What Jerry interprets from this source and the 2 graphs on the right below:
Maybe I'll look at it later, now I am going to go mow before the rain... :-) Tap picture to see full size.
I see the first one-- projections vs reality, the most telling, and it IS necessary to draw your own lines, estimating the trend, because what you have is a biased source using biased data (GISS) and STILL, as I eyeball it, real temperatures are trending from -0.1 to +0.7 in the 60 years from 1960 to 2020. That's 100/60*0.8= 1.3 degrees per century, exactly what I keep telling you that every other dataset confirms. When will you accept the actual, measured, scientific data your own "side" is telling you?
By the way, the "differences from averages" graph tells us that temps have gone from about zero to about 1.2 degrees in 140 years. That is LESS than 1 degree per century. If you want to say global warming started in 1950, it looks like temps have gone from +0.2 to (maybe as high as) +1.2 over the 70 years, or 1.4 degrees per century. Remarkable agreement, would you agree?
27 comments:
You keep want to deny that the rate of change is accelerating...
G2A Reading the Temp Graph
And since the human caused change did not start until ~1970... That slope is pretty steep.
Both indicate a 50 year change of roughly 1 deg C... or 2 deg C per century...
Too bad it is still accelerating. :-(
You keep wanting to insist that the rate is accelerating. And then you post graphs of population and fossil fuel consumption as if there were some causal relationship between that and temperature. Yet the IPCC models tell us that fossil fuels have a negligible effect (0.01-0.37 degrees per century, depending on how extreme you want to be.) So IF you prove that temperatures are going up, even at an accelerating rate, you cannot say that fossil fuels are responsible. The science clearly says otherwise. We cannot predict the future climate, so the smart thing to do is nothing, and adapt to whatever comes, IF and when.
I think you had best look at that "Differences from Average" graph again...
If not humans... What do you think is driving the Observed line to vary from the Natural Driver line?
Not to distract you, but here is a link sent to me on FB.
I have not read it yet.
Go ahead, distract me. I needed a bit of humor. So, We use the GISS temperatures, which we know for certain are identifying warming that really isn't there, and then we correct the models so that the models correctly predict what we already know happened. Then we compare these adjusted models to the data we just fed them and Mirabile Dictu! They agree. I predict that Donald Trump will be elected President in 2016!
More humor! "What do you think is driving..." That is the crux of the problem, here! The "scientists" ran their models and could not predict the warming they were seeing using any of the [few] natural factors that they could model correctly with their equations. Casting about for a way to get better alignment, they seized upon CO2-- particularly manmade CO2 from the Industrial Revolution-- and threw that in as an arbitrary "fudge factor." Then they adjusted the "sensitivity" of their models to /total/ CO2 and got better agreement. They then projected those equations forward and got.... GIGO. And that's what people are excited about. I've done a lot of computer modelling and know it's limitations.
What do I think is driving the difference? The preposterous belief that the models must be right and the actual data must therefore be wrong.
In geological and solar time 50 or so years is a blink of time...
And yet the temperatures are increasing rather aggressively...
What again is your rationale for this change?
NASA does a good job of explaining how humans have triggered the changes...
Where as Jerry has pretty much nothing to explain the changes... :-)
NASA does a good job of BSing the cause of the changes. They cannot admit that there are natural cycles and puny man has almost nothing to do with it.
50 or 60 years is a blink in time compared to the 100-, 400-, 1000-, and 10,000-year natural cycles. Only the 30-year natural cycle is visible in the data we have collected. To draw trendlines through the last 10, 20 or 30 years and declare they foretell a catastrophe coming is to pretend the world is only as old as your lifetime. When can we start worrying about the Next Ice Age? 1970 was pretty recent, you know. But median age of the US population says half were born after 1980.
Where as Jerry has pretty much nothing to explain the changes... :-)
I have everything to need. The climate is changing. It has done so naturally, in cycles, for millions of years. It's doing it again and politicians would like us to believe that we are King Canute. We're not.
You are back to the faith rationale... Man can not damage what God made...
And yes the Earth has changed many times over its long history, just not this severely / rapidly… :-(
Ah, yes, the famous "hockey stick." It's almost as if there were a natural 10,000 year cycle, as well as other cycles. The world is doing what it does. If temperatures are above what they were during the Little Ice Age, isn't that a GOOD thing? Notice how they "calibrate" their data against computer models?
I have faith in God, but I also have faith in basic math, and basic math says humankind is King Canute, just waiting for the simple proof we cannot hold back the tide. Fortunately, our computer models already TELL us we cannot, but there are many who simply have too much blind faith in our ability to do it anyway.
But here:
read it
Draw your own conclusions, or far better, believe theirs.
"Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm)."
And we just reached 418ppm in May.
Moose
Keep the faith...
OK, you want to believe, prove to me that greenhouse gasses are the principal factor in global temperatures, that total CO2 is the principal component of greenhouse gasses, and that manmade CO2 is the principal component of total CO2. So far all I hear is supposition, correlation without causation, and religious dogma.
You hear what you want to hear.
Moose
Problem is, Moose, I'm not hearing anything that makes sense. If you cannot prove a strong causal chain between manmade CO2 and catastrophic warming, then anything else you say is just pettifoggery.
Jerry,
Not my job to prove anything to you...
And after 10 years of butting my head up against your "I am correct no matter what the facts or logic say..."
I am pretty sure I would fail miserably if it was my job.
Now as for Stomata data, here is some discussion of its accuracy...
SS Link 1
WUWT Link 1
Fact Check
Not only is it not your job to prove something to me, but you simply cannot. Big Deal that CO2 is at 415. Unless you can show that this is causing catastrophic warming (and not some other greenhouse gas, for example, or something like sunshine), it is meaningless. And unless you can prove that manmade CO2 is the driving force in this increase, there is nothing we can or should do about it, INCLUDING worrying about it. It's wonderful how you keep insisting that what you believe is the truth must be accepted, without corroborating scientific evidence.
Simple question: If CO2 is higher than it has ever been, why are not temperatures higher than they've ever been?
"but you simply cannot" Yes your tea cup is very full.
The "Differences from Average" chart shows clearly that solar, orbital and volcanic are not the driver this time.
It is highly possible in the past that carbon release followed global heating. Things heated, things melted, things rotted and carbon was released.
Unfortunately this time man changed things up... We released trillions of tons of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, etc that was safely buried in the ground. Therefore triggering unnatural heating...
It is quite amazing in a disturbing way... Man triggers warming, which melts things which releases even more green house gases which heats things more...
The simple reality is that usually green house gases follow melting... This time around they are forcing heating and melting... And temperature increases...
Therefore I assume the temps will continue to rise...
You are making assertions, again, with no scientific basis in fact. You describe what you THINK is happening, and you are concerned that the models cannot accurately predict what factors may be causing it, but you are choosing to believe the wizards' magic rather than the science. The wizards say they cannot explain it except that there is a full moon, and you buy it HL&S.
You keep worrying about that "trillions of tons" and yet you don't recognize what a trivial amount it is in the scheme of things. You worry about "tipping points" yet there is no anomalous warming trend anywhere to be found, nor any anomalous "severe storm" trend. I say you cannot prove there is a manmade catastrophe coming. I am still waiting for you to try. Can you predict the temperature in Minneapolis 4 days from now, to within 0.02 degrees? What makes you think you can do it 50 years out?
You didn't answer my question, so let me pose another.
are not the climate models the sole reason for your hysteria on the subject?
As I said, I am not going to try to convince someone who can not be convinced... I will just keep posting the data and facts and people will make their own decisions.
As for hysteria, I am not prone to emotion. So I can not understand that concept.
After a lot of research I think I understand now why many people are very nervous about the future for humans on Earth. Our current behaviors are forcing unnatural changes on our environment, this will lead to death, displacement and suffering for the poor of the world. Thankfully my family and I are not amongst that group.
My only hope is that the forced warming triggers some natural cooling devices to be triggered. (ie volcanoes and a dust laden atmosphere) Not ideal... But better than cooking a bunch of folks who currently live near the equator or drowning folks who live near oceans.
"Our current behaviors are forcing unnatural changes on our environment" = Emotional assertion without scientific evidence. No credible evidence that human CO2 is the dominant driver of climate, quite the opposite.
"...this will lead to death, displacement and suffering for the poor of the world." = emotional assertion without scientific evidence. No credible evidence that a catastrophe is coming.
"... forced warming triggers some natural cooling devices to be triggered [sic]" = emotional 'hope' statement with no basis in scientific fact-- warming does not trigger volcanoes.
" better than cooking a bunch of folks who currently live near the equator or drowning folks who live near oceans." = emotional assertion without scientific evidence. Temp rise in the tropics is lower than at the poles, and they are accustomed to it. No credible evidence of unusual sea level rise.
Maybe you are not hysterical on the subject, simply close-minded and intractable. You keep "posting the data" and then ignore what it clearly tells you, so that you can continue with your tightly-held religious belief.
Take another crack at those two questions, please. Or at least the last one. You seem convinced. WHAT, exactly, convinces you of CAGW?
Jerry,
Just because you do not believe does not mean that it is not so...
I keep hoping that you are correct so that millions and millions of people will not need to die or displaced to save you a little money each year on your electricity bill...
But it is looking like you are very incorrect.
Please remember that you are the outlier in this discussion.
The world's experts are pretty well aligned.
The impact on humans seems pretty clear also
Dodging the question again, I see.
-- If all you want to do is further a popular myth, you can do that. Don't expect agreement.
-- If you want to be the dupe of "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history" that's sad. Don't get mad at those who point it out for you.
-- But here is your opportunity. If you in fact arrived at your conclusion through independent thought and assessment of the available scientific data, please explain how you were convinced by that. If indeed the evidence that convinced you is convincing enough, others may be persuaded likewise. You will NOT convince others by simply calling them names or telling them theirs is a "minority view."
Science is not done by consensus, nor is it done by taking an opinion poll. The public can be expected to be confused or duped, but any scientist not in the pay of the climate cabal will acknowledge the vast uncertainties at play. A GOOD scientist (absent the usual threats from the Cabal), will say that the "Theory" of CAGW is busted and that vast uncertainties remain.
Post a Comment