Earth Cooled Since 1998

Yes, I thank you, Indy. I feel all fuzzy inside now. I await my stripes/medal or whatever.

This is pretty sad. All my posts are entirely on-topic. I guess indy doesn't like to be called on his BS. The missing 1999-2008 and 2000-2008 data shall remain a mystery...

Or maybe not...

ABE: I managed to rescue the data from the jaws of the cyber-mutt, it was all a bit dog-eared and slobber-soaked, but here goes, just for full years till 2007...



Oh noes, according to indy, it was cooling from 1998, but then started warming again from 1999 and 2000. Then it started cooling again from 2001/2.

So, what we can gather from this is that assessing such short periods is a fool's game, especially true when we cherrypick an outlier as a starting point.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by melatonin]

Not at all....what we can gather from your own statements is there is heating and cooling...regularly occurring events. Over short periods...temperatures go up and go down. Over longer periods temperatures go up and down, but have a larger minimum and maximum. Over even longer periods we see rising and declining followed by rising temperatures. Sure sounds like weather patterns to me. Nothing informative in your conclusions melatonin. I know you try hard and I often like looking at the pretty graphs, but sometimes the simplest answers are over looked. Why can't we all just get along and agree that climates change over time. That would lend credibility to what we are both saying. What I will never agree with is that the earth is heating to a point that all life will die out and we are causing. No one has ever shown an iota of proof to that affect. All your charts can't prove anything more than what you WANT them to say.

well first ide like to state that any scientist thats not a lap dog for a cause will tell you there is insufficient proof of man made global warming.

Any good mathematician will say ok there has been large animals on the planet for millions of years and looking at a segment (1900-2008) 108 years compared to over 300 million years of weather back then is ~ 0.000036% of the "recent" weather. Now this has to be recent in geological time because they had weather back then. so are you relay saying you can predict one of the most complicated things on 0.000036% of the data HA!! thats like looking at a grain of sand and trying to paint the beach.


Asking prominent scientists to speak out on global warming is a rare thing. this is quite the obvious outcome, say your a NASA climatologist and one day you say well im gona sit the fence with there being good arguments for and against GW........ the scientific community would say ok new ideas cool just get some proof. then when it gets out that a scientist doesn't believe in man made GW they will be crucified by the media. its common knowledge for the average person mankind is causing global warming thanks to Al Gore. to speak out on global warming is equivalent to heresy in the publics eye.
case in point, look at Nicolas Copernicus he was so afraid of publishing his heliocentric ideas his ideas where published after his death.




This statement is totally junk, there is no posable way to tell if the climate would be cooler or warmer then its current state. assumptions concerning things that cant posable be known and using them for a sided argument is ridiculous.



o and a cookie goes out to Indy for plotting all that data


o and you actually can "cherry pick" data as long as its justifiable. Its called Statistics shes a cruel mistress. but if you generalize to much its not good *cough* AL Gore'''

Seriously, right or wrong, you really don't present your case well at all with stuff like that. You aren't presenting fact, you're simply grinding an axe, and you don't bother to hide it.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

Do you really find such arguments convincing? 'Yes, people die naturally from heart attacks all the time, therefore we can ignore that syringe full of potassium chloride in this dude's arm'.

And over the longer period the temperatures have been going up. As I said to indy, you need to understand the difference between noise and signal. For example, over the last 30 years or so...



The shorter the time frame, the more affected by noise the signal becomes. The signal we are looking for is the anthropogenic one, it will be a long-term trend. It will act along with all the natural variations, but it will be there.

When you can show that, for example, CO2 does not act as a GHG, then you might have something worth listening to. Even if we have a period of solar cooling, it still won't negate the human effects. But I understand that many of you have issues with the complexity often found in science.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by melatonin]

And don't forget too that AGW isn't just caused by GHG emissions There are things like landuse change/albedo change, cloud cover changes (contrails etc) and even possibly urban heat island effect all to be added to the anthropogenic side of the equation. To prove there is no AGW you have to prove that absolutely nothing humans do can have any effect whatsoever on temperature. And that's only if we're talking AGW. If we extend out to ACC - ie all aspects of climate, not just temperature, there's even more to include (or disprove).

Of course, there are also anthropogenic cooling factors (sulphur emissions, for example) to be factored in as well.

reply to post by melatonin

---

Nice pretty charts, again. But do me a favor take exact data going back 200,000 years. In an earth that is over 4 million years old I would like to see a real long term chart. Use exact temperature readings and make a nice chart, you like to do that. Using you own words, a chart over a short period of time is inconclusive. Again, being the earth is over 4 billion years old I would like to see actual LONG TERM DATA, not something over 200 years or so, not even 2000 years. Once you do this you will see something very interesting come out, patterns. Heating and cooling patterns. Or otherwise known as CYCLES.

Glad you liked it.



And how is that going to allow us to assess the effect of human impacts since industrialisation?



OK. Suppose you could use Robert Berner's stuff, it covers a few hundred million years, is that long enough for you? I doubt we'll see the human effects over the recent period though. It's in this article:

CO2 as a primary driver of phanerozoic climate

ABE: oh, I found another...

Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years

ABE: and another:

Linkages between climate, CO2, and evolution in deep time



Enjoy.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by melatonin]

And here in lies the enigma. Do us all a favor. FIRST prove without a doeubt that global warming exists. Then take on your other endeavor. Then you can prove humans have a bearing on it.

Without the proof that global warming exist (absolute proof), you have nothing to stand on. By trying to prove global warming and human intervention simultaneously, you cloud what your really doing.

Take a breath, and relax. Prove global warming exists then worry about the rest. In fat, if you can prove global warming, maybe I will even help you prove the rest. We could work together. But being thousands of scientists have not been able to prove global warming is occurring, I will have to say good lokk with that.

Done. That's what the data shows. It is unambiguous.



We have evidence that this is the case, not sure about the absolute proof stuff - we leave that for maths.

Again, very simple. CO2 is a GHG. GHGs increase radiative forcing. We are emitting billions of tonnes of CO2 every year, leading to ever increasing levels of CO2. This increases the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Which has been observed more than once.

Moreover, this science has been making predictions which have been verified - the very meat of science. You can argue about the extent of such CO2-induced warming, but even the likes of Dick Lindzen and Pat Michaels accept this basic stuff, they just play a shell-game with feedbacks etc.

That is just for CO2. As Essan pertinently points out, that's just one of the many human effects. For example, black carbon also helps to warm by altering albedo. This is also very basic stuff. Just like the CO2 physics, very easily demonstrated in the lab.

So, your saying that since you have proven that Global Warming exists and is here......ITS HERE FOREVER IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

Is that true? The temperatures will continue to rise?

Is that true???

OR.....have you proven we are currently in a warming cycle and that eventually temperatures here on earth will cool again?

Which is it? Please explain your unambiguous truth, and what it exactly means.

Because the way I see it...Global warming should be an end all. Once it grips us, according to the fear mongerers it will kill off life on earth. So, since you have proven global warming that means we are all doomed to die, unless we stop it. That temperatures will never cool down and we have no chance at survival.

I don't think I said that. During the PETM up to about 5000 gigatonnes of carbon entered the atmosphere over a period of thousands of years. This was associated with rises of about 5-8'C that lasted for around 80,000 years. It actually wiped out a massive number of species.

So, forever? Unlikely.



There will be an anthropogenic warming signal. This has been explained numerous times now. Say, for instance, that a doubling of CO2 will lead to 3'C warming at a rate of 0.2 per decade, we reach that by around 2150. But between now and that period, solar activity falls for 30 years starting from now, leading to cooling of 1'C. What will we see?

For the next 30 years, the possible warming from CO2 would be 0.6'C, but the cooling from the sun would be -1'C. An overall cooling would be observed over that 30 years. But an anthropogenic signal was still acting.

Climate has numerous factors acting on it. One of them is human activity. And it won't disappear even if we do fall into a maunder minimum-style period. Indeed, when solar activity increases again, the anthropogenic signal will still exist.



I think there are a few people who do suggest the effects will be sort of 'armageddon'-like (possibly Lovelock). I wouldn't say it can't happen, but I don't see it myself. However, it will have some major negative impacts. I'm sure humans will find a way to pull through.

But I don't know of anyone who says temps will never cool down. It would just take a while. The CO2 would need to be removed from the atmosphere in some way.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by melatonin]

There ya go Melatonin, now your coming around....heating and cooling working against each other.

See was that hard? its CYCLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

The ability of some people to completely miss the point amazes me sometimes.



Mod edit: removed the Welsh. English is the only language permitted on these boards.




[edit on 13-2-2008 by Duzey]

reply to post by melatonin

---

And exactly just what point have you proved?????????????????

I am sorry did I miss when you proved global warming?

If so, I will be the first to call the news media and give you credit for something thousands of scientists have not been able to do!!!!!

I'd like to ask everyone to try and remain courteous to one another while discussing this topic.

Thank you.

Duzey, I'm quite disappointed by the removal of 'hywl fawr', it just a welsh way to say 'cheers', or 'goodbye', or 'see ya later'. I use 'cheers' and 'hywl fawr' interchangeably.

If I said 'ciao' would it also be removed? How about 'nada' and 'manana', sheesh, I used 'piece de resistance' earlier in the thread, you'd better edit it for me...

I've used it multiple times to sign off posts and it's never ever been an issue. Obviously you thought it was some sort of insult, and it's nothing of the sort. And, again, it's disappointing you think I would do such an underhand thing.

If I wanted to insult trader, I would just do so in very clear english.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

---

I went to the effort to translate it so I knew what it meant - I'm not fond of jumping to conclusions. If I thought it was an insult, I would have contacted you instead of just editing it out.

And now, back to the topic....

Earth Cooled Since 1998

don't sweat it melatonin. Never thought you were insulting me.

things are cool...or is it warm?

i love the idea of climate prediction models, b/c right now we can usually predict the temperature within 5 Deg. and the models are saying there will be a increase of 2-3 globally....... wait the long term global prediction is far more accurate then the local weather..... humm when has the weatherman ever gotten anything right?