A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down.

Would you care to share your source for that bit of disinformation?

Where ever you got that idea, it's wrong.

Of the many sources throughout the internet, I took this from S. Fred Singer - Climate Scientist, Former Director of the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere.

And if you were to look at the actual data points you provided in your post and not just the pretty lines they've drawn for you, you'd see that the data does prove this point. 1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down.

Would you care to share your source for that bit of disinformation?

Where ever you got that idea, it's wrong.

Of the many sources throughout the internet, I took this from S. Fred Singer - Climate Scientist, Former Director of the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere.

And if you were to look at the actual data points you provided in your post and not just the pretty lines they've drawn for you, you'd see that the data does prove this point. 1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then.

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[1]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The planet will survive. Even with global thermonuclear war, the planet is likely to survive.

The crux is will it be a planet we ‘like’? I'm interested as to how will climate change affect balance of power & global patterns of conflict for resources?

Assuming we don’t have global thermonuclear war or massive asteroid hit, human evolution is likely to continue. It’s just a lot slower than anthropogenic climate change and even slower than some natural climate change.

Quote

I find this conflict ironic.

Could you be more specific what you see as "conflicted" and what you see as "ironic"?

I tried to disentangle the two concepts, apparently my response (quoted above) was not successful.

Quote

How many people on the face of the Earth do you think are even aware of this thing called global warming? They are just trying to get along day by day. They need fire to cook, they go get some dry branches and burn them.

It is true that the majority of the world's population subsist on $2 or less per day.
That's somewhat irrelevant since on $2 day your consumption is vey low. I suspect more fuel is derived from dried animal dung then "dry branches" for cooking & heating, i.e., recycling in a way that seems unpalatable to most in the western world.

It is also true that the largest growth (shifting demographics) are to cities and to megacities (10M or more).

Quote

As I said earlier, it appears to be a sort of penance for being who we are. Some kind of built in guilt for being an advanced society.

For some perhaps. But some folks just never seem happy with anything, eh?

For me at least, not at all.

Quote

Personally, I believe the Earth could sustain quite a few more, but then, we'd all have to go around singing that John Lennon song.

Concur, altho' w/out the worldwide karoake please.

Quote

I say, arguing from the point of absolute evolution, who are we to demand anything, one way or the other. Maybe deep down inside, there's this little voice that says, "Yes, you are the stewards of this planet. Keep it, tend it and it will serve you well."

I'm not sure what your concept of "absolute evolution" means.

The two ideas you write are not in conflict. Part of evolution is our cogitive abilities that allow us to not conceive of such stewardship because it benefits our species. That's completely consonant with evolution.

Quote

Evolution would not demand such a thing of us because, by the rules of evolution, the next model is superior to what's currently on the shelf.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution" becuase what you describe above is wrong. Evolution has produced 'dead-ends,' e.g., Neanderthals.

What you seem to be describing seems more like the argument against transhumanism, from what I can tell.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

Concur. I also find great value in the skepticism of science.

Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree: that is a reasonable question, particularly given the amount of mis-information about evolution and about climate change that gets passed around … particularly on the internet (so, of course, take everything I ‘say’ with a metaphorical grain of salt).

Assuming we don’t have global thermonuclear war or massive asteroid hit, human evolution is likely to continue. It’s just a lot slower than anthropogenic climate change and even slower than some natural climate change.

I find it interesting that when the hype started, it was "global warming." And now it is "climate change." Global warming cannot be used anymore because since 1998 the global temperature has gone down, maybe just slightly, but it has gone down. However, at the same time, CO2 has increased and human production has increased. So you’ve got “a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.” So by switching to "climate change," it allows people to point at any weather event -- whether it’s warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans.

I find your response interesting.

Particularly as the piece that you quoted says very little specifically about climate change one way or another. Rather my words noted both anthropogenic and natural climate change without specific comparative extent or intensity. (Rate is not the same thing as extent or intensity.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Of the many sources throughout the internet, I took this from S. Fred Singer

I see. One of those researchers with the credibility to claim tobacco use isn't a health risk.

Quote

And if you were to look at the actual data points you provided in your post and not just the pretty lines they've drawn for you, you'd see that the data does prove this point. 1998 was a very hot year, and the temps have decreased since then.

Yes, 1998 was a very hot year. However, a warming trend does not indicate that every single year will be warmer than the previous year. Thus, if the previous year was warmer, that does not mean the warming trend is over. Analysis of the years following 1998 still indicate a warming trend.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

Facts are still facts.

Yes they are. And analysis of the data points indicate a continuing warming trend.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Yes, 1998 was a very hot year.

And a large part of the recent for the peak (until 2005 or 2007) was the El Niño that warmed the equitorial and east Pacific surface temps. We haven't had an El Niño since then. 1999 had a La Niña (cooling) of the surface of the Pacific surface temps.

It's a great illustration of how many different pieces and contributing factors go into climate science. (Or alternatively, the danger of trying to read too much into one data point, which is a truism across many fields.)

Anthropogenic climate change isn't as new of an idea as some would like to portray, e.g., in 1827 Fourier hypothesized greenhouse effect for global warming & in 1896 Arrenhius calculated earth warming from gases and predicts future warming from CO2. Like many things, it took a few years (decade) to have the instrumentation for drilling ice cores or the computing power for analysis and models.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,400]

>You are only off by four orders of magnitude.

ssshhh, he's on a roll

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

Facts are still facts.

Yes they are. And analysis of the data points indicate a continuing warming trend.

I think the point is that depending on the time frames you pick and the period of time, you can find both warming and cooling periods - as I've just shown. There have been several cooling periods in the past 100 years even as the CO2 has risen. So to link the Earth's recent warming with the increase in CO2 is incorrect. There are many other, and far more significant, things that go into the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. To say that it's man made is simply not correct.

[billvon 2,400]

>Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

2005 was warmer than 1998.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So to link the Earth's recent warming with the increase in CO2 is incorrect. There are many other, and far more significant, things that go into the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. To say that it's man made is simply not correct.

Wow. I wish climatologists understood the earth's climate as well as you do.

There is a reason there is consensus among scientists. There is a reason that there aren't any peer reviewed studies from the past five years claiming global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Heck, there's probably even a reason it took those climatologists several years to get their PhD's.

Perhaps you should read the science instead of the propaganda propagated by those who stand to lose if the unsustainable status quo is changed.

Here is a good place to start.

Here is another good source.

A couple questions to ask yourself when you encounter claims regarding global warming:

What peer reviewed study are these claims based upon?
In which scientific journal was the study published?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

Concur. I also find great value in the skepticism of science.

Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?

VR/Marg

Actually, no. I have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. The Earth has gone through many cycles prior to man and will continue to long after man is gone. Correlating CO2 to temperature is what the people pushing this global warming theory want us to believe. Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

I've never liked the term Global Warming. I always likened it to a child saying "hard math" when looking at a Physics question and trying to explain chaos theory at the same time.

The only real fact with our climate is that we have changed it. We have been changing it since we first stepped out of the muck.

Is it it possible that our current abuse of our planet can have more than one impact? Could it be possible that cooling and warming are both happening because of us? I don't think in our lifespan anyone will come up with conclusive evidence that we have damned the planet into a hellish weather cycle from which it will never return.

My take on the Global impact of humanity has always been this: Don't fucking worry about the planet, worry about the people. I don't care if that coal plant could be hurting the ozone, I care that it is killing more people than we can even imagine.

The rules and laws setup for polution control should be focused on taking care of ourselves. Now, the side benefit to that may be a better ecosystem as well.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

MY data points show nothing of the sort. And Singer is a piss-poor horse to hitch your wagon to, being a confirmed shill for the tobacco industry and a proven liar.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

I often wonder how the people who have their head buried in the sand can possibly be aware that any climate change is actually happening.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

Concur. I also find great value in the skepticism of science.

Would you re-evaluate your claim if 2005 & 2007 were as warm as 1998?

VR/Marg

Actually, no. I have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. The Earth has gone through many cycles prior to man and will continue to long after man is gone. Correlating CO2 to temperature is what the people pushing this global warming theory want us to believe. Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory.

Huh ... where did CO2 come in?

You were talking about direct measurement of temperature. That's the 1998 & the 2005 & the 2007 data (aka facts).

So again, you won't re-evaulate your repeated claim that 1998 was the warmest year even when presented with direct measurement data (facts) that show that 2005 and 2007 were as warm or warmer even when presented with facts that demonstrate direct measurement of such?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,400]

>I have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not
>a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth.

See first attachment.

>Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

Agreed. Water vapor is responsible for about 50% of longwave IR re-absorption, carbon dioxide is responsible for about 18%. However, we're not making any new oceans, so we're not changing water vapor percentages much. We ARE greatly increasing CO2 percentages.

>Correlating CO2 to temperature is what the people pushing this
>global warming theory want us to believe.

Nope. There is no CO2 to temperature conversion factor. There _is_ a CO2 percentage to forcing factor, though.

The amount of energy reaching the planet is around 1366 watts per square meter. (342 watts when averaged over the course of a day and corrected for incident angle.) A lot is reflected directly. Some is absorbed by the ground and then re-radiated via longwave IR.

Many things block the re-radiation of infrared - clouds, water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane. Indeed, about 324 watts of that 342 watts is retained by the various greenhouse effects and reabsorbed by the ground. See second attachment.

Nowadays, the increase in CO2 (and to a lesser extent methane) has increased the amount of heat retained by approximately 2 watts per square meter. This is the "forcing" that is gradually increasing the temperature of the planet. By itself it is not going to do much in the short term. But as the years go by, and there is that steady increase in heat retained by the earth, the climate will warm.

It will, of course, eventually stop. When the entire planet becomes a few degrees warmer, its higher blackbody temperature will result in more IR being radiated, and the energy influx/outflux will once again balance.

>Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I
>figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the
>theory.

By learning more about the theory, you will likely better understand it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Actually, no.

So, a single data point is enough if it supports your preconceived ideas, but not if it disputes them.

Quote

I have read enough information that convinces me that CO2 is not a significant factor in the warming/cooling trends of the Earth.

Or, maybe it is.

Quote

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.

Scientists don't deny that, but it doesn't mitigate the significance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Quote

Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory.

Perhaps, instead of assuming the theories are wrong simply because you don't understand the topic, you should try asking questions to get explanations for the things that appear to you to be inconsistent.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Instead of trying to explain something that I am not an expert in, I figure that it would be easier to point out the inconsistencies in the theory.

Since you are admittedly a non-expert, why would anyone believe anything you have to say about theoretical inconsistencies?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How is it that those who seriously believe in evolution, and that everything adjusts and accomodates itself to the surrounding environment, suddenly want to live in a state of staticism, as if we are the final chapter in the book?

It surprises you that people don't want to be the previous chapter in the history of the earth? Anyone with child or grandchildren (or hope of having such) have a great interest in keeping the current chapter rolling along.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

So to link the Earth's recent warming with the increase in CO2 is incorrect. There are many other, and far more significant, things that go into the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. To say that it's man made is simply not correct.

Wow. I wish climatologists understood the earth's climate as well as you do.

There is a reason there is consensus among scientists. There is a reason that there aren't any peer reviewed studies from the past five years claiming global warming does not have an anthropogenic component. Heck, there's probably even a reason it took those climatologists several years to get their PhD's.

Perhaps you should read the science instead of the propaganda propagated by those who stand to lose if the unsustainable status quo is changed.

Here is a good place to start.

Here is another good source.

A couple questions to ask yourself when you encounter claims regarding global warming:

What peer reviewed study are these claims based upon?
In which scientific journal was the study published?

Wow - so you're a climatologist? Obviously you can distinguish between the BS/political slants and the correct science - right?!? Why resort to name calling and puffery? Not needed.

We can throw websites at each other all day long. And then we can spend time debunking each by attacking the sources of funds for each (Real Climate - left-wing political site funded by friends of Gore). Where does that get us? So let's just skip past all of that.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you need to check up a bit more on Singer, advocate for tobacco companies, also funded by Exxon, confirmed liar, before quoting him as an objective expert on anything.

Facts are still facts. Your data points still show that temps have decreased since 1998.

MY data points show nothing of the sort. And Singer is a piss-poor horse to hitch your wagon to, being a confirmed shill for the tobacco industry and a proven liar.

Then you're choosing not to look.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

Huh ... where did CO2 come in?

>> You must've missed the earlier posts where someone claimed that the CO2 that man is producing is causing the global warming.

Quote

You were talking about direct measurement of temperature. That's the 1998 & the 2005 & the 2007 data (aka facts).

So again, you won't re-evaulate your repeated claim that 1998 was the warmest year even when presented with direct measurement data (facts) that show that 2005 and 2007 were as warm or warmer even when presented with facts that demonstrate direct measurement of such?

VR/Marg

I didn't claim that 1998 was the warmest year. You may want to revisit some of the previous posts.