'm not "CHERRY PICKING" a time frame at all. Since 1983, we have had 6 years that have been cooler than the mean since 1880, in the USA. The other 19 have been WARMER. That's a WARMING TREND which is not cherry picked but is the most recent data that contains enough years to be a trend.
I'm not preaching "Global Warming" by using any computer models. In fact, I'm not preaching it at all, in regard to what might happen in the distant future. If you think they are wrong, then I'm with you. To me, they don't matter because they are just GUESSES. I could care less about any bandwagons.
What has happened in the last 25 years is NOT A GUESS. It's FACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA.
and 25 years is significant in the history or the earth how?
Larsb - if you measure the amount of light starting at 4:00 am and go till noon you would conclude we are in a period of increasing light, when really we are not.
Next you will track temps from Jan - June, sheesh then we really be in trouble, I mean look a the jump over 6 months!!!
The last 25 years are too short of a time period, combined with your starting point of 1880. Why that year? If you select a different starting point I bet the last 25 years would be below THE MEAN.
LOL - I come back here every few weeks for a laugh, and LARSB - you never fail to deliver. BTW, If you send me all your money I can reduce your impact on global warming... :shades:
I don't see how you can be so sure based on one chart. If the folks making the claim had a gridwork of measurement devices that covered the entire earth, they MIGHT be able to get a usable average for the world. As it is they are just elusive points of which many were deemed inaccurate by NOAA. At best they are spot checks that have little overall validity. Makes for a nice graph. I would think that a trend should be at least 25,000 years to carry any weight. Not 25 years. The warming over the last 128 years could be just a blip when looking at the earth. We know for a fact that it was 6-9 degrees warmer in the past. We know it was not man that had anything to do with that warm period. So even if this turns out to be a warming trend, it will not be something that man can control. The USA with all its technology could not even stop a little hurricane from making a mess in New Orleans. We should start small and work our way up to controlling the overall climate.
Maybe if we were to stop a category 4 hurricane that would be a signal that man has arrived in the Climate Changing business.
Gosh, if you can't answer the question then just say so!
Apparently, there is a lot more that you want to slide under the carpet. You are also ignoring the quality and meaning of the DATA. You have not addressed a single point that's been made about the deficiencies of the data, the huge variability of the data nor the sensitivity of the data to one's choice of reference point and much more.
Since 1983, we have had 6 years that have been cooler than the mean since 1880, in the USA. The other 19 have been WARMER. That's a WARMING TREND which is not cherry picked
And 2007 effectively wiped out all those temperature "gains" since 1983. Where's the trend?
The FACT that we are warming is the issue. It's not a doubt.
The question is: Is man, particularly burning fossil fuels, contributing to the warming?
Actually, there is enormous doubt. You can't just pick a period of time, note the temperature rose and then imply the "trend" is due to such and such an agent without some compelling argument and/or providing convincing DATA. By posing the question of mankind's possible contribution, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the temperature fluctuations over whatever time period you choose are significantly different from other periods of Earth's history. Causality matters.
The (very) long term historical temperature record (i.e. DATA) shows fluctuations up and down that are gigantic compared to the piddling ups and downs of the 1986-2006 or even the 1880-2006 changes. What makes this particular flash in time any different?
If CO2 is your suspected causal agent, then at least demonstrate a correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that you won't find one because the historical DATA shows global warming precedes rises in atmospheric CO2 levels and global cooling precedes drops in CO2 levels.
Since the industrial revolution began there hasn't been ANY sustained correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. Even the data you referenced shows significant cooling periods over the past 200 years all happening while mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels has skyrocketed. Apparently, CO2 does not drive global warming.
And if so, can we do anything about it?
And you can address that question without modelling?
There is no deficiency in the data !! It's actual USA temperatures. Are you questioning a thermometer now?
2007 was above the mean, so I don't see how that wiped out anything.
But like I said before: If anyone thinks ONE YEAR indicates a TREND, then they are just being ignorant. One hot year or one cold year does not indicate a TREND. A trend requires at least two data points. And having 19 of the last 25 years being warmer than the mean indicates a definable TREND.
There is no doubt about that trend. Look at the PDF again.
We don't need to "model" anything because we already KNOW we are in an upward trend.
Well when you're comparing temperatures taken 100 years ago with thermometers to today's devices - YES. Do you think if the actual temp. is 75F, that today's thermometers even read 75.000F? No they are calibrated per (ASTM methods?) to be accurate to within a certain point - maybe + or - 0.1F. Now are you telling me that you think back in 1900 that thermometers around the world were being calibrated to a high standard? That is important to know as the temperature increases you are quoting are fractions of a degree. Ask that question to the author of the charts - "verify that the data that went into that chart was from regularly calibrated insttruments, AND find out what the calibration standard was - + or - 1F? 2F?"
You must question the validity of the data - the accuracy, the sampling pattern (rural vs. urban heat-sinks - i would guess airports and downtown facilities would be hotter!), time-of-day, sun vs. shade, precision (was the temp. reported as 76F or more precise to 75.5F in 1900, at all or just some reporting stations?). That kind of stuff is very important.
Was the Dust Bowl phenomenon anthropogenic warming? A planetary sneeze in reaction to the onslaught of the industrial age in the late 1800's?. A sudden flood of coal burning pollution and tin horn jalopies criss-crossing America?
Maybe the Dust Bowl just happened in one tiny place on the planet that just happened to be in America. Maybe (heavens!), it was completely natural.
The most damaging self fulfilling "told you so" global alarmists enjoy is that everything fits perfectly into place IF...... something goes wrong for a decade or so (sometimes more)..... Darned if you do, Darned if you don't
I am really starting to think that if a good size volcano blasts off - the global alarmists will somehow link this "natural" event to somebody's SUV aggravating the situation saying "Well, we should have just had a decade of bad growing seasons and human starvation instead of fifty because of Bob's SUV.....".
The Gorbots have THE perfect cult. Welcome to the new century of stupidity and self-serving-goal-orientated misinformation..... As for myself, I'm going to go out and plant about two acres of apple trees.
Last Post (seriously). It's getting pretty boring in here, I couldn't believe the thread was still going... Snark away........
Sorry just want clarification, are you saying the temp data you are showing is from the USA (you did just say actual USA temperatures)? I know you know that even temperatures accross the US are NOT going to show a Global trend just a USA trend, now if you just misspoke I understand it can happen, just want some clarification. In any respect I think that with the way energy prices are going (and salarys are staying) we are all going to have to move to more fuel effeicient (or alternate power sourced) vehicules in the near future whether we agree with man made climate change or not. As I have said in the past there is more than just greehouse gas emmissions at play here anyway, There is also just general pollution levels, and just plain common sense, it can't hurt anything to consume only as much engery as is required to meet your needs (and even wants), there's no reason to use more than you need to (i.e. windows wide open in your house and the air conditioning way up too, or heat on and windows open I know people who do this so it isn't like it never happens). I don't know that you need to sacrifice your life style, just make informed decisions based on your individual needs and wants. I do think that at some point the gas fueled car needs to be replaced with some other personal transport solution, I don't think that people are going to go back to buses, trains etc for all their transportation needs, it just isn't realistic to expect it either. Just my opinion of course. Scott
There is no deficiency in the data !! It's actual USA temperatures.
What about temperatures in the rest of the world? Are we basing Global warming on a few random temperature readings in the US? If that is the case I can find places that will give you just about any trend you would like to see. And that is exactly what has happened. If your charts from NASA are so accurate. Why did they have to revise them? Did the guy yelling out the temperatures at one of the random locations have dyslexia? I have no doubt that NASA and NOAA can give me a very accurate accounting of the temperature in any place they choose to set up their equipment. So your statement about questioning thermometers is silly. You also know that a thermometer set up in downtown NYC is not indicative of the ambient temperature outside the city at any given time. For a scientist to say that the temperature all around the World is at any given moment is 1/100 of a degree warmer or cooler, than that exact same moment a year earlier is really stretching the case for accurate data. For example do you know how far apart these weather devices are spaced around the globe? Do you think the temperature over 100 miles of ocean varies more than 1/100th of a degree? Do you think we have measurement bouys spaced that close over all the oceans?
According to NOAA: In addition, this paper documented that the world ocean accounted for approximately 80 percent of the Earth’s increase in heat content from 1955 to 1996. These papers were the first time scientists documented quantifiably that the world ocean has warmed during this period, and that ocean heat storage dominates Earth’s heat balance.
From that I would deduct that man's influence is somewhere in that 20% that is not caused by the ocean warming. If the IPCC from the UN is to be taken as fact, they claim that all transportation has caused 15% of the warming of the Globe. That leaves only 5% for power generation and all industrial emissions of GHG.
If NASA is to be used as the basis. There latest finding is the ships are having an influence on rain clouds. Best way to stop that is cut off all trade from China and Japan. We don't need no more Toyotas or cheap toys.
Good examples of observable effects are marine clouds that receive large quantities of gas and particulates emitted by commercial shipping vessels. When the particles reach the cloud base, they can modify a cloud’s lifetime and precipitation and radiation properties (referred to as ship tracks) as numerous studies have shown.
Would anyone like to comment on whether they think everyone reporting temperatures today calibrates their thermometers the same way? How about people 50 years ago - do you think they were all doing the same? what about 100 years ago? could they read an outdoor thermometer to 0.1F with a mercury thermometer, where we have digital today? do you think that a person might not take the temperature at the same time each day, where a machine can do so?
So I really do question temperatures from years ago. And I still quuestion temperatures taken today as the devices are only as accurate as they are setup and maintained. Since we're talking at most 1F rise since 1880, I'll partially believe the data, but I certainly wouldn't believe it enough to take it seriously, without seriously questioning it's validity.
It does not matter where or how the temperature is measured in a city. Each City in the world has one official temperature station which reports the temps daily for that city. Regardless if five miles away it's 5 degrees cooler or warmer, the official temp is the official temp. It is what it is.
You guys are just looking silly trying to disprove temperature facts.
Disprove the future projections of further warming if you want. But wasting my time and your time trying to dispute the facts is just an exercise in futility for all of us.
could they read an outdoor thermometer to 0.1F with a mercury thermometer, where we have digital today?
The variables are more than can be scientifically recorded. I can go on my patio and get a variation of 5 degree F from the bottom of an 8 foot post to the top. And that is at any given moment. Where were all these 1000s of thermometers placed in 1880 that we keep seeing GLOBAL data from? I have no doubt that science can measure temperatures to the 100th 0r 1000th of a degree. It is more important where that measurement was taken. And that it is taken at exactly the same spot day after day and year after year. Then you can get a trend for that spot. For those people in China, Iraq and Jerusalem that have witnessed snow for the first time, Global Warming will be a hard sell.
Each City in the world has one official temperature station which reports the temps daily for that city. Regardless if five miles away it's 5 degrees cooler or warmer, the official temp is the official temp. It is what it is.
If the charts you are using is based on the data from "Official" city temperatures, it is not only a JOKE. It is a BIG Joke.... San Diego on any given day of the year can have a 20 degree F difference in temperature from one part of town to another. How you can believe that science can tell a ONE/TENTH degree change in global temperature over a 100 year or more span is beyond belief. I can never remember the temperature given in 10ths of a degree. It is only in the last few years that we had devices that accurate.
So maybe you can tell us how they determined from the weather reports in all these cities, that the temperature world wide went up as little as a tenth of a degree without a computer simulation.
Gary says, "So maybe you can tell us how they determined from the weather reports in all these cities, that the temperature world wide went up as little as a tenth of a degree without a computer simulation.
Are you kidding ? You really need an answer to that question? Get back to me if you REALLY need that explained to you.
Well you might want to look at the weather for San Diego at this moment. The temperature is varied from 56 to 71 degrees. Sounds like you would pick the 71 for your SIMULATION.
The five towns/cities I have lived in during the past 20 years all do it EXACTLY like that. One official temperature station per town/city.
That does not mean that the temperature at that station would stay the same. Why? Because the city is changing (growing in size and population creating a heat-sink, which can affect the temperature. For example: from http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/voogt.html
"With increasing urban development, heat islands may increase in frequency and magnitude. Los Angeles, California, for example, has been 1˚F hotter every decade for the past 60 years."
This means that the temperature would increase 0.1F every year at that station, even if the air outside the city never changed. So your idea that the temperature should never increase at an urban monitoring station is completely false.
And the extremes you see in Phoenix have been made worse as the valley has been developed from a small city to several million today. You folks moving there, pouring concrete and blacktop, running AC's and cars are creating your own increased localized hotter temperatures.
kernick said, "So your idea that the temperature should never increase at an urban monitoring station is completely false.
First of all, I NEVER SAID THAT or implied it.
And you mean there is really such a thing as an "Urban Heat Island" effect? Little ole' PIDDLY MAN has an effect of making cities hotter by building more asphalt jungle gyms?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
I guess all those who think Man cannot affect climate change might have something to say about Urban Heat Islands = Urban Myth.
I don't buy the paper as it is a very big waste of natural resources. If you cannot see the error in using a thermometer at the airport of where ever in a scientific study. Just don't have much else to give you. As Kernick pointed out. Our cities are warmer due to all the concrete and blacktop. Best thing to do if they are raising the temperature of the globe is tear them down. Go back to the caves. That is a far different story than CO2 from burning fossil fuel is what is causing the globe to warm.
The daily temps reported by every city ARE THE TEMPS !!!
That is the system !!!
That's how we know ANYTHING about historical temperatures in the modern age !!
Without that, we'd have NOTHING !!!
Argue with the system being wrong all you want. But I can guarantee you that if Slam Diego reports 71 degrees today, then 150 years from now, the official temperature for March 7, 2008 will be 71 degrees. And that's what scientists in the year 2158 will use to show weather trends for the year 2008.
Who cares WHY The cities are warmer. They are warmer. They are likely contributing to overall USA and global temperature trends, but they may not be.
You inferred that the temperature increases reported were proof that the Earth is warming over the last 20 years. You implied that that temperature should be the same year after year if there is no manmade GW going on.
You're now trying to say you understand that a thermometer placed in an urban area will read higher year-after-year if growth is occurring. So if these official temperatures are what's being plotted, then how is that proof that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the temperature increase reported? It sounds to me that what's causing the temperature increase is simply solar radiation being retained, and the heat from millions of people running motors and engines.
Cities occupy a very, very small part of the surface of the Earth, <1%, so given the Urban Heat Island effect, urban readings are not very indicative of any global temperature increase.
They are likely contributing to overall USA and global temperature trends, but they may not be.
I can agree with that statement of all possibilities. And I do agree with you that people probably contribute to changing the climate - all actions have an effect. But I do not believe that the effect is much = significant. The heat we generate from our cars and houses and electrical appliances is localized. Take the 100 biggest cities in the world and imagine they are 2 quart pots of warm water with a sterno can under it, spread out in a football stadium. Do they warm the stadium, well sure a tiny, tiny bit. But what is the main factor, affecting the climate - natural changes. So sure it makes a difference whether the pots are on or not, and you can measure slightly warmer temps. near the pots, but it really isn't changing the temp. of the stadium.
19 of the last 26 years being warmer than the mean since 1880 MUST indicate SOMETHING.
As we said it may mean: 1) temperature measurements were not accurate enough and methodically done until very recently, and 2) the urban areas where some of the temperatures are taken are Urban Heat Sinks caused by the thermal emissions of millions of people, living within a few miles of the thermometer. You can not then make a good case that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, is a main contributor to any warming globally and uniformly. I'm not saying it is impossible.
But before I go changing my lifestyle, I want to see proof that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is causing temperature increase. And for that proof I will question the model, I will question the accuracy and method of temperature measurements, and I will question whether all the CO2 emitted naturally and other greenhouse gases aren't the main factor in any climate change. I am not willing to take action based on Al Gore or any UN group of experts who have a hunch, computer model, or theory.
Why is 1880 the year of record? Why compare anything to that year? Pick a base year during the last ice age and viola - a warming trend. Pick a year during the last tropical time and viola - no warming trend. Comparing 120 years of history (and I would debate the accuracy of data older than ~50 years) to the millions of years of climate history to draw a conclusion is not great science.
The climate of the earth has gone up and down for EVER. Sometimes it was cold sometimes it was hot and sometimes it was just right.
Larsb - tell the truth here, do you have one of them Y2K bunkers out there? :shades:
Are you telling us that the last 25 years are a guide for the next 25 - meaning 1980 - 2005 is telling us that we are going to heat up?
If that is the case how come 1960 - 1985 did not tell us we were going to heat up?
You can't cherry pick the data to justify your position you know, well I suppose you can try - but there is a reason for stories like "the boy who cried wolf..."
Comments
That is correct sir. What is your point? :shades:
Oops!
He certainly has access to all sorts of private aircraft
Well then, it's guilty by association then, right?
I'm not just picking on Gore here, but for many "important" people. What I'm picking on them for is "the need" to travel for business these days. With the technology available there really isn't much need to leave an office. If you have a good product and message to sell, then you don't need to send charismatic Joe-suit out on a plane to wine-and-dine and push some mediocre to crappy message or product.
It's about time we advance and become more practical and logical. I certainly won't be swayed to vote for a candidate simply because he comes to my town and shakes my hand, and dresses and smiles nice; or to buy a car because "I like" the sales-person.
I want him to apologize for the misinformation he knowingly put in his movie.
Maybe he believes his information to be correct.
None of this GW is black and white... seems to be all gray to me.
These ARE the models that are used to make the case for global warming.
Forget that for a second.
I can't do that when those models are the pillar of global warming theory.
The FACT (not guess, not estimate, not computer calculated) is that we are in an upward trend on temps.
The FACT is that the long term trend is toward cooling. We're in an interglacial period where warming is transient. Additionally, temperatures are up and down practically from year to year.
That cannot be denied.
There you go again with with the "D" word! Think of it as a refutation of sloppy science, cherry picked data and miserably deficient modelling.
The question is: Is man playing a part? Are cars playing a part? What should be done if so?
The IPCC uses climate change models to address those questions. The models fail to match reality. The models are therefore seriously flawed and, at best, there is no answer to the question of whether mankind is playing a part. Given that, it would be beyond foolhardy to even pose the question of what should be done. We do know that global warming and global cooling happen quite independently of mankind's influence.
You just cannot have it both ways. The only support, and I use that term loosely, for anthropogenic climate change is the computer models and you cannot dismiss questions about the veracity of the climate change models when their track record is inconvenient.
Let's talk about THAT for a while, because THAT is the main issue here.
What you are saying is that I should bet on a particular horse in the fourth race at Belmont but should not question the fact that the recommendation is based on reading tea leaves.
The question remains; why should we believe the models when their performance is wanting?
The charts I posted yesterday and the PDF from NASA clearly show actual historical temperature data.
No models.
No simulations.
Actual temps from 2007 back to 1880.
That chart shows an upward trend starting at about 1983ish.
What's gonna stop the trend up? Can we help?
'Sall I'm Sprayin...........
Last time I counted the earth was a couple billion years old. Any type of computer model programmed correctly would spit out, "insufficient data" when asked about global warming influenced by mankind.
There is a possibility man is responsible for global warming, equally good chance he is not. That's is why a balanced and cautious approach must be taken. The environment must be protected, but so should the economy and growth.
Personally, I'd like to see a few more refineries and the resumption in the building of nuclear powerplants. Decrease the pollution from energy produced from coal.
You're evading the question. The transient effects of warming and cooling have been put into proper context. Climate change "proponents" use global climate models to make the case that mankind is responsible for climate change. You are a climate change "proponent." Please explain why we should believe the models when they bear little relationship to reality.
No models.
No simulations.
Actual temps from 2007 back to 1880.
Do you have any idea how large the error bars on data ranging back 100+ years? With regard to global temperature, the overwhelming portion of that data covers a statistically insignificant portion of the earth's surface and virtually none of it measures tropospheric temperatures. The paucity, fragility and statistical insignficance of the data prior to the late 20th century is precisely the reason why the IPPC relies on MODELLING to make their case for anthropogenic climate change. Yet neither they nor you are willing to explain why we should have any confidence in those models.
That chart shows an upward trend starting at about 1983ish.
You conveniently skipped over the parts where there were declines and fail to tell us why none of the models explain the steep drop in temperature last year. In fact, none of the models even get the warming right. It's easy to cherry pick the data and find a span of time where you see temperatures rising. You can also prune the data to find periods of cooling. All of those fluctuations are within the bounds of "normal" variance and so you have no case based on "cooked data."
What's gonna stop the trend up? Can we help?
There is a warming trend on Mars, the Jovian moons and Titan. Can we help? Oh, that's right. We don't live there. But since we don't live there, we might suspect that something else is going on with regard to "global climate change" that does not involve mankind. That's what the data really suggests. If you recast your question into the form of "We have discovered the real cause of climate change and it's not mankind, is there something we can do to mitigate the effects of that change?" then I would consider jumping onto the bandwagon. It's too bad the wagon some people are on is headed in the wrong direction.
I would not go so far as to assume an equally good chance. Historical data suggests it's more like "little chance!"
In any case, the science isn't there yet and our tax dollars deserve far better quality from the science that we do pay for. In fact, I demand it!
Change and even sudden change can be very natural. If the temperature is increasing the last 100 years (and I wouldn't put much faith in how accurate thermometers were compared to today, so who knows if the temps. really are different), how do we know this isn't mainly totally natural (not that humans don't have some small part in any change).
For instance someone comes up with the theory that development along the San Andreas fault is making seismic activity worse. What can man do about it? Nothing really because the majority of the events are being caused by the fact that the Earth is EVER CHANGING. It is not static - continents move, seas form and die, the Earth heats up 10 degrees, and then it cools 10 degrees. The Earth's atmosphere sometimes has so much oxygen in it that lightning creates fireballs.
It would be unnatural if we did have the power to stop these events from happening! And I can assure you mankind is very weak and does not have the power to change these forces. We can not control the weather, climate, stop a volcano, change the tides, stop the continents from moving, or any other scenario you can conjure. About the only thing mankind can accomplish is to dam some rivers on a little larger scale than the beavers. Oh and we can kill large animals fairly easily, and cause some short-term pollution of the very surface of parts of the Earth.
So unless you know where Superman is or have a phone to God, I think you're going to have give-up the fallacy of an unchanging environment.
All that has more to do with the earths weather then humans do.
BUT if humans are adding to climate change then there is only one way to slow it down.....STOP MAKING HUMANS !
Humans use up the air, water, power, food, etc more and more everyday. Sure we are conserving a certain percent but when the population goes up more then the percentage of conserving......the consumables available drops below the level needed to survive.
STOP MAKING HUMANS.....thats the only true possible fix we have !
The FACT that we are warming is the issue. It's not a doubt.
The question is: Is man, particularly burning fossil fuels, contributing to the warming? And if so, can we do anything about it?
And I'm not "CHERRY PICKING" a time frame at all. Since 1983, we have had 6 years that have been cooler than the mean since 1880, in the USA. The other 19 have been WARMER. That's a WARMING TREND which is not cherry picked but is the most recent data that contains enough years to be a trend.
I'm not preaching "Global Warming" by using any computer models. In fact, I'm not preaching it at all, in regard to what might happen in the distant future. If you think they are wrong, then I'm with you. To me, they don't matter because they are just GUESSES. I could care less about any bandwagons.
What has happened in the last 25 years is NOT A GUESS. It's FACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA.
Larsb - if you measure the amount of light starting at 4:00 am and go till noon you would conclude we are in a period of increasing light, when really we are not.
Next you will track temps from Jan - June, sheesh then we really be in trouble, I mean look a the jump over 6 months!!!
The last 25 years are too short of a time period, combined with your starting point of 1880. Why that year? If you select a different starting point I bet the last 25 years would be below THE MEAN.
LOL - I come back here every few weeks for a laugh, and LARSB - you never fail to deliver. BTW, If you send me all your money I can reduce your impact on global warming... :shades:
Maybe if we were to stop a category 4 hurricane that would be a signal that man has arrived in the Climate Changing business.
Gosh, if you can't answer the question then just say so!
Apparently, there is a lot more that you want to slide under the carpet. You are also ignoring the quality and meaning of the DATA. You have not addressed a single point that's been made about the deficiencies of the data, the huge variability of the data nor the sensitivity of the data to one's choice of reference point and much more.
Since 1983, we have had 6 years that have been cooler than the mean since 1880, in the USA. The other 19 have been WARMER. That's a WARMING TREND which is not cherry picked
And 2007 effectively wiped out all those temperature "gains" since 1983. Where's the trend?
The FACT that we are warming is the issue. It's not a doubt.
The question is: Is man, particularly burning fossil fuels, contributing to the warming?
Actually, there is enormous doubt. You can't just pick a period of time, note the temperature rose and then imply the "trend" is due to such and such an agent without some compelling argument and/or providing convincing DATA. By posing the question of mankind's possible contribution, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the temperature fluctuations over whatever time period you choose are significantly different from other periods of Earth's history. Causality matters.
The (very) long term historical temperature record (i.e. DATA) shows fluctuations up and down that are gigantic compared to the piddling ups and downs of the 1986-2006 or even the 1880-2006 changes. What makes this particular flash in time any different?
If CO2 is your suspected causal agent, then at least demonstrate a correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that you won't find one because the historical DATA shows global warming precedes rises in atmospheric CO2 levels and global cooling precedes drops in CO2 levels.
Since the industrial revolution began there hasn't been ANY sustained correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. Even the data you referenced shows significant cooling periods over the past 200 years all happening while mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels has skyrocketed. Apparently, CO2 does not drive global warming.
And if so, can we do anything about it?
And you can address that question without modelling?
If you are unable to see that the last 25 years indicate an upward trend, then I don't know what else to say to you.
2007 was above the mean, so I don't see how that wiped out anything.
But like I said before: If anyone thinks ONE YEAR indicates a TREND, then they are just being ignorant. One hot year or one cold year does not indicate a TREND. A trend requires at least two data points. And having 19 of the last 25 years being warmer than the mean indicates a definable TREND.
There is no doubt about that trend. Look at the PDF again.
We don't need to "model" anything because we already KNOW we are in an upward trend.
Well when you're comparing temperatures taken 100 years ago with thermometers to today's devices - YES. Do you think if the actual temp. is 75F, that today's thermometers even read 75.000F? No they are calibrated per (ASTM methods?) to be accurate to within a certain point - maybe + or - 0.1F. Now are you telling me that you think back in 1900 that thermometers around the world were being calibrated to a high standard? That is important to know as the temperature increases you are quoting are fractions of a degree. Ask that question to the author of the charts - "verify that the data that went into that chart was from regularly calibrated insttruments, AND find out what the calibration standard was - + or - 1F? 2F?"
You must question the validity of the data - the accuracy, the sampling pattern (rural vs. urban heat-sinks - i would guess airports and downtown facilities would be hotter!), time-of-day, sun vs. shade, precision (was the temp. reported as 76F or more precise to 75.5F in 1900, at all or just some reporting stations?). That kind of stuff is very important.
Maybe the Dust Bowl just happened in one tiny place on the planet that just happened to be in America. Maybe (heavens!), it was completely natural.
The most damaging self fulfilling "told you so" global alarmists enjoy is that everything fits perfectly into place IF...... something goes wrong for a decade or so (sometimes more)..... Darned if you do, Darned if you don't
I am really starting to think that if a good size volcano blasts off - the global alarmists will somehow link this "natural" event to somebody's SUV aggravating the situation saying "Well, we should have just had a decade of bad growing seasons and human starvation instead of fifty because of Bob's SUV.....".
The Gorbots have THE perfect cult. Welcome to the new century of stupidity and self-serving-goal-orientated misinformation..... As for myself, I'm going to go out and plant about two acres of apple trees.
Last Post (seriously). It's getting pretty boring in here, I couldn't believe the thread was still going... Snark away........
Scott
What about temperatures in the rest of the world? Are we basing Global warming on a few random temperature readings in the US? If that is the case I can find places that will give you just about any trend you would like to see. And that is exactly what has happened. If your charts from NASA are so accurate. Why did they have to revise them? Did the guy yelling out the temperatures at one of the random locations have dyslexia? I have no doubt that NASA and NOAA can give me a very accurate accounting of the temperature in any place they choose to set up their equipment. So your statement about questioning thermometers is silly. You also know that a thermometer set up in downtown NYC is not indicative of the ambient temperature outside the city at any given time. For a scientist to say that the temperature all around the World is at any given moment is 1/100 of a degree warmer or cooler, than that exact same moment a year earlier is really stretching the case for accurate data. For example do you know how far apart these weather devices are spaced around the globe? Do you think the temperature over 100 miles of ocean varies more than 1/100th of a degree? Do you think we have measurement bouys spaced that close over all the oceans?
According to NOAA:
In addition, this paper documented that the world ocean accounted for approximately 80 percent of the Earth’s increase in heat content from 1955 to 1996. These papers were the first time scientists documented quantifiably that the world ocean has warmed during this period, and that ocean heat storage dominates Earth’s heat balance.
From that I would deduct that man's influence is somewhere in that 20% that is not caused by the ocean warming. If the IPCC from the UN is to be taken as fact, they claim that all transportation has caused 15% of the warming of the Globe. That leaves only 5% for power generation and all industrial emissions of GHG.
If NASA is to be used as the basis. There latest finding is the ships are having an influence on rain clouds. Best way to stop that is cut off all trade from China and Japan. We don't need no more Toyotas or cheap toys.
Good examples of observable effects are marine clouds that receive large quantities of gas and particulates emitted by commercial shipping vessels. When the particles reach the cloud base, they can modify a cloud’s lifetime and precipitation and radiation properties (referred to as ship tracks) as numerous studies have shown.
http://www.globe.gov/trr-ppt/airtemp.ppt#257,2,Why do we Measure Air Temperature?
Would anyone like to comment on whether they think everyone reporting temperatures today calibrates their thermometers the same way? How about people 50 years ago - do you think they were all doing the same? what about 100 years ago? could they read an outdoor thermometer to 0.1F with a mercury thermometer, where we have digital today? do you think that a person might not take the temperature at the same time each day, where a machine can do so?
So I really do question temperatures from years ago. And I still quuestion temperatures taken today as the devices are only as accurate as they are setup and maintained. Since we're talking at most 1F rise since 1880, I'll partially believe the data, but I certainly wouldn't believe it enough to take it seriously, without seriously questioning it's validity.
Read This Gary
It does not matter where or how the temperature is measured in a city. Each City in the world has one official temperature station which reports the temps daily for that city. Regardless if five miles away it's 5 degrees cooler or warmer, the official temp is the official temp. It is what it is.
You guys are just looking silly trying to disprove temperature facts.
Disprove the future projections of further warming if you want. But wasting my time and your time trying to dispute the facts is just an exercise in futility for all of us.
The variables are more than can be scientifically recorded. I can go on my patio and get a variation of 5 degree F from the bottom of an 8 foot post to the top. And that is at any given moment. Where were all these 1000s of thermometers placed in 1880 that we keep seeing GLOBAL data from? I have no doubt that science can measure temperatures to the 100th 0r 1000th of a degree. It is more important where that measurement was taken. And that it is taken at exactly the same spot day after day and year after year. Then you can get a trend for that spot. For those people in China, Iraq and Jerusalem that have witnessed snow for the first time, Global Warming will be a hard sell.
If the charts you are using is based on the data from "Official" city temperatures, it is not only a JOKE. It is a BIG Joke.... San Diego on any given day of the year can have a 20 degree F difference in temperature from one part of town to another. How you can believe that science can tell a ONE/TENTH degree change in global temperature over a 100 year or more span is beyond belief. I can never remember the temperature given in 10ths of a degree. It is only in the last few years that we had devices that accurate.
So maybe you can tell us how they determined from the weather reports in all these cities, that the temperature world wide went up as little as a tenth of a degree without a computer simulation.
The five towns/cities I have lived in during the past 20 years all do it EXACTLY like that. One official temperature station per town/city.
Anyone have any data that shows a city or town which DOES NOT do it that way?
Are you kidding ? You really need an answer to that question? Get back to me if you REALLY need that explained to you.
Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:06PM EST "...
http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/null/83073
Scroll down you get your choice depending on which side of this debate you find yourself.
http://www.wunderground.com/US/CA/San_Diego.html
That does not mean that the temperature at that station would stay the same. Why? Because the city is changing (growing in size and population creating a heat-sink, which can affect the temperature. For example: from
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/voogt.html
"With increasing urban development, heat islands may increase in frequency and magnitude. Los Angeles, California, for example, has been 1˚F hotter every decade for the past 60 years."
This means that the temperature would increase 0.1F every year at that station, even if the air outside the city never changed. So your idea that the temperature should never increase at an urban monitoring station is completely false.
And the extremes you see in Phoenix have been made worse as the valley has been developed from a small city to several million today. You folks moving there, pouring concrete and blacktop, running AC's and cars are creating your own increased localized hotter temperatures.
THAT number is the official temperature. Just like that list of 50 other cities is the official temp for THOSE cities for THAT day.
It does not take any kind of "simulation" to plug those numbers into a formula and track PAST temperature trends.
Is this really so hard to get?
First of all, I NEVER SAID THAT or implied it.
And you mean there is really such a thing as an "Urban Heat Island" effect? Little ole' PIDDLY MAN has an effect of making cities hotter by building more asphalt jungle gyms?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
I guess all those who think Man cannot affect climate change might have something to say about Urban Heat Islands = Urban Myth.
Since you're not paying attention to what anyone else is writing, I'll keep this brief.
Bunk!
The daily temps reported by every city ARE THE TEMPS !!!
That is the system !!!
That's how we know ANYTHING about historical temperatures in the modern age !!
Without that, we'd have NOTHING !!!
Argue with the system being wrong all you want. But I can guarantee you that if Slam Diego reports 71 degrees today, then 150 years from now, the official temperature for March 7, 2008 will be 71 degrees. And that's what scientists in the year 2158 will use to show weather trends for the year 2008.
Who cares WHY The cities are warmer. They are warmer. They are likely contributing to overall USA and global temperature trends, but they may not be.
Hmm. Sounds like someone needs a hug.......
You're now trying to say you understand that a thermometer placed in an urban area will read higher year-after-year if growth is occurring. So if these official temperatures are what's being plotted, then how is that proof that CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the temperature increase reported? It sounds to me that what's causing the temperature increase is simply solar radiation being retained, and the heat from millions of people running motors and engines.
Cities occupy a very, very small part of the surface of the Earth, <1%, so given the Urban Heat Island effect, urban readings are not very indicative of any global temperature increase.
If you actually read what people wrote you wouldn't need to ask such convoluted questions. Scroll back and learn.
I can agree with that statement of all possibilities. And I do agree with you that people probably contribute to changing the climate - all actions have an effect. But I do not believe that the effect is much = significant. The heat we generate from our cars and houses and electrical appliances is localized. Take the 100 biggest cities in the world and imagine they are 2 quart pots of warm water with a sterno can under it, spread out in a football stadium. Do they warm the stadium, well sure a tiny, tiny bit. But what is the main factor, affecting the climate - natural changes. So sure it makes a difference whether the pots are on or not, and you can measure slightly warmer temps. near the pots, but it really isn't changing the temp. of the stadium.
19 of the last 26 years being warmer than the mean since 1880 MUST indicate SOMETHING. I think it indicates a warming trend.
That's all I've said in regard to anything proving anything else.
Proof of anything is hard to come by in this discussion.
In regards to 19/26 years....maybe...maybe not..... In regards to 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 years...most likely; NOT. To me this, is what is being said.
The danger of course are the policies that find their way to legislation and way extra unwanted and unneeded costs.
As we said it may mean: 1) temperature measurements were not accurate enough and methodically done until very recently, and 2) the urban areas where some of the temperatures are taken are Urban Heat Sinks caused by the thermal emissions of millions of people, living within a few miles of the thermometer. You can not then make a good case that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, is a main contributor to any warming globally and uniformly. I'm not saying it is impossible.
But before I go changing my lifestyle, I want to see proof that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is causing temperature increase. And for that proof I will question the model, I will question the accuracy and method of temperature measurements, and I will question whether all the CO2 emitted naturally and other greenhouse gases aren't the main factor in any climate change. I am not willing to take action based on Al Gore or any UN group of experts who have a hunch, computer model, or theory.
Why is 1880 the year of record? Why compare anything to that year? Pick a base year during the last ice age and viola - a warming trend. Pick a year during the last tropical time and viola - no warming trend. Comparing 120 years of history (and I would debate the accuracy of data older than ~50 years) to the millions of years of climate history to draw a conclusion is not great science.
The climate of the earth has gone up and down for EVER. Sometimes it was cold sometimes it was hot and sometimes it was just right.
Larsb - tell the truth here, do you have one of them Y2K bunkers out there? :shades:
second simple question.
Are you telling us that the last 25 years are a guide for the next 25 - meaning 1980 - 2005 is telling us that we are going to heat up?
If that is the case how come 1960 - 1985 did not tell us we were going to heat up?
You can't cherry pick the data to justify your position you know, well I suppose you can try - but there is a reason for stories like "the boy who cried wolf..."