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 4187 access attempts in the last 7 days.
#24, I don’t even think you understand what you are arguing. You model in the amount of carbon you think there will be. What’s your point?
The chart seems to be dishonest. Look at the information related to the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991. The block at top notes that after this eruption the “global temperature” dropped by 1.1 degrees, going from 0.6 degrees above normal to 0.5 below. Now look at the corresponding area of the chart. The 0.6 degrees above normal is much much larger in scale than the 0.5 degrees below. Temperatures above normal appear to be displayed with a larger scale than temps below normal. This would serve to visually increase the impact of temps which are above normal. The chart is dishonest, some might even use the term fraudulent. Pure BS. The creators of the chart have shown their bias. If you have a scientifically defensible case, you don’t need to resort to this sort of dishonest data presentation.
#3’s reference to the Greenland ice temps is a much better source of info than this piece of propaganda.
#28 “Afterall, isn’t human CO2 output the root cause of global warming? If you know the cause and you can quantify its output, the rest should be easy.”
Is carbon dioxide the root cause? Nobody seems to concerned about the huge amounts of water vapor we have added to the atmosphere through irrigation practices in the last 100 years. Also don’t forget particulates and solar activity. There is also no doubt from the long term trends that the earth is recovering from a very severe cold period in the last 1000 years or so. What everyone is so worked about could easily be a simple reversion to a mean.
The global warmers want us to switch from fossil fuels at huge costs but that could very easily turn out to have no effect on the trends.
I do not question that earth is getting warmer. I do question whether forcing us into an expensive and questionable “solution” will provide benefits that justify the costs.
>Nobody seems to concerned about the huge amounts of water vapor we have added to the atmosphere through irrigation practices in the last 100 years.
So you think this water vapor is reaching the upper atmosphere, where it would matter?
I think water vapor has the ability to transport large amounts of energy and heat through the atmosphere. It could also change the amount of cloud cover and overall transperancy of the atmosphere.
So yes, I think it could impact climate without having to reach the highest levels of the atmosphere.
These guys might as well be Evangelical preachers. They only believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Neither one has a degree, at least not one that he publicly shows. Come on people, learn how to do your homework!
The only thing that anybody can be sure of is that people can be relied upon to repeat anything that advances their agenda. The human race takes itself way to seriously. Seriously.
I’m guessing that we’d all be a lot happier if there were a lot fewer people in the world 🙂
#37 so go on over to New Scientist and read Searching for Climate refugees. There are supposed to be 50,000,000 of them by now.
#27–Guyver==thank you for being precise in the worst you can say about the trustworthiness of the IPCC. When you study an issue your entire professional life and you have the consensus of qualified scientists over 30 years concluding that the best scientist is that AGS is real, a statement of your own personal beliefs may be consistent with that result. Yes, all the “lies” come from fellow travelers or are found out/corrected by the IPCC. There are a few examples worse than what you posted that come closer to lies, but I’ll leave it to other zealots to come forth with them.
#28–Guyver==you say “If you know the cause and you can quantify its output, the rest should be easy.” /// Yes, just as it is.
#29–Guyver–I assume do-ills point is that homeopathic medicine is made by sub-clinical amounts of the “active” ingredient making them completely ineffective==like the amount of co2 in the atmosphere. You see how fast stupid can gallop when it is completely untethered to facts? How about half a drop of cyanide injected into your body do-ill? The effect of c02 in the atmosphere is well understood. You are being Trump Stupid in denying basic science.
#32–Micky==”You model in the amount of carbon you think there will be.” /// Exactly so. And when that amount of carbon results in warmer temps what do we credit that causation to? You, Guyver, and Trump argue that you add a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets warmer, but adding that carbon had no effect. Its a denial of causation as close to a negative tautology as you can get. Good Job Deniers.
Bobbo, your just getting more and more unhinged. Stop and think what you are saying. You have things backwards.
>You model in the amount of carbon you think there will be.” /// Exactly so. And when that amount of carbon results in warmer temps
Why does it result in warmer temps? You have put this carbon into a model. How is the model built? Off the assumption of carbon causes warming. How much warming is the issue. The whole point is that it is not clear that carbon is the primary cause of the current warming, given the small amount of warming and natural variation. Of course if you build a model with the idea that carbon causes X amount of warming, the result will be a model that says carbon causes X amount of warming. Woohoo. You have to know how to build the model. And to do that, you have to have an idea as to the amount of warming caused by CO2. Basic physics gives an answer of 1 degree. This is not what the models are saying, because they are building in large positive feedbacks from this 1 degree of warming, which itself is influenced by the idea that the current warming is caused primarily by CO2. If in fact natural variation is the main cause of current warming, then the models are invalid, and it doesn’t matter how much carbon you put into the model.
Mickey–do you want to let it stand that your objection to AGW is that you don’t think co2 is a greenhouse gas?
A DRAMATIC example of know nothing analysis. I can’t even believe you said that. I could rephrase a variant of that idea in more acceptable terms, but I don’t think that is what you actually mean. Sadly, I take you by what you say.
Mickey–do you want to let it stand that your objection to AGW is that you don’t think co2 is a greenhouse gas?
#27, Guyver,
Christie was refuted and discredited long ago.
So far, there are a total of two points in the latest IPCC Report that have been questioned, but not disputed. One is the timeline of the melting of the Himalaya glaciers. The point they will totally melt is not true as the portion above the tree line will remain regardless. The other point was a lack of proper citations for a claim about the Brazilian rainforest. The general report is fully accepted by most scientists.
Lyin’ Mike
It wouldn’t matter how much evidence you were given, you would deny it. As with most Regressives, you nit pick at facts in an attempt to destroy their credibility all the while posting garbage as facts.
Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be.
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=92074
So why does this only go back 4500 years? Because they believe the earth is only 6000 y/o and the first 1500 years were a little hazy.
More on Harris and Mann.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-hell-is-long-range-weather.html
Self taught frauds.
#42, no I didn’t say that. I do think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Again you are not understanding things. The adverbs matter. How much of current warming is caused by CO2, and how much is natural variation? Building a model that is built on the idea that CO2 is the primary cause, and then running the model to conclude CO2 is the primary cause, is circular reasoning.
Mike–right you are. You run the model based on what carbon level used to be any time in the past 100 years or so and then you run it again with the carbon that has been added. The difference is AGW. What don’t you understand?
How did you build the model? This is the part you are not grasping. It is not just a matter of more CO2 causes warming. That’s not the bulk of the model. It is how much warming. How do you assign the amount of warming caused by CO2 to the model?
Actually the models are much more complex, and don’t work the way I describe. However, you still have that basic problem, of how do you know that the current warming has been caused by CO2? If the current warming is mostly natural variation, and CO2 gave maybe .1C of warming, then how much warming should you expect from additional CO2? The answer would be much less than what is being predicted by current models.
http://drroyspencer.com/2009/07/how-do-climate-models-work/
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/03/what-can-we-learn-from-climate-models/
Well Mike–I apologize. I forgot you have some greater experience in this area than most of us here. I don’t know how the models work at all. Indeed, I don’t know how they set the sensitivity of the atmosphere to co2 concentrations==we might all be able to imagine possibilities?
No, I simply rely on the IPCC as “the best science available” and the vacuousness of the “arguments” against it, my common sense, the lack of an explanation as to how adding co2 could have no effect, and the rising sea levels to show the net/net effect since everyone likes to note how cold it is where they are.
Your own arguments are very weak Mike. “If co2 made a .1C change”? The model is clear on what the expected impact is on a doubling of the concentration etc. Yes, its still a fraction but the sensitivity is not affected by statements that plants use co2 or that it is not a pollutant or that the earth will go on, nor pulled straight from your ass comments like yours. When people argue like that, they drive me further into the IPCC camp.
I trust qualified scientists on scientific issues. In this case, that does not include remedial actions of the tax or cap variety.
How do you know so many of the details of this subject yet argue like a common dolt?
We get this same BS about GW in the news. Every time it starts to warm up a little, in late spring. For something that’s having such a hard time being accepted, it sure doesn’t enough high powered advocates in the mainstream media. What does that tell you, when most of said media is owned and controlled by millionaires and billionaires. And sponsored by major oil companies. Who apparently have a problem containing GW as bad new. It’s like they’re not even trying. Wonder why?
First, I’m not will as yet to concede that GW or Climate Change, is even real. BUT… even if it should prove to be. It has NEVER been scientifically proven to be MANKIND’s fault. And by “MANKIND”, I of course mean US citizens. Since the USA gets the blame for everything. In has the deepest pockets. And the roads are paved with gold. That explains the potholes everywhere. Golddigers!!
Of course they have to blame people for causing climate change, because otherwise they couldn’t explain how any proposed solutions would stand a change at being effective against it. If it were just Mother Nature acting badly, on her own. We’d be far better off looking into preventing or lessening Tornadoes. Than reversing whatever temperature trends the earth might be experiencing, due to any number of causes. Maybe the Sun is hotter. Are we gonna fix that?! Proposing man-made solutions for a man-blamed problem, is just the latest con job to create new business opportunities. Mainly investment ones.
Just as Tulip bulbs was once an artificially inflated investment instrument (that fell flat!). Carbon Credits will be the next Fools Gold investment scam. Don’t say you haven’t been warned. But will your pension plan investor, be as savvy?
>The model is clear on what the expected impact is on a doubling of the concentration etc.
Actually even that is not true based on what I read at the second link, but that is irrelevant. You are using circular logic again. Using a model built on an assumption to declare the assumption true.
Let’s simplify it, and try to figure out how we would build this model. We know CO2 went from 270 parts per million to 380, and during that time temperatures increased by .7 degrees. This is half of a doubling, so this suggests perhaps temperatures would warm by 1.4C for carbon level of 540. Basic physics says doubling of CO2 causes 1.2C, so you can work with that to get your model results, maybe it says half doubling should produce .3C, and thus the .7C means that feedbacks add another 4/3. Thus the full doubling would cause 2.8C of warming 1.2C+4/3*(1.2C).
However, if natural variation caused .6 of that .7C, and CO2 accounted for only .1C, then this means that your .3C turned into .1C, and doubling CO2 increases temperatures by only .4C. CO2 cause warming, but the amount is different.
Two models, both assume CO2 causes warming, with vastly different results.
The actual models are much more complex of course, and are built in a different way, but this is a basic problem.
What ever happened to the Ozone Hole? Don’t hear anything about it anymore. After DuPont got it’s way, and had all the cheap Freon taken off the market. You use to be able to fix your car’s air conditioning for very little money. Now it costs hundreds of bucks. Thanks to Freon’s monopolist replacement. And all the red tape procedures one has to go thru to “recapture” the old coolant. Bet that doesn’t happen in auto grave yards. And you can bet DuPont and it’s major shareholders were behind the Ozone Hole scare, in the media. When will Mike Wallace come clean on that one? Lying bastards.
You climate change deniers can all go muck up the works and do other silly things but the vast majority of real scientists, specifically those that actually study weather as part of their research clearly believe we are experiencing global warming and the vast majority of those also believe, through good valid data, that the chief cause of the warming is caused by human activity. That incredibly vast majority of data supports these conclusions. No other explanation is as likely. And likelihood is what scientists work off of. Wishing and lying and refusing rational data won’t ever change that.
Now, go work on something else of importance and put your minds to useful work, like providing us with universal single payer healthcare and making the rich and big corporations pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes. Or go live in Arizona or someplace where global warming won’t affect you (since it isn’t real it obviously won’t be hotter than any previous modern recordings) and be happy running your ACs until they break. Mostly though, just go away. The reality based world doesn’t need you. Join John Galt. We don’t need his type either.
40, Bobbo,
So when he says the following, he’s wrong eh?: “While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:
* this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
* scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead”
So make a 5 to 10 year prediction. You have all that you need in establishing future outcomes.
And my point is that you really don’t care about the root cause. You see symptoms and you rush to a hasty conclusion. That said, I consider homeopathic in the same ball of wax as natural remedies to not include poisons / toxins. If that’s what homeopathic is all about, then that was not my intent.
You demonstrate an uncanny ability in not being able to comprehend what “statistically significant” means. I’m talking on a global scale. Are you? I never said that there is no effect. I questioned you if whether our own contribution is statistically significant. You skirt the question EVERY time. Take a moment and ponder about what statistically significant means and whether I’m saying that is equivalent to meaning no effect locally.
Denial of causation? LOL. So you’re establishing correlation is causation? Wow! You must have been the top student in your science class. What did you do? Draw up a Bayes Net? LOL.
As Christy states about the IPCC scientific conclusions: “We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don’t have thermometers marked with “this much is human-caused” and “this much is natural”. ”
42, Bobbo,
What evidence are you looking at that proves scientifically that global warming is in fact man-made? Please show me your causal proof since you’re trying to establish causation. If you can’t prove causation, that doesn’t make anyone questioning you a “denier”. That’s your feeble attempt at trying to defend your weak OPINION. Facts por favor.
You seriously have a comprehension problem and are prone to logical leaps. When someone questions mankind’s contribution as being STATISTICALLY significant on a GLOBAL scale, this does not logically translate into CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Mother nature puts out ~ 29x more CO2 than all of mankind. Do we really play a significant role? You say yes. I say show me empirical evidence. If you don’t have empirical evidence, then you have no LOGICAL reason to get worked up over mankind’s CO2 output. You just come across as an envrio-nut who tries to cherry pick your science and want to use a political agency like the IPCC to back up your opinion.
43, Mr. Fusion,
Do you have a link? I’d like to check it out.
51, Bobbo,
It’s bandwagon political propaganda. If you’re soooooooo inclined towards science, you’d realize the importance of empirical evidence or at the very least how you establish causality. But instead, anyone who tries to question your hasty conclusions based on correlation is automatically a “denier” who doesn’t realize that CO2 is a green house gas.
48, Bobbo,
Are you THAT naive? Mother nature is a hell of a lot more complex than that. Try harder “man of science”.
49, MikeN,
He doesn’t know. That’s why he chooses to blindly follow IPCC conclusions based off of inaccurate models.
54, GlennE,
That crisis lost a lot of steam when it was discovered that Mars had a hole in its atmosphere.
55, Gmknobl,
And is that data empirical evidence or calculations? And back in the 70s we were worried about global cooling. Can the real scientists make up their minds?
So you say.
Likelihood? Rational data? You think IPCC models are based off of either of those? ROFLMAO. No, they’re based off of assumptions.
55, Gmknobl,
Forgot to mention that there’s a difference between believing and knowing. Did you know that?
Guyver, I doubt you are properly using the term statistical significance. Either way, mankind’s influence on CO2 levels are well established. The level used to be 270 ppm, not is has increased by 40%, and there is quite a bit of evidence that this is coming from industrial sources. The question is whether this extra CO2 will cause large amounts of warming.
58, MikeN,
Touche. Yes you are correct. I should have simply stated significance in terms of proportionality.
This is what I’m asking.
Bobbo seems to intentionally want to obfuscate things by using raw numbers while ignoring proportionality.
>This is what I’m asking.
You implied that you don’t think mankind is adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, proportionally speaking. It is. 270 parts per million to 380 parts per million, pretty significant increase.
Saw a science show on the tube and science can tell the source of co2 — from volcanoes, burning coal, cow farts. Forget now exactly what the differences was, atomic number/valence whatever it was but I thought: Wow, I guess if you are a qualified scientists you know more than a beer drinker like me.
I assume “the model” estimates the sensitivity of the atmosphere to co2 by correlating previous co2 levels to the temperature at the same time? Once again, something I have no clue about but if you STUDY THE SUBJECT YOUR WHOLE LIFE, you understand these relationships.
guyver: yes slipping into the less rigorous constraints of easy conversation, I lost hold of the rhetoric that there can be no proof one way or the other when it comes to predicting climate. Just as science might predict “if” the earth was closer to the Sun it would get warmer, but you know, they can’t prove it without moving it there. Same with co2–ok, more complex with co2 but still an issue of: The best science available when proof is not possible.
You have no alternative explanation for how co2 can be added to the atmosphere WITHOUT it causing AGW. Suck it.
Meanwhile, the ocean keeps rising. Why is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Ha, ha. And moving the earth closer to the sun wouldn’t prove anything either. You’d have to move a duplicate earth closer to the sun to prove anything.
Who here doesn’t think the earth would get warmer? Why?
There is common sense, common sense derived from scientific observation, and proof. Just to name only 3 different levels of analysis. More of course. Opposing this is ignorance, dogma, and being a paid shill.
Not too hard to spot the difference between the two groups. Guyver–I don’t know which of the three you are, but you are certainly in the later group.