As you can see by the straight line of this graph, the average temperatures around the globe never change year after year until very recently.
Oh wait… That’s the flat center line and the estimated future rise at the end.
Found by Mr. Kevin
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 4169 access attempts in the last 7 days.
60, MikeN,
That’s your interpretation. I also compared that to Mother Nature putting out roughly ~29x more CO2 than humans.
I’m asking if the impact is significant especially when natural contributions dwarf ours.
Is the impact significant in light of Mother Nature’s contribution? That’s really what I’m interested in knowing. Otherwise it’s much ado about nothing IMHO.
61, Bobbo,
That’s not a valid excuse for preferring modeling based on assumptions over collecting empirical evidence.
Modeling based on assumptions isn’t science. That’s a HUGE problem in how you come to your conclusions.
Are you implying you know the root cause? Someone else pointed out some areas are sinking rather than water levels rising. Would that have anything to do with CO2 levels?
What do these observations prove? Is it causation? Correlation?
I’m not the one screaming the sky is falling. What do I need to prove EXACTLY? I think the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Not mine.
62, Bobbo,
I’m just a skeptic. You can’t establish anything other than bandwagon propaganda so I’m obviously a “denier” in your eyes. Too bad you limit yourself to computer models based off of assumptions as “the best science” out there.
Show me proof the “problem” is man-made. Otherwise sell your beachfront property and move to higher ground if you’re really that worked up about it.
Interesting to read an article like the linked: it shows some of the factors of “natural variation” that are taken into account and then shows that co2 is still the variable giving results that aren’t understood yet. Its short.
http://newscientist.com/article/mg21028105.100-the-hunt-is-on-for-millionyearold-ice-core.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Guyver, the increase is credited as coming from human sources, not natural ones. some evidence of this came from looking at isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere. While I am not totally convinced of the analysis, due to historic increases in CO2 came after a temperature increase, and are not well understood, I find the evidence reasonable to conclude that humans have increased the CO2 levels substantially.
>I assume “the model” estimates the sensitivity of the atmosphere to co2 by correlating previous co2 levels to the temperature at the same time?
No, not even close. And the two things are not that well correlated, as temperature goes up and down, while carbon increases. Indeed historically, temperatures went up, then the carbon levels went up.
Mike–I’ve read there is a delay function and a feed back loop making the whole which comes first very complicated. Its mastabatory behavior for anyone not an expert to claim/think/opine they understand the process.
Do you think because you can read 1-2-3 articles on a subject that you understand or know anything? 11-12-13?
Recognize your limitations. Otherwise you will Guyver all kinds of subjects revealing your overriding Hubris.
Silly Hooman.
#64, bobbo, I am not particularly convinced by the argument, since you start with a model that assumes CO2 causes lots of warming, and then you test natural variations in your model, and end up with the result that your model says CO2 causes lots of warming. Circular reasoning. It is more convincing than other parts of climate science, but it still seems a bit fishy.
I don’t need to be an expert on the subject or claim to know anything, other than a few errors that I can test for myself and see that climate scientists have gotten them wrong. Errors that the scientists will not admit calling their credibility into question, making them deniers even.
Still, I don’t think it is incumbent on me to disprove anything. It is they who have to prove a case to some degree of certainty. Very convenient to say the scientists say X, and you must disprove it. They are experts, you cannot question them. Very convenient for those who like the policy implications of X.
Of course, the Chinese have basically made even this foolproof plan fail, as the policies being suggested won’t work, according to the same IPCC scientists.
Micky–pure rhetoric, zero substance. What in the IPCC General Report on climate change do you contest?
The IPCC model is based on LOTS of factors, not just co2 and not that co2 causes “lots of” warming.
You argue as a child.
I don’t need to contest anything. It is that the reports are not convincing. There is no single IPCC Model, but indeed the IPCC report concludes CO2 causes lots of warming. Without that conclusion, they can’t get to the serious damages from global warming, and without that they can’t suggest various policies of restricting CO2. Without large positive feedbacks, they can’t get the large warming from CO2. If there are no feedbacks, CO2 is not an issue. If there are negative feedbacks CO2 is not an issue.
Just as we are talking about it RealClimate put up a post criticizing Spencer’s book, The Great Global Warming Blunder.
If?
Wow, MikeN. Is this like an obsessive hobby or something?
#73, yea, I follow various blogs on the subject.